Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on Thursday, November 30, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1, with 1 hour of debate remaining on the Hatch- Murkowski amendment. I further ask that any debate time tonight count against the underlying bill.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wyden or his designee be recognized to offer a motion to commit the bill, the text of which is at the desk. I further ask that the time until 8 p.m. be equally divided between the leaders or their designees; that at 8 p.m. the Senate vote in relation to the motion to commit with no intervening action or debate; and that following the disposition of the Wyden motion, the majority leader be recognized.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Hatch and Murkowski, I call up amendment No. 1618.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 266, H.R. 1, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 344, submitted earlier today.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; that the committee-reported title amendment be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Portman, Van Hollen, Warren, and Wyden.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:30 a.m., Thursday, November 30; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1, under the previous order.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 209, S. 772.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 105, S. 343.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Hoeven amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 193, S. 669.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 104, S. 245.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a correction to appointments made on November 28, 2017, be printed in the Record. For the information of the Senate, this correction is clerical and does not change membership of the Frederick Douglass Bicentennial Commission made by the appointments.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 33, S. 302.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Hoeven amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 30, S. 254.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 165, S. 1519.

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, during the last decade, hard-working American families have tried to get ahead, but they too often faced insurmountable barriers. The economy was sluggish, paychecks were stagnant, and jobs and opportunities stayed literally out of reach. The people we represent deserve a whole lot better than that, and it is time for us to deliver. It is time to take our feet off the brakes and get our economy going again and growing again. We could do that through tax reform. Every American who has ever interacted with the IRS already knows that our Tax Code is broken. Rates are too high, deductions and loopholes are too complex to understand, and it is too easy for well- connected elites to take advantage. Passing tax reform is the single most important thing we can do right now to shift the economy into high gear and deliver much-needed relief to American families. The Senate Finance Committee has developed a bill that is the result of literally years of work, dozens of hearings, and a full committee markup. I once again commend Chairman Hatch for his leadership of this committee and thank him for producing legislation to unleash the potential of our economy, to create jobs, and to keep them right here in America. Throughout this process, we have kept middle-class families at the center of our efforts. We want to make their taxes lower, simpler, and fairer. That is why our plan would give the typical family of four with a median income a tax cut of close to $2,200 a year. A single parent raising his or her child on a modest income could also see a tax cut of nearly $1,400. These are real savings that can help families plan for their future and actually get ahead. The Finance Committee's tax reform proposal also provides substantial relief to small businesses. We want to make it easier for them to grow, to invest, and, of course, to hire. The bill also will remove incentives for corporations to ship jobs and investments overseas. Finally, our tax reform proposal delivers relief to low- and middle- income Americans by repealing ObamaCare's individual mandate tax. For too long, families have suffered under an unpopular tax from an unworkable law. Repealing this ObamaCare tax will help those who need it most. Yesterday, the Senate Budget Committee, under Chairman Mike Enzi's leadership, reported out a bill, including our proposal to reform the Tax Code. I thank Chairman Enzi and the members of the Budget Committee for their outstanding work to get us to this important moment. They have been strong advocates for tax reform, and I appreciate their efforts. The committee's report also included Chairman Murkowski's plan to further develop Alaska's oil and gas potential in an environmentally responsible way. Her legislation, which has the support of her Alaska colleague, Senator Sullivan, was designed to create good jobs, provide new sources of energy, and strengthen our national security. Now they will both advance to the Senate floor. Today, the Senate will take the next important step toward fixing the Tax Code and helping middle-class families keep more of their hard- earned money. Members will vote to begin debate on this once-in-a- generation opportunity to reform our Tax Code so it works for the middle class. I encourage any Member who thinks we need to fix the problems of our outdated Tax Code to vote to proceed to this legislation. Anyone who thinks that rates are too high or that loopholes are too prominent should vote to begin debate. To Members who have ideas about how to make the bill better, I would urge them to vote for the motion to proceed and offer their amendments. I believe my mandate from the people of Kentucky is to vote yes, and I certainly intend to do so. The bottom line is this: We must vote to begin debate because once we do, we will be one step closer to taking more money out of Washington's pocket and putting more money into the pockets of the hard-working men and women we represent. This is our chance. This is our chance to deliver relief for the people who sent us here, and the way we can do that is by voting to proceed to the bill. Every Member will have the opportunity later today to answer the calls of American families by voting to begin debate. I will vote yes on the motion to proceed, and I would urge all of my colleagues to do the same. Nomination of David Stras Now on another matter, Madam President, our colleague Senator Grassley has done an outstanding job of processing the Senate's judicial nominees, beginning with the President's selection of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. Chairman Grassley and members of the Judiciary Committee continue their important work today as the committee holds a hearing for three more of the President's judicial nominees, including two well-qualified nominees to our circuit courts, Justice David Stras and Mr. Stuart Kyle Duncan. The committee's hearing today is particularly important because it means that one member of this body--in this case, the junior Senator from Minnesota--cannot singlehandedly block the committee from considering an extraordinarily well-qualified nominee to serve on our circuit court. That nominee is Justice David Stras of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Justice Stras is an extremely qualified and widely admired member of Minnesota's highest court. He was raised by a single mother. He is the grandson of a survivor of the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz. Justice Stras graduated first in his class from the University of Kansas Law School. He clerked on the court of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. He worked for several years in private practice until he joined the faculty of the University of Minnesota Law School. He was appointed to the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2010, and in 2012, Minnesota voters elected him to a full term on their highest court. His reputation in the Minnesota legal community is impeccable. It is no wonder that the American Bar Association--hardly a rightwing organization--gave him its highest rating, unanimously ``well qualified.'' Nevertheless, the junior Senator from Minnesota does not support Justice Stras receiving so much as a hearing. That approach is untenable in light of the recent actions of our Democratic colleagues. A little more than 4 years ago, they eliminated the supermajority requirement for ending debate on lower court nominees. They did so, they said, because they believed that a minority of the Senate should not be able to prevent the confirmation of a nominee who enjoyed the support of a majority of this body. Perhaps our Democratic colleagues now feel buyer's remorse over the change to the Senate rules they jammed through this body, but they should not be allowed to use the committee's blue-slip courtesy--which is neither a committee rule nor a Senate rule--as another way to block the consideration of nominees with majority support. As Chairman Grassley has pointed out, that approach is not the way the blue-slip courtesy was first used, nor is it the way the vast majority of the Judiciary Committee chairmen have used it. After Senate Democrats have changed the Senate's rules to prevent 41 Senators from stopping a nominee, our Democratic colleagues surely cannot now think it is tenable to give just one Senator absolute power to do so. They decided that 41 Senators ought not to be able to stop a nominee. How can they now argue that one Senator should be able to, in effect, block all the nominees? In this case, the junior Senator from Minnesota acknowledges that it is ``undeniably true'' that Justice Stras is a ``committed public servant whose tenure as a professor at the University of Minnesota underscores just how much he cares about the law.'' Yet our colleague objects to the committee even considering his nomination. Why does he want to block a widely respected and accomplished State supreme court justice from his own State whom his constituents actually support? Because our colleague doesn't agree with the U.S. Supreme Court Justices whom the nominee admires, one of whom the nominee happened to clerk for. I applaud Chairman Grassley for not allowing the blue-slip courtesy to be abused in this fashion, and I look forward to learning more about Justice Stras's views from today's hearing. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.