Floor Statements

Mr. President, on December 10 of this week, we will celebrate International Human Rights Day. It is the 69th anniversary of the United Nations' adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It provided inalienable rights for everyone in this world to be entitled to basic human rights, regardless of their religion, regardless of their race, their color, their gender, their language, their politics, their national origin, their property, wealth, birth, whatever. You are entitled to basic human rights.

The declaration further goes on to say that the ignoring and contempt of human rights have been among the principal causes of the suffering of humanity. That clearly has been the case throughout the history of the world and is still relevant today--very relevant today.

The interesting thing about the universal declaration is that it acknowledges that we all have responsibilities. This is not just a country responsibility; we, as citizens of the world, have an obligation to challenge when human rights are violated anywhere in the world. That is our responsibility. It is interesting that one of the responsibilities I have as the ranking Senate Democrat on the Helsinki Commission, which is the organization that monitors our participants and the Organization for Security and Co-operation In Europe--that declaration, the Helsinki accords, which was entered into in 1975, was an acknowledgement of basic human rights; it is a responsibility of all the participating countries to adhere to basic human rights. The Helsinki accords also make it very clear that any member country of the OSCE has the right to challenge what is happening in any other country. We have a responsibility as global citizens to speak out when basic human rights are being violated.

I also point out that this is one of the basic tenets of America's strength. One value embodied in our Constitution, embodied in our history, is a respect for human rights, and it makes America the unique Nation it is. Yes, we are looked upon as a global power because of our military and economy, but I must tell you, the real trademark of America, the real value we give to the international debate is the fact that we bring a commitment to basic human rights and values as part of our DNA. That has been very much demonstrated in so many ways.

I am proud of many of our accomplishments on behalf of international human rights. America's leadership on trafficking in persons--there have been Democrats and Republicans who have taken the lead on this to make it clear that we will not tolerate modern-day slavery. We took the lead on that; Congress took the lead on that. We passed the ``Trafficking in Persons Report.'' We now monitor activities in every country in the world, including the United States, in order to protect against modern-day slavery.

I am proud of the passage of, first, the Magnitsky statute, which dealt with Russia, and now the global Magnitsky statute, which says: If a country does not hold accountable their gross violators of human rights, we will not give them access to our banking system or the ability to visit our country. When we passed that law, other countries followed suit. Europe has enacted the Magnitsky statute, Canada has enacted it, and individual countries have enacted it. We show leadership, and the world follows. We have effective tools to say that we will stand up and live up to our commitments to enforce human rights.

What we often do is put a spotlight on those human rights defenders who are being persecuted around the world. By putting a spotlight on it, we give them hope. That is what we did in regard to the human rights defenders in China, human rights defenders in so many places around the world.

Quite frankly, one of the principal functions of our missions in countries around the world is to be there to speak out for basic human rights, to speak out in support of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am proud of our Foreign Service officers who carry that mission every day in every country around the world.

When potential nominees for Ambassadors come before our committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, we question them as to their commitment to support American values on human rights and what they will do in the country they will be representing America in order to advance those causes. This is part of our responsibility based upon the United Nations declaration, but it is also part of what we need to do in order for us to stay safe.

We know there is a direct correlation between a country's respect for human rights and the amount of conflict, the amount of violence, the amount of insurgency that takes place within that country. Violent extremists will have a place to breathe if a country doesn't respect the human rights of its citizens. It is in our national security interests, in addition to doing what is right as a nation and as a global citizen.

We have challenges today. We have autocratic leaders around the world who are violating every day the human rights of their citizens. We need to help lead the international community. We see attacks on journalism and the rights of free press, where it is, in many places in the world, not safe to comment freely about what is happening in a country.

The LGBT community has been under constant attack in many parts of the world, and we need to defend their rights. Human rights defenders are being imprisoned in so many countries around the world. We need to stand up for their rights. Yes, in trafficking in persons, Senator Corker and I recently put a spotlight on what is happening in Libya, where they actually have slave auctions that are taking place, where people are being sold. We can't be silent about those types of activities or, in our own hemisphere, about what is happening in Venezuela, where there is a government that is denying its own people the right of access to international humanitarian aid. People are dying in hospitals because they can't get medical supplies. We need to speak out about that.

Many of us have come to the floor to talk about the challenges we have as global citizens on the number of refugees, the displaced persons we have. We have numbers now that we haven't seen since the end of World War II of people who do not have a home, who are refugees. We need to do something

about that. The most recent mass number left Burma because of the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims, and they are now in Bangladesh in horrible conditions. We all have a responsibility to respond. There are a number of refugees from Syria--huge numbers--and it requires U.S. leadership.

This has been a bipartisan commitment in the Senate and a bipartisan commitment in the Congress, but I must tell you that I am disappointed by President Trump's failure to lead on this issue. He recently visited Asia. What an opportunity that would have been to have brought up the human rights struggles, whether they are in North Korea, which is the worst country in the world on human rights, or China, which has significant challenges, particularly with respect to its religious minorities, but also as to the right of its people to have economic freedom. There are major problems in China and problems in the Philippines with its President and what he does in regard to extrajudicial killings. The President hardly mentioned human rights at all during his trip to East Asia.

He embraces leaders like Mr. Putin of Russia, who is a gross violator of the rights of his own people, and President Duterte of the Philippines, whom I already mentioned. President Trump embraces those types of leaders. We should be pointing out that Mr. Putin should be held accountable for his violations of human rights, and President Duterte should be held accountable for the extrajudicial killings that take place under his watch. The United States should be in the lead in bringing these issues to the public's attention.

Then there is the President's immigration policies. We have always been the leader in the world's effort to welcome those who have been persecuted in other countries. We talk about our historical commitment of welcoming the huddled masses who are yearning to breathe free. That is America. Now we are closing our borders to refugees--to those who are being persecuted? We say to the countries in the Middle East: Open up your borders to the refugees from Syria or open up your borders to the refugees from that region. Yet, in the United States, we cannot handle a few numbers?

We need to have much stronger and enlightened policies as we are now talking about people who have been long-term Americans. They only know America as their home. We are now telling the Dreamers or those under temporary protected status, because they have fled the gang violence in El Salvador or Honduras: You are no longer welcome in the only country you know, America. President Trump needs to lead on this issue because it is our global responsibility, and it is in the interest of our country.

Yes, Human Rights Day is coming up this week. Let's rededicate ourselves to fight on behalf of human rights globally. That is our responsibility. It is who we are as a nation, and it is who we are as global citizens.

I urge my colleagues to remember the words of John F. Kennedy when he said that, here on Earth, God's work must be our own. That is true. Let us carry on the work of respecting the human rights of all people in the world.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize and honor the 2,403 Americans who lost their lives when Japanese naval forces launched a surprise attack on our Nation at Pearl Harbor, HI, 76 years ago. Today we remember the millions of Allied Forces who fearlessly and selflessly gave their lives to defeat fascism and defend our freedoms and way of life. We will never forget the sacrifices that were made during World War II, and the memory of the attack on Pearl Harbor inspires us to remain forever vigilant.

Just a few days ago, the Associated Press, AP, reported that the Department of Defense's POW/MIA Accounting Agency has identified 100 sailors and marines killed when the USS Oklahoma capsized during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Officials exhumed the bodies from a cemetery in Hawaii ``after determining that advances in forensic science and genealogical help from families made it possible to identify the men.'' These marines and sailors have been classified as missing since World War II.

According to the AP, agency officials think they will be able to identify about 80 percent of the battleship's missing crewmembers by 2020. I imagine this is of great comfort to the families of those who were lost, many of whom may now be buried in their hometowns. This effort is yet another example of our obligations to those who have given ``the last full measure of devotion'' that this Nation and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth, as Abraham Lincoln so eloquently and poignantly put it at Gettysburg, PA.

We must be ready to counter threats to our Nation, both at home and abroad, that endanger the American people and our values. In President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's historic ``Day of Infamy'' speech, he pledged to `` . . . make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.'' Our Nation must remain strong and vigilant, prepared to meet future challenges, particularly in the fight against those who wish us harm.

America's Greatest Generation was forged from the sacrifices required in the crucible of World War II. On this day, as we pause to remember and honor those sacrifices, we remind ourselves and the world that ``American values'' still stands for freedom and a determination to use our unmatched strength to defend those who are unable to defend themselves. On this anniversary, we also take time to honor the brave men and women who currently serve in our military and their families. We pray for their safe return as they continue to serve in harm's way.

Mr. President, I take this time to talk about the pending business, which is the tax proposal going into a conference committee between the House and the Senate. As I am sure the American people now know, at 2 a.m., on early Saturday morning, the Senate passed its version of tax reform. The House had already done that. We were working on a House bill. Now the motion before us is to take that bill and send it to a conference. We would be better off sending it back to committee so that we could have public hearings and understand what we are voting on, rather than sending it to the conference committee.

I hope, though, that we will take advantage of the conference to deal with

the three fundamental flaws that were included in both the House and Senate bills. First was the process that was used that did not allow us to really know what we were doing. As a result, it is my understanding there are numerous provisions in both the House and Senate bills that will not work and will require changes.

