I think we talked about the need for state-of-the-art productivity and automation and so forth.

It should not take 10-12 years to do an EIS statement on a bridge.

I completely agree that we need to continue to invest if we are going to maintain our global competitiveness.

If we cannot get the harvest to market, then we really cannot realize the great potential of our ag industry.

If we only have one way out, it is nice to have multiple choices here and so forth to ensure we protect our economic interests.

If something does not happen soon, we will have no choice but to reduce our current hiring plans and potentially lay off some of our current staff.

In Montana, our number one industry is agriculture. It is about a $5 billion industry, just last year.

When we lose the ability to deliver, our customers will look elsewhere to find those same products.

If you could just reduce the difference between the way income from capital and the income from wages are treated, that would be a huge reform.

Reforming the tax code is always a Herculean task, but the same strategy of principled bipartisanship can work again today.

The two of you have told an inspiring story this morning about bipartisanship on a major economic issue.

If there's one obvious similarity between 1986 and today, it's that people are quick to say tax reform is impossible.

The biggest lesson from 1986 is that tax reform is possible when Democrats and Republicans set partisanship aside.

Congress and President Reagan came together to pass the 1986 Tax Reform Act based on what I call principled bipartisanship.

turning the impossible into the possible.

When President Reagan signed the bill into law, he called it an 'historic overhaul of our tax code and a sweeping victory for fairness.'

I have thought for a long time that this insanely complicated tax code plays right into the hands of the special interests and the lobbyists.

I would agree with Senator Blumenthal that the estimates for trade volume growth are probably low.