Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1855; that the amendment be agreed to; that Senate amendment No. 1618, as amended, be considered original text for the purpose of further amendment; and that all points of order be preserved. I further ask that all time be yielded back.

Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 30 minutes equally divided for debate only, with no amendments or motions in order and with the majority leader being recognized at the conclusion of that time.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Oregon, there were 4 days of hearings on the bill in committee with the committee report sent out at least 2 weeks ago. I am totally confident our friends on the other side are fully familiar with almost all aspects of this. He will certainly have an opportunity to read the final version, but he is very familiar with the various parts of this. There was plenty of time to look at it in committee, and, as I said, there will be plenty of time to read the final version of it before we vote.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from Oregon that there will be plenty of time for him to read it.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 30 minutes for debate only, with no amendments or motions in order, with the majority leader being recognized at the conclusion of that time.

Mr. McCONNELL. I believe that State high-risk pools are a much better alternative to Federal mandates. I will also support passage of your bill and this funding to create high-risk pools, ideally prior to the adoption of any final tax reform conference agreement and certainly before the end of this year.

Mr. McCONNELL. From its inception, I have opposed the individual mandate because it is simply wrong for the Federal Government to require someone to purchase a particular product, particularly one they do not want and cannot afford. I agree that Alexander-Murray can help provide certainty and flexibility for State insurance markets in the absence of the mandate and will support passage of the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act, ideally prior to the adoption of any final tax reform conference agreement and certainly before the end of this year.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield back our time.

Mr. McCONNELL. Colleagues, we are moving now to final passage. I know of no further amendments to the bill. Amendment No. 1618, as Amended

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call for the cloture motion be waived.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate vote on this cloture motion at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 4.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 495, Kirstjen Nielsen.