Secondly, we professed to want to do this to help middle-income families, but, in reality, both the House and the Senate bills hurt middle-income families. I hope that will be corrected in conference.

Third--and there is no dispute about this whatsoever--the House bill and Senate bill will add anywhere between $1 trillion to $2 trillion to the deficit of this country. We shouldn't be deficit-financing a tax reform bill.

Let me first talk very briefly about process. Let's not repeat the mistakes that we made. It is outrageous that late Friday night we got a 500-plus page amendment to the pending bill and tried to read it, but we couldn't even read the handwritten changes that were put in the margins, and then we were asked to vote on that later in the evening. That process is just not befitting the U.S. Senate, and it is not befitting a democratic process in which we have an opportunity to read and understand, and the public has an opportunity for input, before we attempt to modify and change dramatically the Tax Code of this country.

So I hope that the conference committee will have a very open process, that there will be opportunities for input, and that we all will understand what is being done.

Secondly, it is critically important that this bill be corrected so that it really does help middle-income families. This bill doesn't do that. It provides massive tax cuts for the wealthy and significant cuts in business taxes, which are made permanent, while the relief given to middle-income families is temporary, and many middle income families will end up paying more in taxes. The House bill and the Senate bill have that fatal flaw.

One of the premises here is that if we give businesses big tax cuts, they are going to take those tax cuts and give workers higher wages. That just doesn't happen. There have been significant profits by American companies, but we have seen in too many of those cases that those profits have gone to buybacks, their stock, and to increase the value for their shareholders. It is their right to do that. But we shouldn't be pretending that we are going to be cutting taxes to help workers of these companies when, in reality, their first priority is going to be the shareholders and increasing the value of their stock.

We need to make sure that this bill, at the end of the day, will help middle-income families, and that is our focus, not the House bill or the Senate bill that focuses on our most wealthy taxpayers and the business community rather than focusing on middle-income families.

Then, third, the deficit--and I find this unconscionable. I will just lay this out. I find it unconscionable, when we have worked to say that the deficit is hurting our country and we need to work together to rein in the debt of America, yet we find the Republican Party prepared to acknowledge a $1.5 trillion deficit in their budget instructions. In reality, if this bill were to become law as passed by the U.S. Senate, it would increase the deficit by $2 trillion if we extend all the tax provisions, and even if we accept dynamic scorekeeping, which is changing the rules--$1 trillion of deficit. So under any of the assumptions, we are adding to the debt. That is just plain wrong. If our priority is to recognize that our debt is something that is wrong for our children and grandchildren, that we are wealthy enough today to pay our own expenses, then we must make sure that the bill that returns from a conference committee does not add one penny to the deficit. That should be a commitment that we are all ready and willing to make.

Let me also bring up a couple of other issues that I hope the conference committee will consider. The Senate bill includes the elimination of the required coverage under the Affordable Care Act. What does that mean? Well, it means that when it is fully implemented, 13 million Americans aren't going to have health coverage. That is what it means. It means that we are going to again see an increase in those who use the emergency rooms of our hospitals as their primary care centers because they have no health insurance. It means that people will be entering our healthcare system in a more costly way because they are not going to get preventive healthcare, because they don't have health insurance to cover preventive healthcare. It means that we are going to see a lot of people who can't afford their healthcare because they don't have health insurance.

Before the Affordable Care Act, we know that healthcare costs were the No. 1 reason for bankruptcy. We will see personal bankruptcies increase. And guess what. We are going to see uncompensated care go up. When uncompensated care goes up, guess who pays the bill? All of us do through higher premiums. It is called cost shifting.

Why is that in this tax reform bill? Do my colleagues want to know the reason? Because it gets scored as a savings by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. It is a savings because we are going to be spending less money in health subsidies, in the Medicaid Program. It cuts the Medicaid Program.

This is a phony savings from the point of view of our Tax Code, but guess what the Senate did with that savings. They used it to make permanent the tax cuts for businesses. In other words, they spent the savings in the Tax Code to help corporations with permanent tax changes, and individuals didn't get that.

Well, I hope the conference will correct that by eliminating this health provision from the Tax Code. It shouldn't be in this bill. It is wrong on policy and it is wrong on process and it is wrong on fiscal responsibility. I hope, for all of those reasons, that provision will be eliminated.

Then, the bill passed by the Senate includes another provision that shouldn't be in a tax reform bill; that is, opening up Alaska to drilling. First of all, the policy is wrong. We should protect this pristine area of our Nation. Secondly, we don't need more sites for fossil fuels. We know that our future is in renewables; our future is in a more carbon-friendly environment. So from that point of view, it makes no sense. Then, on process, putting it in this bill makes no sense at all. So I hope my colleagues will correct that mistake that is in the Senate bill.

Then, both the House and Senate bills still have an assault on State and local governments in so many different ways. We make it so much more difficult for State and local governments to handle the problems in our communities. I was speaking to the mayor of Baltimore this week about our problems with public safety. I know the challenges our Maryland General Assembly will face in January, in dealing with transportation infrastructure, in dealing with public education, in dealing with the challenges of our environment. All of those issues are going to be more difficult for the State of Maryland and all of our States and all of our local governments and our municipalities to be able to handle if either the House or the Senate bill becomes law. But to add insult to injury, we then take away the State and local tax deduction so that county taxpayers and State taxpayers, who are the same people who are paying Federal taxes, will have to pay a tax on a tax.

Senator Wyden brought to my attention something that is pretty fundamental. With the first income tax that was passed by the U.S. Congress, the deduction they allowed was for State and local taxes. Of course, the Constitution had to be amended, and the States had to consent to the amendment, and that is how we got the income tax. It was a fundamental decision made that under Federalism and respect for the different levels of government, we wouldn't impose a tax on a tax. Now, over 150 years later, we are talking about removing that deduction. That is outrageous from the point of view of the Constitution and the principles of the Constitution on Federalism.

There are also some consequences that I am sure my colleagues haven't thought about as to what impact that is going to have on property values, what impact that is going to have on a lot of other issues; they haven't thought that out. But it is just wrong from a policy point of view.

There are many provisions in the House bill that are not in the Senate bill, but now that we are going to conference, we have to be concerned about them. Are we going to restrict what individuals can deduct for medical expenses? That is in the House bill. So if you are a family that happens to have a child that has severe medical needs, are we now going to say that we are not going to allow them to deduct those costs that they have to pay for out-of-pocket?

The House bill contains restrictions on the deduction of education costs for those who have student loans. Are we going to make it more expensive for families to be able to afford higher education? It is already too expensive. Are we going to increase that cost?

We also have a restriction in the House bill that deals with mortgage interest deductions. I have already talked about the impact of the Senate bill and the House bill have on SALT--that State and local tax deductions have on the value of real estate, but when we restrict the deductions on mortgage interest, it has an even more dramatic impact on property values.

So there is a lot of work that is going to have to be done in conference. As I said, the best way to proceed is to send this bill back to the committee. Let's have open public hearings. Let's work together.

I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I have worked with my Democratic and Republican colleagues, and I know that when we work together, we produce some really great results. It is not hard for Democrats and Republicans to work together on the Tax Code, because we share the same goal. We know our Tax Code needs to be reformed. We know that there are burdens in our Tax Code that need to be eased. I honestly believe that Democrats and Republicans believe we shouldn't be adding to the debt, and we should be helping middle-income families. So it seems to me that this is not a heavy lift for Democrats and Republicans to come together in order to write the right tax bill for this country.

So I hope we take advantage of this opportunity, as we have a new look at the Tax Code, to deal with the fundamental flaws that are in both the House and Senate bills. I am not terribly optimistic because I know what the House and Senate have already passed. But I urge all of my colleagues to find a way that we can really fix our Tax Code, help middle-income families, and certainly not add to the deficit of this country. That should be the mutual desire of all Members of the U.S. Senate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

This motion will send H.R. 1 back to the Committee on Finance with instructions to return it within 3 days to deal with one of the principal purposes of this act, and that is to create jobs. I am pleased that I am joined in this effort by Senators Feinstein, Blumenthal, Udall, Casey, Stabenow, Klobuchar, and Harris.

As I explained yesterday--but I want to just go over this, if I could--this particular motion is based upon a bipartisan recommendation in the last Congress that came out of the Senate Finance Committee. We had working groups that took a look at the different aspects of our Tax Code in areas that we need to reform, and there was general agreement that we need to deal with the fact that American companies have earned earnings overseas, and they have parked those funds overseas and have not brought them back to the United States because of the differential tax rates between our corporate taxes and the tax rates overseas. The American companies were not willing to pay the taxes. So, therefore, they leave the money overseas. To bring that money back is called repatriation. So the money comes back to the United States. We have done this before, and we imposed a lower tax rate in order to get the money back here in the United States.

The challenge with that proposal is a couple things. But, first, it is not a permanent revenue flow. It is a one-time-only revenue flow. We had the numbers on the House-passed bill, which would bring in somewhere around $300 billion of one-time-only revenue.

The problem is that H.R. 1 includes provisions that use those revenues that bring that in as repatriation but uses the money on a permanent basis to give permanent tax relief to businesses and that puts us deeper in a hole as it relates to the deficit of this country.

This bill already is too expensive. We know that. I think my Republican colleagues know that. The American public knows that--that it will add to the deficit. We now have not only the scores that we traditionally use from the Joint Committee on Taxation as to how much it would cost, and we know it is somewhere in excess of $1.5 trillion-- closer to $2 trillion if you extend all the sunsets that are in the bill--but, even now, we have the so-called dynamic score that takes into consideration predicted economic changes that try to make it more favorable, and that is in excess of $1 trillion. That is unacceptable. It should be unacceptable to every Member of this body.

This amendment will help us in doing that, in that it will take at least the $300 billion, which is one-time-only revenue, and not allow it to be used in the budget itself. Instead, we wall that off and use it for infrastructure.

I serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee, in addition to the Senate Finance Committee. I can tell you that the unmet transportation needs, water infrastructure needs, and energy infrastructure needs in this country are well documented. We know we need to modernize our transit systems, our roads, our bridges, our water infrastructure, and our energy infrastructure. We need to modernize them, particularly if we are going to be competitive. This motion will set up the right priority for modernizing America's infrastructure.

What does that mean with regard to jobs? Speaker Ryan used the number of a little less than 1 million jobs that are created spending $1.5 trillion. That is about $1.5 million per job. That is not very good by anyone's standards. We have projections that $300 billion--far less than $1.5 trillion--will create 4 million great jobs here in America.

Here is a chance to really create jobs but at the same time produce a much more up-to-date, modern transportation system for this country. I have the honor of representing Maryland in the Senate. I can tell you that we need significant resources to update our transit system. The WMATA system is old and needs improvements, and needs further investments. We are in the second worst congested area here in Washington. We need investments in roads. Our bridges are in serious trouble. We have a major water main break every day in this country-- every day. We need billions of dollars to fix our water infrastructure.

Here is an opportunity for us to speak to two major priorities. One is fiscal responsibility. Let's do this in the right way, not spend one-time-only money. Two, we can take care of the international tax problems of American companies that have money overseas. Third, we can repair our infrastructure without raising the debt.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion so that we can really create jobs and not add to the deficit and to help the people of this country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand we now have a new bill. I am looking at Senator Wyden hold up that new bill. I got a sheet that looked as if it came from K Street that gave us a list of changes that will be included in the managers' package. I looked at the list, and somewhere around 50 or 60 new provisions were on that list. Many of those were not bills that had been filed, so we had no idea what was going to be included in it.

None of those issues--in fact, nothing in this bill has been subject to an open hearing in the Finance Committee. Now we are going to be asked, I understand, maybe later tonight to vote on those changes. Quite frankly, I don't know what those changes are, and I am not going to have an opportunity to go over those with my constituents. That is wrong. That is not the process we use to change the Tax Code of this country, a major tax reform bill. That is an outrageous process, to say that we are going to vote on a new bill without an opportunity to understand it, without any hearings, without an opportunity for constituents to give their views on it, and I must state that I find that very offensive.

I want to talk about one provision in particular, and I hope we will have a chance to do something about it during the amendment process. As I understand it, the revised provisions in regard to State and local tax deduction still restrict what taxpayers can deduct on their Federal tax returns in regard to State and local taxes that they pay. I admit, this could have been modified, but what I understand is that the modification is that taxpayers will be able to deduct up to $10,000 of property taxes but will not be able to deduct any of their State taxes, whether they are income taxes or sales taxes, in regard to the Federal taxes.

In my State, we have county income taxes that will not be deductible, if I understand correctly, under the proposal we will be voting on. If that is, in fact, correct, that is absolutely wrong, and I want to tell you why. Many of us spent years in the State legislature. Our distinguished Presiding Officer was Governor of his State. We respect State and local governments. It is the same taxpayers that pay the taxes to the counties, to the State, and to the Federal Government.

We believe in federalism. Our Nation was founded on federalism. I was proud of my record as speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates and of working on a federalism task force set up by President Reagan to look at the proper way to respect the rights of the States and local governments. Now we are saying we are not going to respect their ability to finance their operations. I say that because we are going to tax the tax. We are not going to respect that the same taxpayer is paying the State of Maryland's taxes or the State of Tennessee's taxes. That is wrong. That is an affront, I believe, to the Constitution of this country, but it has an impact.

It is going to be much, much more difficult for our States to be able to raise the revenues they need to support our schools and for public safety and health. All those services are going to be much more difficult for our States to be able to finance because of this change that is included in the Senate bill. It is going to be more difficult for local governments. The cap on property taxes is real and will affect local government's ability to raise property taxes. But in Maryland and other

States, our local governments have other sources, including income taxes, that no longer are going to be deductible.

That is going to affect my State's ability to adequately fund public services. Whether it is education, whether it is transportation, whether it is healthcare, all of that is going to be negatively impacted and it is wrong.

I will give you a number, because I know the number in Maryland. Almost 50 percent of Maryland taxpayers deduct State and local taxes as an itemized deduction. They are going to be disadvantaged by the provision that is included in the Senate bill, and it is wrong. It also has unintended consequences, but it is going to have other consequences.

Mr. President, later I will come back and speak on some of these other issues, but I yield the floor.

If my colleague will yield----

In going over the history as to how the income tax came about, it really was part of Federalism. They needed the consent of the States to change the Constitution. It was a partnership with our States, and that is why, from its inception, there has been respect for State and local taxation as a deduction from the Federal income tax.

This is not a special interest; this is how we finance government. We finance government at the Federal level, the State level, and the local level. If this bill becomes law, we are violating it.

Mr. President, I will ask my colleague from Oregon to let me have a minute more for two or three more points on this that I think are important; that is, there are effects that are going to take place as a result of the limitation of State and local taxes. We are going to see effects on property values. The Realtors and real estate industries have made that clear. It is going to affect the tax base of local government.

This bill is going to affect charitable giving. Why do I say that charitable giving is part of this? Because I was talking to the mayor of Baltimore, Catherine Pugh, earlier today. She has serious problems with law enforcement in Baltimore. She is depending upon private groups and their generosity to help deal with the problems of Baltimore. It is going to be much more difficult for private groups to be able to get charitable contributions if this bill becomes law. So there will be impact on this that will affect our State and local governments, in addition to the elimination of the State and local tax deduction.

Here is one last point, if I might make it, in regard to middle- income taxpayers. I respect greatly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the charge that they show, but these charges don't include the effect of the increase of the estate tax because that has not been made part of the calculations. It does not take into consideration 13 million people who no longer are going to have health insurance. That has not been taken into consideration in the charge they are showing.

It doesn't take into consideration, in the charge, that the corporation profits they are going to make as a result of these tax cuts are going to most likely go to stock buyouts, rather than helping the workers. That is not reflected.

So when you take a look at all of it--and we do have some analysis that has been done that is objective--middle-income taxpayers are at a disadvantage under this tax bill.

I thank my friend from Oregon for yielding me that time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I take this time to inform my colleagues of a motion that I hope to file tomorrow that would recommit the bill, and I am going to talk a little bit about it.

First, if I might, let me just point out that yesterday I took to the floor to emphasize some of the points that Senator Nelson just made-- that this bill, which is advertised to help the middle class, does not help the middle class. It helps the wealthy. It is business cuts, and middle-income taxpayers

get some relief--some, not all--that is temporary in nature.

So the Congressional Budget Office tells us that by 2027, for those earning under $75,000 a year, the majority will actually pay more taxes rather than less. In my State of Maryland, it is estimated that 800,000 Marylanders will pay more taxes rather than less. The tax relief to middle-income families is so much smaller than what is given to the wealthy and what is given to the business community.

To compound that problem, we now know by the scores of both the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office that the bill will add tremendously to the deficit--over a trillion dollars. I think it is going to be closer to $2 trillion, but their scoring shows it over a trillion dollars in deficits.

Guess who is going to pay for those deficits. It is going to be middle-income families. Then, you put on top of that the repeal of the mandate under the Affordable Care Act, which is also going to hurt middle-income families on their ability for affordable healthcare.

So this bill advertised to help middle-income families does not do that. For my State of Maryland, it is particularly painful because of the loss of the State and tax local deductions that are used by almost a majority of our taxpayers. Just about 50 percent of our taxpayers in Maryland use the State and local tax deductions.

There is another reason why this bill has been advertised not just to help middle-income families, which it doesn't do, but it is called job creation. This bill is advertised as a bill that will create jobs in America. Now, let me go through that because I am for creating more jobs. We need more jobs in Maryland. We needs more jobs throughout the country. The number that has been given to us is that this bill will create 975,000 jobs at a cost of $1.5 trillion. That comes out to $1,530,000 per job. That is a pretty high cost to create a job. In fact, it is ridiculous to spend that type of money. We don't know if that is going to actually happen. That is what the proponents of the legislation are saying.