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.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stabenow now be recognized to offer a motion to commit, which is at the desk; that the time until 7 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form for debate on the motion; that there be no amendments in order to the instructions; and that at 7 p.m., the Senate vote in relation to the motion with no intervening action or debate. I further ask that following disposition of the motion, the majority leader or his designee be recognized.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for debate only to count against the underlying bill.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will continue to debate the bill tonight, but the next rollcall votes will be at 11 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Friday, December 1; 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 Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this week, North Korea tested what appears to be an intercontinental ballistic missile that exceeded the altitude and time of flight of previous missile tests. Public reporting is that the missile achieved an altitude of 2,800 miles and traversed a lofted trajectory, landing 620 miles from the launch site within North Korea. The test reminds us of the singleminded determination of Kim Jong Un to develop a nuclear-armed ICBM that can successfully strike the United States. That leaves our Nation with limited options. The first is to convince him that any use of a nuclear weapon will result in an overwhelming response, one that he will deem completely unacceptable. The second is to remove any missile that our intelligence community assesses is armed and can strike the United States or our allies. These are grave considerations, but they are unavoidable. As Commander in Chief, the President focuses on these matters on a daily basis. In facing these threats--whether through diplomatic negotiations, preparing to deter or to defeat a launch, or a significant decision to protect the United States preemptively--the United States needs to unify and rally our allies in each of these courses of action. That in itself is a Herculean task. What makes it considerably more challenging is the uncertainty surrounding our efforts to increase funding for our military right here at home. In April of this year, we as a body attended a briefing on North Korea at the White House. The administration has been forthcoming on both the urgency of the threat and their determination to face it through a policy of maximum pressure and preparedness. We have only a few weeks ahead of us to provide the Department of Defense with the certainty that we are responding to its funding needs and providing the stability in programs and resources required to fulfill our strategy. Each of us talks about these goals. Each of us talks about what we owe the All-Volunteer Force. How we work together in the coming days is the test of those statements. Certainly we can set aside partisan difference at a time when North Korea, Iran, Russia, and the Taliban are seeking to bully our allies and questioning our will and our leadership. Now is the time to come back to the table, meet our responsibility by providing the Defense Department the resources and certainty it requires, and answer those questioning America's resolve.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, from across my home State of Kentucky, I have heard the calls for tax reform. For too long, hard-working men and women have been held back by an economy that has failed to live up to its potential. They are ready for us to get the economy going again. For example, the East Kentucky Power Cooperative, which serves more than half a million families and businesses in my State, recently wrote to my office in support of tax reform. The cooperative encouraged us ``to put more disposal income into the hands of hard-working citizens and encourage investment and long-term economic growth.'' In addition, the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, which represents thousands of businesses across the Commonwealth, recently wrote a letter encouraging us to consider relieving ``the tax burden of small businesses by simplifying the code and reducing costs.'' It concluded the letter by asking the Senate to ``support federal tax reform to achieve the economic growth that has been Kentucky's potential for so long.'' This morning, a group of small business men and women from Kentucky joined Senators here on the Hill with Small Business Administrator Linda McMahon to discuss the urgent need for tax reform. I would like to thank Senator Blunt for hosting this event to hear from these job creators and to reiterate that they are at the forefront of our tax reform efforts. The people of Kentucky have struggled under our outdated and complex Federal Tax Code. It is time to overhaul it and deliver real relief to middle-class families and small businesses. For a number of years, our friends across the aisle, including the ranking member of the Finance Committee and the Democratic leader, have vocally called for tax reform. They claimed they supported efforts to close loopholes and help American businesses become more competitive here at home. They claimed they supported policies to help prevent more jobs from moving overseas. The good news is that is exactly what our tax reform legislation does. So passing this bill to help keep jobs and investment in the United States would be something upon which we can all agree. A group of economists from around the country recently penned a letter expressing the need for tax reform. After examining the proposal put forward, these economists agree that the House and Senate plans have the ability to grow the economy and increase the income of American families. In particular, they wrote that tax reform can reduce the incentives for companies to move investment overseas. That means the bill we are considering would discourage corporations from moving jobs and investments abroad. For working families who have endured a decade of lost jobs and opportunities, this is welcome relief indeed. So why would our Democratic friends support this idea in theory but then oppose legislation once they finally have the chance to put the plan into action? What changed? Not the ideas. Not the need for tax reform. The only change has been the person in the Oval Office. This is our once-in-a-generation opportunity to take more money out of Washington's pocket and put more money into the pockets of hard- working families. We shouldn't let partisanship distract us from delivering real relief to the middle class. Believe me, we will not. Under Chairman Hatch's leadership, the Senate Finance Committee passed this legislation that is the product of years of hard work, dozens of hearings, and an open amendment process. I would like to once again thank Chairman Hatch for his efforts to get us to this pivotal point where we can consider a proposal that could truly help our constituents. First and foremost, the tax reform proposal before us today is good for families. To a middle-class family of four in Kentucky who earns a median income, a nearly $2,200-a-year tax cut could make a real difference. Second, the plan is good for small businesses and job creators. It has earned the support of the NFIB--the National Federation of Independent Business--because it will help small businesses grow, invest, and hire right here in the United States. As I said before, it will also make it easier for other businesses to bring jobs and investments home. Third, this legislation helps low- and middle-income families by repealing ObamaCare's burdensome individual mandate tax. This is a good bill. By overhauling our Tax Code, we can provide much needed support to the men and women who sent us here. Yesterday, the Senate took a crucial step toward relief. Every Senator who voted to proceed to this important debate has already begun to answer those calling out for tax reform. Now the Senate will work through an open amendment process here on the floor where Members from both parties will have the opportunity to offer their ideas. Tonight, I expect that Senators will have the opportunity to vote on many of these amendments. This is our chance to deliver relief to hard-working American families and to help the middle class get ahead. It is our opportunity to overhaul our complex Tax Code and shift our economy into high gear. We can pass many of the ideas we have discussed and supported for years, and I urge all of my colleagues to work together to get this done.

Mr. McCONNELL

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