Now, we have had Democrats and Republicans who have worked together to really create jobs. I serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I serve as the ranking member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee with Senator Inhofe, and we both know if we put more resources into infrastructure--into roads, bridges, transit systems--we will, in fact, not only modernize our economy by having a first-class transportation system and not only make the quality of life better so we can get to and from work in a reasonable time, but we will also create real jobs.

So in the last Congress we had a bipartisan group of members from the Finance Committee who said: Look, we have to do something about international tax issues, repatriation, and monies parked overseas. We need to do something to bring this money back. These are American companies that have their money overseas and don't want to pay the higher corporate taxes. There is a way of bringing that money back. Let's do it so we can try to get it into our economy. Democrats and Republicans agreed, but the one thing we didn't want to do was to use that money for a permanent type of spending that could increase the deficit.

So what does H.R. 1 do? What does the underlying bill do? It does exactly that. It uses this one-time-only money and spends it on a permanent basis for tax relief for corporations--a permanent tax relief for corporations. That is not the responsible thing to do.

So what we should be doing with that money--and what the proposal was that we had in the last Congress--is to use that as seed money for infrastructure one-time-only expenses. We could, therefore, create modern infrastructure and create jobs and do it in a responsible way. It is a win-win-win situation. The House repatriation bill would bring in approximately $300 billion of one-time-only revenues. It has been estimated that at $300 billion, we create 4 million jobs. Now, let's compare that. If we use that $300 billion to create 4 million jobs, that is about $73,000 a job, as compared to $1.5 million per job under the underlying bill.

I think we all understand that we need to be more cost effective in how we do our work around here, and that is why Democrats and Republicans said: Let's use this one-time-only source for infrastructure, modernizing our roads, and creating jobs. That brings me to the motion I hope I will have a chance to offer tomorrow that would recommit the bill to the committee to return it to the Congress and to this floor so that we use the repatriation funds for infrastructure so that we can create the jobs and not create a greater hole in the deficit.

I am joined in this effort by Senator Feinstein, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Udall, Senator Casey, and Senator Stabenow. I do think this is a matter that I hope my colleagues will pay attention to. I hope we can fix this bill, H.R. 1, and work in a bipartisan manner. It doesn't look like we are there yet. We want a bill that helps middle-income families. We want a bill that does not increase the deficit, and the current bill does exactly that. So I hope my colleagues will work with us so we can return this bill to the Senate Finance Committee and return a bill that is worthy of the people of this country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, for most of my time here in the U.S. Senate, I have been on the Senate Finance Committee, which deals with our Tax Code. For most of my time in the House of Representatives, I served on the House Ways and Means Committee, which dealt with our Tax Code.

Quite frankly, I thought that there were three guiding principles in regard to tax reform that both Democrats and Republicans felt were essential and that, really, I thought were beyond being controversial. That is, if we are going to have tax relief, the focus must be on the middle class; that in today's economic circumstances, we would not want to have tax reform add to the deficit; and that we need to use an open process--a bipartisan process--for tax reform so that we have the opportunity for all stakeholders to understand exactly what we are doing so that we don't have any unintended consequences. As I look at the bill that is being brought to the floor by the Senate Budget Committee, it violates all three of these basic principles.

First, with regard to providing relief to middle-income taxpayers, the Joint Committee on Taxation has looked at this bill, and that is the objective scorekeeper. Some may not like what

they say, but we have to acknowledge that these are the objective numbers that look at exactly who benefits from the tax provisions. It is an interesting analysis that they do about those who are in the top income tax brackets, and we are using about half a million people. In 2019 this group of half a million people will receive $34 billion in tax relief--half a million taxpayers. In that same year, those taxpayers who have income under $50,000, which amounts to about 90 million taxpayers in this country or about 180 times the number of people, will receive about 30 percent of the amount of benefits, about $14 billion in that year. That analysis does not take into consideration who benefits from the estate tax changes in the bill that is going to be brought before us. I must say that I doubt there are any taxpayers under $50,000 a year who would benefit from increasing the $4 million base that we currently have in our estate tax. The Joint Committee on Taxation did not include the impact of the repeal of the individual mandate for health coverage, which affects the funds going into health premium support and Medicaid which, again, goes to lower income families. The figures I just provided are conservative figures. It is much more skewed toward higher income than even the committee's analysis for 2019.

Let me point out one more issue about this number. Year 2019 is the most favorable year for middle-income taxpayers. It gets worse every year thereafter. The bill is not targeted toward middle income. It is targeted to the wealthy.

Look at some of the reasons. The estate tax repeal helps wealthy people. The alternative minimum tax--those in the highest incomes who are required to pay some taxes--is repealed. There is the fact that the business tax relief is made permanent but the individual relief has a sunset and terminates after 8 years.

So the Congressional Budget Office has told us exactly who will pay more taxes. This is interesting. In 2019, those at the lowest income tax brackets, or under $30,000, will actually pay more taxes. They are not getting a tax cut. If you look at 2021, 2 years later, those under $40,000 are going to pay more taxes. If you go all the way up to 2027, for those earning under $75,000, the majority will pay more taxes. So as to this bill, which is being advertised by my Republican colleagues as benefitting all taxpayers, know that it doesn't benefit all taxpayers.

In my State, it is estimated that 800,000 Marylanders will pay more taxes under this bill in 2027. It particularly affects those in middle income who are going to be put at a disadvantage. The people who are protected are those at the high income level. To add one more complication to middle-income taxpayers, there is also not even a subtle attack on Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs that are important for middle-income families. Job training programs dealing with education, et cetera, are all going to be jeopardized because of the way this bill is funded.

On the first test, is this bill aimed at middle-income taxpayers? The answer is no. It fails.

On the second test, are we financing this tax cut by increasing the debt, asking our children and grandchildren to pay for this tax cut? The answer is clearly yes. By its own admission, the budget instructions tell us that we are going to have a $1.5 trillion deficit as a result of this tax bill, and that is not the whole picture. We know there is at least $1.5 trillion of new debt if this bill becomes law, but as I am sure my colleagues are aware, there are many provisions in this bill that have sunsets--that terminate--but it is anticipated that those sunsets will be extended. For example, in the business expensing or the credits for family medical leave, many people are advertising this as just a way of fitting a more expensive bill into a $1.5 trillion deficit and not making it larger, but in reality, when extending those extenders, we find that the deficit will be half a trillion dollars more. We are talking about a $2 trillion hole in the deficit. To make matters even worse, we have a trigger that is being recommended that is in the bill itself, but that trigger will extend more tax relief, not less. So this bill fails in the second basic test, and that is because it creates a major hole in the deficit.

The third test is whether this is truly an open bipartisan process. Here no one can say with a straight face that the answer is yes. The majority, the Republicans, are using reconciliation, which is by definition a partisan process. There is no real opportunity for open debate or hearings or amendments. The amendments are all contrived under the reconciliation restrictions.

Does anyone here believe that at the end of the day the majority leader is not going to offer a new bill at the eleventh hour with no time to debate, where we vote up or down, which will be the final product that we are being asked to approve?

So on all three tests this bill coming out of the Budget Committee fails. But then it goes beyond that. There was a late addition in the Senate Finance Committee that repealed the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act. Now, quite frankly, one would wonder how would that ever get put into a tax bill? Why would this be put into a tax bill? The Congressional Budget Office tells us that it will add 13 million Americans to the uninsured rolls by 2027. These 13 million individuals will not be able to get access to quality healthcare. If they run into a major health episode, they are going either to have to sell all of their assets or go into bankruptcy or be denied care. I think we should be concerned about those 13 million. In addition, these individuals who don't have health insurance and don't have a doctor end up in emergency rooms for care, which is more expensive. Guess who pays the bill? We all do. We pay for it through higher hospital rates. Those of us who have insurance and who pay our bills are going to be paying for those who don't pay their bills. So the fact that we are eliminating the individual mandate doesn't just affect 13 million people. It does affect those 13 million, and it affects all of us who will be paying more through cost shifting.

Quite frankly, what is really aggravating is that it is in the bill getting scored as a tax savings--as more revenue coming in. It is more revenue coming as we spend less on healthcare subsidies, less on Medicaid, and the bill spends that money. So we are using cuts to middle-income families in healthcare to finance permanent tax relief for businesses in this country. Where are our priorities? That makes no sense whatsoever

There are individual changes that are being recommended in this bill that are going to have very dire consequences. I will just mention one. I spent a good deal of my life in public office at the State level, and I believe very much in federalism. I believe that State legislators are trying to do what is right for their taxpayers as we are trying to do what is right for the same taxpayers. Federalism says that we respect each level of government, but by eliminating the State and local tax deductions, we are telling taxpayers that they have to pay taxes on taxes, that we don't respect our State and local governments, and that you can no longer deduct your State taxes or local property taxes. Again, that is an insult to the Constitution and to federalism. It also, by the way, will hurt taxpayers.

In my own State, almost 50 percent of Marylanders use the State and local tax deductions. If the Senate bill becomes law, all of them will lose that ability to deduct State and local taxes on their Federal income tax returns. It will affect the ability of our States and local governments to finance the necessary functions of government, whether it is to keep people safe or whether it is to provide schools for our children.

I heard from people this last weekend from different charitable groups who told me that if the Senate bill becomes law, it will have a dramatic impact on private giving, because under the Senate bill, only 5 percent of the taxpayers in this country will be able to get a tax deduction from charitable contributions. Think about that for one moment.

We pride ourselves in the services that are provided by the private sector, services in healthcare, education, social services, and the arts. All of that depends on the generosity of private givers. Yet we are saying that only 5 percent of the population in this country will have any tax incentive to give charitable gifts. That will have a major

negative impact on charitable contributions.

Then, there is the value of the credit that we have out there for economic growth. I am very proud of the public-private partnerships we have in Maryland. I am sure my colleagues are proud of those public- private partnerships in Pennsylvania and in every State in this country, but the credits we give are going to be worth a lot less if the Senate bill becomes law, making it much more difficult to put together a venture that can redevelop vulnerable communities around our Nation.

Let me just add one or two points before yielding the floor. What I think we all want to accomplish in tax reform is to have a tax code that is simpler and is predictable. That is not happening with the bill that is being recommended by the Budget Committee.

So many provisions are temporary. It is a partisan process. It doesn't simplify the Tax Code, and there certainly is not going to be predictability on provisions that have sunset termination dates.

The final bill could even be much worse. As I said, the bill coming out of the Budget Committee that is getting all this attention is certainly not going to be the bill that we vote on at the end of the day--sometime, as I have been told. It could be as early as tomorrow. It is going to be a different bill.

It is being negotiated now in closed sessions with Republicans meeting, trying to get their last couple of votes. We don't know what the changes will be, but at the end of the day, we know we are going to be presented with a different bill. But that is not going to be the final bill because then it will go to the House and there will be additional changes. There are measures in the House that have many of us upset, such as this: Are we not able to deduct medical expenses if we have an extraordinary need in the family? In the House bill you cannot deduct those expenses. Student loan interest costs cannot be deducted in the House bill. Are they going to end up in the final vote we are going to be called to vote upon in the Senate?

One thing is clear. The bill is only going to get worse and get more expensive, and it is going to cause greater damage to an already too- large deficit.

There is a better way. There is a better way, and that is true bipartisanship. Let's come together and work together.

I am very proud of the work I have done here in my career in the Senate and the House. In the House I worked with then-Congressman Portman, and the two of us worked together with stakeholders to change our retirement policies for retirement savings. We were able to get bills not only enacted but made permanent. Even though we didn't have the political support of our leadership, we had the support of the American people, we had a bipartisan process, we used all of the stakeholders, and we came to good policy changes. More people have retirement savings as a result of those efforts. That is the type of effort we need to put on for tax reform--Democrats and Republicans working together so we can have a predictable tax code moving forward.

There is a better way for job growth in this country. I heard my Republican friends say this bill will create up to a million jobs--$1.5 to $2 trillion creating 1 million jobs?

We had a bill in the last Congress that we could revise immediately to take the repatriation funds--that is the corporate money that is locked overseas--and bring it back here. I will submit an amendment to the Senate Finance Committee to try to get this done. A couple hundred billion dollars could come back into this country. We could use that for infrastructure, which creates 4 to 5 million jobs for a fraction of the cost. We could do much better in job creation than spending this type of money for the type of jobs that are predicted.

I started by saying I thought one of the guiding principles is to help middle-class families. This bill doesn't do it. Let's join together, Democrats and Republicans, and do what is right for middle- income taxpayers in this country.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize World AIDS Day. There was a time when Congress could put bitter partisan rancor and finger-pointing blame games aside and unite-around a cause. We did so to fight HIV/AIDS globally. Since 2003, the President's Plan for Emergency AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, has meant the difference between life and death for millions of people. In fact, just last year, I met a 30- year-old man named Simon in Namibia who said he would not be alive without the international community's HIV/AIDS assistance. With the generous support of the American people, the U.S. Government has committed more than $70 billion to bilateral HIV/AIDS programs; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and bilateral tuberculosis programs since the program's inception.

We cannot declare victory yet--far from it. Only one-half of the 37 million people in the world living with HIV are receiving treatment. Globally, young women are twice as likely to acquire HIV as their male counterparts. One million people still died from AIDS-related illnesses worldwide in 2016. Let us not forget that people here in the United States are not immune. In Maryland, for instance, the most recent data indicate that, in 2016, almost 36,000 people were living with HIV/AIDS, and the State had the fifth highest rate of new HIV infections in the country.

For the past 15 years, Congress has shown strong commitment and moral leadership by providing robust funding for PEPFAR and regularly reauthorizing the program. Signals from the Trump administration, however, indicate that this partnership may be fraying, putting lives and epidemic control at risk.

President Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request proposed cutting funding for PEPFAR and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria by more than $1 billion. These cuts, if enacted, could deny lifesaving treatment to men, women, and children. These cuts, if enacted, could halt our progress to achieving epidemic control. These cuts, if enacted, will harm millions of people.

Congress must remain resolved not only to protect our investment, but to continue building on our progress thus far.

I call on the Trump administration to join us in facing the challenge of HIV/AIDS head-on, without politics and without posturing, as we consider PEPFAR reauthorization. The administration's proposal to extend the Mexico City policy, often referred to as the global gag rule, may hamstring the very organizations providing lifesaving prevention, detection, and treatment services.

The Trump administration's proposal to cut tuberculosis funding by more than 25 percent, if enacted, will further frustrate efforts to raise resources to combat this global killer; TB is the world's leading infectious disease killer and is the primary cause of death for people coinfected with HIV/AIDS. Instead of proposing cuts, the Trump administration should be demonstrating continued support for the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Global Fund has saved 22 million lives since it was established. Currency fluctuations are complicating U.S. contributions to the Global Fund and, according to some estimates, could lead to U.S. funding being cut dear by up to $450 million in fiscal year 2019. We absolutely cannot allow such a thing to happen.

World AIDS Day should be a day of sober commemoration; but it should also be a day of hope. Success in the fight against HIV/AIDS is within our grasp.

Amid today's tweetstorms and controversies, it is easy to overlook the

fact that, when this body is at its best, it has the power to change the course of history. Success is possible. Cutting funding now-- shrinking from our commitment now, instead of sustaining it--will negate the investments and progress we have made so far. We owe it to people like Simon, to their families, and to millions of others dealing with the scourge of HIV/AIDS to keep working toward a world free of the disease.

Mr. President, this Saturday is Veterans Day. On this 11th day of the 11th month each year, we pause to honor and pay tribute to our veterans and the countless sacrifices they have made to serve our country. We also honor their families, who have endured extended absences and profound personal challenges as they have watched those most precious to them put themselves in harm's way. In that spirit of gratitude, I want to recognize some of Maryland's bravest and finest servicemembers who have given the last full measure of devotion to our Nation.

Sgt. Eric M. Houck, 25, died from gunshot wounds in the Peka Valley of

the Nangarhar Province in Afghanistan this past June. Sergeant Houck, who began his military career as a private and rose to the rank of sergeant in just 3 years, was an avid sports fan. His father called Eric his best friend and said that his family, particularly his two young children, were everything to him. He was only 1 month shy of returning home.

Navy PO1 Xavier Martin, age 24, died aboard the USS Fitzgerald during its tragic collision off the coast of Japan in June. Petty Officer Martin was an exemplary sailor and the youngest petty officer with a rank of first class aboard the USS Fitzgera1d. He was so well-loved, more than 100 friends and family traveled from around the country and the globe to attend his funeral.

U.S. Air Force pilot and Annapolis native Eric Schultz was killed in an aircraft crash in early September. Lieutenant Colonel Schultz was a combat veteran and an exceptionally talented Air Force test pilot with more than 2,000 hours of flying. He held six degrees, including a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering, but was described by friends and family as the most humble man they have ever known. ``If you met him in a social environment, you would never know he was a Ph.D. or a pilot,'' his father said.

Timothy Eckels and Kevin Bushell were among the sailors killed during the collision of the USS John McCain in August. Information System Technician 2nd Class Eckels was a graduate of Manchester Valley High School and was described as being ``known for making everyone better by his presence'' and a true pleasure to be around. He was just 23 years old. Electronics Technician 2nd Class Bushell was not much older, at only 26, and a talented technician for the Navy. He proudly served for 7 years.

There are many other Marylanders, many other families, who have suffered unfathomable loss and injury, and all of them deserve our collective and eternal gratitude.

They also deserve to have the many promises we have made kept. They deserve the job training, education assistance, and housing benefits they have earned. They deserve every tool and resource they need to succeed both professionally and personally once they return home. They deserve leaders who consider their sacrifice every day, not only on Veterans Day.

Let us honor our veterans in ways that are truly befitting their service: by vowing to protect the benefits they have earned. By pledging to remain grateful for their service and concerned for their needs every day, not only on this day and, perhaps most critically of all, by recommitting ourselves to the causes for which they served.

Today, I salute every man and woman who has put on a uniform and humbly thank every one of their families for braving the worst fears and the toughest challenges in service to our Nation.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, later today we will start the process of voting on the confirmation of William Wehrum for Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation. I take this time to urge my colleagues to reject this nominee and vote against his confirmation.

The EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation supervises national programs and policies for regulating air pollution and radiation exposure. Notably, this office administers the Clean Air Act.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I once again find myself using my voice to say that science and public health, not partisan politics, should drive the confirmation process.

If confirmed, Mr. Wehrum is expected to play a leading role in dismantling climate change regulations. Since the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are dangerous air pollutants, OAR is the office that accepted the endangerment finding and developed the Clean Power Plan to address carbon pollution.

Given the Trump administration's own admission--or lack of suppression--in the latest update to the National Climate Assessment ``that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,'' it should be common sense to nominate and confirm Administrators who care about our environment and our future, including acting on climate change. It is inexcusable to confirm those who disagree with that. I am not convinced that Mr. Wehrum will act on carbon pollution or any other air pollutant.

It would take an extraordinarily independent Assistant Administrator to resist the current course at the EPA under EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.

We know that we have a challenge at the top. We need as the person to head this Agency a person of integrity who will stand up for what science tells us we need to do in protecting air quality. I would argue that Mr. Wehrum is not that person.

Let me go over some of the challenges we face.

For example, in January of 2017, the EPA issued itself a 6-month extension to respond to Maryland's Good Neighbor petition. The petition alleges that 36 powerplants in five neighboring States are preventing Maryland from meeting its own obligations under the Clean Air Act. That deadline expired with no EPA action on the petition.

On September 27, 2017, Maryland filed suit against the EPA.

On October 5 of this year, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation filed a similar lawsuit because pollution from powerplants is a source of nitrogen pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.

On October 27, 2017, the EPA denied a separate Maryland petition asking the EPA to add nine States to the Ozone Transport Region, alleging that these States contribute to the violation of the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards.

In its response to the petition, the EPA determined that expanding the Ozone Transport Region is ``not appropriate at this time'' because existing rules will achieve reductions in emissions. The EPA's response states that ``better-targeted approaches, such as those under the Clean Air Act's good neighbor provision, would be more effective in addressing the 2008 ozone targets.''

The EPA's reasoning to deny the Ozone Transport Region petition--that existing rules will adequately address transported pollution--is predicated on the sincere implementation of those rules. In fact, Maryland did utilize--we did utilize--a ``better targeted approach.'' Maryland filed a Good Neighbor petition last November that was ignored for 1 year, prompting the lawsuit against the EPA.

Based on his professional history and testimony, I do not have reason to believe that Mr. Wehrum will ensure that existing rules will adequately address air pollution. While he worked at the EPA during the George W. Bush administration, Mr. Wehrum attempted to direct the Agency's air requirements to favor markets, earning praise from industry groups he would later represent in private practice. How can we ask Mr. Wehrum to objectively administer the Clean Air Act after a career spent on one side?

Mr. Wehrum has 20-plus years working for the industry as a lobbyist. He has a record of ignoring science in the recommendations that he made. There are examples of where he absolutely disagreed with expert groups--just to give one example, the Academy of American Pediatricians' assessment on mercury and air toxins submissions. Mr. Wehrum took issue and disagreed with their findings.

He was seen as an unacceptable choice in 2007 when he was nominated to lead the same Agency by President Bush, and his nomination was withdrawn over Democratic opposition. So this is not the first time we have had a chance to deal with Mr. Wehrum for this position. In the interim, he has only continued his work to advance industry by advocating for weakening the Clean Air Act.

I will continue to stand up for the rights of Marylanders and all Americans to air that is safe to breathe and a climate that is livable, and all of us can help in that regard by rejecting this nominee.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to shine a spotlight on the increasingly dire political, security, and humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Senator Booker and I, along with Senators Durbin, Coons, Warren, Markey, and Brown, recently sent a letter to President Trump urging the administration to take immediate action to ensure that the United States is prepared to do our part to help stave off further violence and human suffering.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the DRC as it is known, is a country of vast natural resource wealth. It is the largest country in sub-Saharan Africa by land mass, with ample arable land, a variety of precious minerals, and the world's second-largest river, the Congo, which possesses substantial hydroelectric potential; yet, despite an abundance of natural resources--indeed, because of it--the people of the DRC have endured centuries of exploitation and atrocities. In the postcolonial era, the country has struggled with decades of conflict, endemic corruption, and extreme poverty. The DRC ranks 176th out of 188 countries on the Human Development Index. Life expectancy is 59 years. An estimated 77 percent of the people live on less than $2 a day. More than 12 percent of children do not live to see their fifth birthday. Mothers die in childbirth in more than 7 out of every 1,000 live births. The statistics are truly alarming.

The 1997 to 2003 civil war involved at least seven countries in the region and, by some estimates, caused 5.4 million deaths from war and war-related causes. The conflict was characterized by massive human rights violations and introduced the world to the brutal consequences of the mining of conflict minerals. Eastern Congo has been referred to as the rape capital of the world, and sexual violence continues to be used as a weapon to traumatize and terrorize the population.

Despite the establishment of truth and reconciliation committees by the Sun City Accords in 2002, the installation of a unity government in 2003, and the deployment of the largest United Nations peacekeeping force in the world, the country remains unstable. The peacekeeping mission in DRC plays a critical role in protecting civilians in conflict areas and promoting stability; yet its capabilities are limited, and it is not a substitute for a political agreement respected and adhered to by all relevant stakeholders. Let me be clear: I fully support MONUSCO peacekeepers who seek to uphold their mandate. Though the mission has come under criticism over the years for not doing enough to protect civilians and for controversies regarding its own abuses, we must ask ourselves what would have happened--and what might still happen--if the UN were not present--or if the United States forces such significant troop reductions that the mission is rendered ineffective, which I fear we may be perilously close to doing.

Despite the deployment of peacekeepers and despite the Sun City Accords, conflict, instability, and meddling by other countries in DRC persisted. It took another 10 years and the efforts of the UN and the African Union to put the Congo on a path towards true stability in 2013 through what became known as the Framework of Hope, in which other governments pledged noninterference; yet, instead of building on this landmark agreement over the past 4 years to achieve reconciliation, stabilization, and development, the country has become subsumed in new conflicts and instability due to political leaders' self-interested and shortsighted calculations.

DRC's long and as yet incomplete road to peace is a classic example of how pernicious longstanding conflicts require persistent, high-level diplomatic engagement to untangle and address root causes. International diplomacy often isn't swift or easy, and sometimes the parties take two steps forward and one step back. It is often frustrating. It is often exhausting, but it is always essential. The work of former Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Russ Feingold, who was constantly in the region engaging with heads of state, was instrumental in holding neighboring countries to their commitments under the Framework of Hope, which reduced violence and insecurity. The work of Senator Feingold's successor, Tom Perriello, was instrumental in helping obtain a political agreement in the DRC in 2016 that held the promise of achieving democratic elections and an end to sweeping government abuses against unarmed civilian protesters.

The current spread of violence within the DRC serves as a painful reminder of how critical it is that we continue to work not only to maintain the gains we have made on the international front, but also the fragile respect for democracy and good governance inside DRC. According to the constitution adopted in 2005, elections should have taken place in November of last year, and President Joseph Kabila, having served two terms, should have stepped down. Instead, President Kabila first tried to change the constitution and then, when that effort failed, he threw up obstacles--slow-rolling voter registration, underfunding the electoral commission, and insisting on a unilateral and hurried process for the creation of new provinces--all of which precipitated a political crisis late last year when it became clear that the polls would not be open. While the opposition engaged in good- faith negotiations with the government to come to agreement on a new election timeline, Kabila has once again refused to abide by the terms. In fact, elections planned for the end of this year per that December 31 agreement--duly signed by the ruling party and the opposition--will not take place until December 2018. President Kabila's decision to remain in power beyond his mandate and to walk away from last year's political deal has caused instability and upheaval that, if not directly responsible, appears to be feeding growing violence and unrest in various parts of the country, this time including in areas of the country that had been largely been stable.

Government forces and progovernment militia are accused of gross human rights violations in the Kasai region. Two UN investigators, including an American, were killed in the region in March as they attempted to look into allegations of human rights abuses by security forces, and multiple researchers have uncovered evidence of potential involvement by state actors in their murder. The UN has not ruled out involvement by government forces, but more investigation is needed. At least 80 mass graves have been discovered. Over 5,000 people have been killed since 2016, according to some reports. The lives of hundreds of thousands of children and their families in Greater Kasai have been turned upside down by this brutal violence, with nearly a million and a half people internally displaced in the Kasai alone, including 850,000 children. Just last week, the head of the World Food Program warned that, if WFP did not receive funding and access to the area, hundreds of thousands of children would die over the next couple of months. All told, nearly 4 million Congolese are internally displaced--over a million newly displaced in Kasai alone just over the last 12 months-- giving DRC the dubious distinction of having the most internally displaced people in Africa.

We have a moral obligation to pursue peace. We cannot stand by and allow conflict in DRC or anywhere else spiral so far out of control that an untold number of women are victims of sexual violence, and millions die from conflict, starvation, and preventable disease.

We have a moral obligation to try to halt mass atrocities wherever they occur. The scale of violence perpetrated against civilians in Congo has been staggering.

We should care because the world is supporting a massive peacekeeping operation in the country to the tune of $1.14 billion a year, of which the U.S. will pay an estimated $325 million this year. We need the MONUSCO mission to be efficient, we need it to be effective, and we need to create conditions for it to end, but the only way for the mission to draw down in a responsible fashion is as peace and stability are progressively achieved. Therefore, the United States, a leader in the international community, must do more to help facilitate a political process that will lead to a durable peace.

The problems in the Congo are not insurmountable, and our voice and diplomatic influence could help bring about a solution if the Trump administration is willing to make an effort to do so. There are several easy steps it could take immediately.

No. 1, the administration could fill critical vacancies. The President should immediately nominate an accredited Ambassador to Kinshasa. Our last Ambassador, a highly capable career foreign service officer, left his post in December. The President should nominate an Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs for Senate confirmation. The position has remained vacant for 9 months, with Ambassador Donald Yamamoto serving in the role in an acting capacity.

Second, on the heels of UN Ambassador Nikki Haley's visit to DRC last month--one of the first visits to the continent by a senior member of the Trump administration--I urge the delegation to capitalize on the momentum from that trip to push for the following: No. 1, implementation of the December 31 agreement; No. 2, broader cooperation with and support for the investigation into human rights abuses in Kasai; No. 3, ensuring there is a credible international investigation into the murder of the two UN investigators; and No. 4, sharing the assessment of the humanitarian emergency in the Kasais.

I understand that Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, head of U.S. Africa Command, accompanied Ambassador Haley. I hope that he will share his assessment and any recommendations he has related to MONUSCO's deployment. I urge Ambassador Haley to ask that the Security Council convene an emergency meeting to discuss the findings of her trip. Finally, the administration should reexamine the decision in March of this year to lower MONUSCO's troop ceiling, given conditions in the country and the observations of the returning delegation.

We must use all the tools at our disposal, such as the Atrocities Prevention Board, to devise concrete actions our diplomats can take to stave off further violence. The White House should consider tightening sanctions on the regime. So far, we have sanctioned six sitting or former senior government and security officials, as well as a private company owned by one of them, under Executive Order 13671 issued in 2014. Sanctions have proven effective at getting Kinshasa's attention and should be applied in an ever-tightening manner aimed at the highest levels of government until we see demonstrable progress towards implementing the December 31 agreement. The Global Magnitsky Act is another tool that the administration could use to further pressure the regime.

The last conflict in DRC caused a regional conflagration that I consider among the worst in the continent's recent history in terms of the toll on human lives. It should never be repeated. The administration can and should take the steps I have just outlined immediately. While simple and straightforward, they could prevent further bloodshed. A repetition of the war is not inevitable, and I hope the President will take action to forestall

an increasingly dire humanitarian and political crisis in the region.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, President Trump will be leaving on a lengthy trip to Asia. He will be visiting Japan, the Republic of Korea, China, the Philippines, and Vietnam. In each of those countries, we expect that the No. 1 national security issue that will be talked about is North Korea.

North Korea's dangerous activities are certainly putting not only the region but the global community at risk. They have a nuclear weapons capability. They currently have the ability to explode a nuclear device. They are working on delivery systems that could very well reach not just the region but the United States. They are violating international commitments. They have done dozens of tests this year alone, all in violation of those international commitments.

We have had a strong policy to try to isolate North Korea. The United States has led in the imposition of sanctions. We introduced this year and passed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. It passed this body by a 98-to-2 vote. I notice the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is on the floor, and he was one of the strong architects of that legislation. The United Nations Security Council passed Resolutions Nos. 2270, 2321, and 2375. The President has issued Executive Order No. 13810.

We have been asking for rigorous enforcement of sanctions. We could do more. One of the points I hope the President will be talking about during his trip is robust and rigorous enforcement of the sanctions that are out there. And I see there is activity taking place in the Banking Committee. We have legislation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. If additional sanction authority is needed, let's do that. That is important.

But what additional things can we do, and what should the President be promoting as he visits Asia? First, let me give you a few unacceptable alternatives.

We cannot lead with military intervention. The casualties could be astronomical. The technology to develop nuclear weapons would still remain. Our allies are certainly not in agreement with that policy. There is no congressional authority for the use of force.

A second alternative that is not acceptable is to just continue the current course. North Korea is developing a delivery system that will threaten not just Japan and the Republic of Korea but also Guam and the United States. We will see an arms race if we do not effectively stop North Korea's nuclear program.

President Trump's statement, in my view, made the challenges even more dramatic. His ``America first'' statements isolate America and make it more difficult for us to get the type of support we need. I think his reckless statements make it more likely rather than less likely that we will use a military option.

What we need is a surge in diplomacy. A surge in diplomacy can very well start with the meeting between President Xi of China and President Trump of the United States. We have a

common agenda. Neither China nor the United States want to see a nuclear North Korea. Both China and the United States recognize that the Kim Jong Un regime in North Korea is unreliable. We are both looking for an off-ramp so we don't need to use a military option.

China has the capacity to turn the pressure on North Korea through sanctions that could change the equation in North Korea. China and North Korea have a common agenda. Both want to preserve the regime of Kim Jong Un--Kim Jong Un for obvious reasons; China, because they do not want to see a unified Korean Peninsula under Western influence.

Our objective is for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons. China needs to be convinced that our objective is the same as theirs. With that, they could instill greater pressure on North Korea, and diplomacy could work.

What should be our objective? We have to be realistic. In the short term, it should be containment. Freeze the current program. Stop the testing. Make it clear that we cannot allow these programs to continue. Ultimately, we want to see a nonnuclear Korean Peninsula.

We know that in the past--the 1994 framework agreement with North Korea lasted for 8 years. So there is an ability to make progress, but we have to develop confidence between the parties.

In conjunction with this, let me urge us not to lose sight of the North Korean people. Let's continue our focus on the human rights problems in the country. Let's work with our allies, particularly Japan and the Republic of Korea, and let's rigorously enforce the sanctions until progress is made.

We can achieve an alternative outcome in North Korea, but it requires U.S. leadership, and President Trump needs to engage on that issue. We need confidence building, and we need to make sure that we make progress. Time is not on our side, but there is still time to make progress. Without a diplomatic surge, there are only unacceptable options. Our goal should be a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous northeast Asia community.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to address the latest mass shooting in our country. This one took place last week in my own State of Maryland, in the city of Edgewood, in Harford County, which is northeast of Baltimore.

In this case, the suspect gathered coworkers at his place of business, Advanced Granite Solutions, and began shooting. He killed three coworkers

and critically wounded two others who remain in critical condition at the Maryland Shock Trauma Center. The suspect then fled to Delaware.

According to an article in the Baltimore Sun, he shot an acquaintance in the head at a car dealership. The victim was in stable condition and later identified his attacker to police. The suspect was finally arrested after a brief foot chase, and police said the suspect threw a gun at them after spotting law enforcement approaching.

This terrible shooting in Maryland came a few weeks after the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history, which occurred in Las Vegas, NV, on October 1. This mass shooting from a hotel room targeting concertgoers at an outdoor music festival left 58 dead and more than 500 people wounded, with dozens of victims still in the hospital today, some of whom are in critical condition. These are just staggering numbers. But I want to put a human face on this for my colleagues and talk about one Marylander who was injured in the Las Vegas attack.

The Baltimore Sun shared the story of Tina Frost. Tina is a native of Crofton in Anne Arundel County, MD. She is a 2008 graduate of Arundel High School in Gambrills. She was a star soccer player in school, and she now lives in California and works at the accounting firm of Ernst and Young.

The story begins:

Before a bullet from 32 stories above cut through her face,

Crofton native Tina Frost drove from San Diego with her

boyfriend to see one of her favorite country artists in Las

Vegas. . . . Becky Frost said her 27-year-old sister had lost

her right eye and was in a Las Vegas intensive care unit

after a two-hour surgery. [She] said her bubbly and

charismatic older sister was in a coma that the family

expected to last about a week. Another sister wrote on

Facebook that the family was waiting to see the extent of the

brain damage. ``We're sticking together and praying,'' Becky

Frost said.

Tina Frost did wake up from the coma and was recently transferred to Maryland for additional surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. According to family members, she underwent a second successful surgery last week. The family's website update said: ``We are thankful Tina is still being a true fighter and warrior!''

Today, I want Tina and the entire Frost family to know that they are in our thoughts and prayers. I understand that their community has already been raising funds to help defray Tina's medical expenses for her recovery.

This is just one example of hundreds who were victimized in Las Vegas. I am just heartbroken by the terror in Las Vegas. With the entire country, I am grieving for the senseless loss of life and praying for the victims, their families, and all those who were injured like Tina Frost, whether by gunshots or the chaos that ensued.

Much thanks also goes to the first responders, including our police, fire, ambulance, and emergency medical workers, who saved countless lives by helping those around them and running toward danger instead of running away from it.

Thoughts and prayers console victims and their families, but actions speak much louder. We must be outraged at this latest shooting, and we must act. Congress must act. States must act. Weapons of war should not be in the hands of civilians. We see the deadly results in Las Vegas just as we have seen before in Orlando, Blacksburg, San Bernardino, Aurora, Sandy Hook, the streets of Baltimore, and elsewhere across this great country. We need to do everything in our power to stop the carnage of these shootings. How high does the death toll have to get before we enact real, bipartisan reforms that will make the American public safer and reduce the risks that come from allowing such easy access to dangerous weapons primarily designed for the battlefield? Assault weapons are not needed to hunt deer or ducks; they are only meant to kill people, and they do far too often in this country.

I urge my colleagues to be bold and fight to break the cycle of what could only be described as a callous disregard for the victims of gun violence. More talk will not save lives; only action and real change and Federal and State laws can.

This attack and others like it in recent years tear at the heart and leave us angry, frustrated, and confused. We as a nation must resolve to stop those who wish to do harm to Americans from committing, encouraging, and abetting acts of terror. We as a nation, as a community, and as an American family must take action to change minds, hearts, and finally change policies. We can stop others and save lives by taking immediate action.

I was disappointed that Congress missed yet another opportunity to enact commonsense, reasonable gun safety measures after the June 2016 shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, FL, which killed 49 people and injured 53 others. The mass shooting in Las Vegas has now sadly surpassed those numbers.

In the Las Vegas massacre, Stephen Paddock used a bump fire stock device, which allowed a semiautomatic rifle to fire at a rate similar to that of a fully automatic weapon--a rate of about nine bullets a second. Fully automatic weapons are generally illegal under current law. Paddock also stockpiled a virtual arsenal in his hotel room, as police found 23 firearms in the room. Police also found a large quantity of ammunition, including numerous high-capacity magazines capable of holding up to 100 rounds apiece.

The preliminary assessment--with the understanding that the investigation is still ongoing--from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is that the shooter legally purchased all these guns, bump stocks, and ammunition. It is outrageous that a mass shooter was legally able to purchase a device designed to convert his gun into a military-style weapon with no legitimate civilian use. It is outrageous that a mass shooter was legally able to purchase high- capacity magazine clips with no legitimate civilian use. These are weapons of war. You don't need them for hunting, and you don't need them for self-defense.

Earlier this month, I convened a roundtable meeting with law enforcement officials at the First Baptist Church of Highland Park in Prince George's County, MD. The group included officials from the local, State, and Federal levels, including the sheriff, police chief of Prince George's County, State delegates, the State attorney general of Maryland, and representatives of the U.S. attorney's office.

Maryland has progressive laws on gun safety and has taken steps to ban weapons of war and high-capacity magazines that have no legitimate civil purpose. The group echoed the concern to me that if Maryland has strict laws relating to gun safety that protect both the public and police officers, what is to stop someone from driving over the border to one of our neighboring States in order to procure guns? That is why we need a strong national law to protect all Americans, and Congress should act on commonsense gun safety measures.

What can we do in Congress? I have cosponsored the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act, which Senator Feinstein introduced. In the Las Vegas shooting, the gunman was able to unleash hundreds of rounds of gunfire on the crowd, likely by using the bump stock device.

Fully automatic guns or machine guns are already banned for civilian use under the National Firearms Act, but a loophole exists that allows for these bump stock devices, as well as similar accessories, to convert semiautomatic weapons to emulate automatic weapons. Senator Feinstein's legislation would close the loophole in current law that allows conversion devices and accessories to be available to the public. The bill bans the sale, transfer, importation, manufacturing, or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks, or anything that accelerates a semiautomatic rifle's rate of fire. Semiautomatic rifles typically have a rate of fire of 45 to 60 rounds per minute; a bump stock could increase the semiautomatic rifle rate of fire to 700 rounds per minute or 9 per second.

I have also cosponsored the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, also known as the Keeping Americans Safe Act, introduced by Senator Menendez. It prohibits the possession or transfer of large- capacity ammunition magazines--more than 10 rounds per magazine--with limited exceptions for law enforcement personnel. Senator Menendez's bill authorizes a buyback program for high-capacity magazines using Byrne JAG grants.

To me, these two bills represent a practical, commonsense approach to

promoting gun safety and reducing the threat of gun violence without impinging on the rights of legitimate owners.

As NBC News recently reported, more Americans have died from gunshots in the last 50 years than in all the wars in America's history. Since 1968, more than 1.5 million Americans have died in gun-related incidents, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I have also cosponsored the Background Check Expansion Act, introduced by Senator Murphy. This bill would expand Federal background checks to cover the sale and transfer of all firearms by private sellers, just as licensed dealers are required to do so under the existing Brady law, with certain limited exceptions.

Under current law, unlicensed or private sellers are not required to conduct a background check prior to transferring a firearm. This is outrageous, and Congress should act right now to close this dangerous loophole. It should not matter whether you buy a gun at a local gun store or a gun show or the internet--you should have to pass a basic background check to make sure the guns are kept out of the hands of people who should never have one.

Congress has an obligation to act. As I have indicated before, we need to act. Inaction is not an option. Many of our States have acted as well, including my own State of Maryland, but we need a national law that applies to all 50 States to ban bump stocks, prohibit the sale or transfer of high-capacity magazine clips, eliminate the private ownership of assault-type weapons, and require universal background checks for all purchasers.

The time for action is now. We cannot wait. Congress should come together and address the real problem, which is lax gun safety laws, and should pass commonsense gun safety measures to protect all Americans. Let's not wait for the next mass shooting, when we send our thoughts and prayers to victims and then stand by and pretend we are helpless and powerless to prevent another tragedy. Let's take action now.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on an issue that I consider one of the greatest moral tests of our time in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy--the situation in Burma, where the Burmese military is committing ethnic cleansing and is perpetrating atrocities.

We have a humanitarian crisis. We have perpetrators who expect impunity and a situation, under the watch of the international community and the Trump administration, that is allowing for the perpetration of atrocities.

Ethnic cleansing is defined by the United Nations Commission of Experts as ``rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from an area.'' Half of the population of the Rohingya in Burma have left--600,000 people out of 1.2 million. I might add that, of those who remain, many are dislocated. There has been a systematic burning of their villages. This didn't just start. It has been a campaign that has gone on for a long period of time, since a 1982 law that denies the Rohingya citizenship, even though they have been residents for generations.

The Rohingya are denied freedom of movement. They are denied freedom of education. They are denied healthcare. This has been a systematic effort to destroy an ethnic community.

We have seen this happen far too long in too many places around the world. Once again, we see this happening today in Burma. Once again, this is the expectation: Well, it is far away; we will just let it go along.

The Senate should be outraged about what is happening. We need to see the international community come together and say: No, we will not let this continue. We will hold accountable those who are responsible for these actions, we will provide humanitarian need immediately, and we will stop this type of conduct in a civilized society. This just cannot occur.

In fact, I think what is transpiring in the Rakhine State today is genocide. I know there will be some discussion about whether it is genocide or not based upon technical definitions. Yet what we see in Burma today clearly meets the definition of ``deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.'' That is what is happening in Burma, and that is genocide.

The Burmese military is clearly trying to destroy the Rohingya population. For decades, the Burmese Government has systemically repressed the Rohingya people. This is a fact, and they have deliberately failed to integrate the population into the general population. As the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights correctly stated, the ``decades of persistent and systematic human rights violations . . . have almost certainly contribute[d] to the nurturing of violent extremism, with everyone ultimately losing.'' They complain about extremism. Yet they are creating it.

In my opinion, we are witnessing a military-sponsored ethnic cleansing campaign on the Rohingya, and it will take significant engagement from the international community, at the highest levels and in partnership with the Burmese civilian government, to address and to hold the perpetrators accountable for these horrific acts.

Seventy-five years ago, the world and the United States could have claimed ignorance or lack of information as an excuse for inaction in the face of crimes against humanity, genocide, and barbarism. Today, we have no excuse.

Unfortunately, the Rohingya crisis is not the only vexing challenge Burma faces. The Burmese military continues to hold significant influence in politics and in the economy. The peace process, which sought to end a longstanding civil war in the country, has stalled. There are significant reports of human rights issues such as human trafficking, free speech infringement, and political repression. The military control Burma today. That is unacceptable, and that is why we imposed sanctions, because of military control. Sanction relief was given for what? So that people could be ethnically cleansed?

I was pleased to hear State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi committed to implementing all of Kofi Annan's Rakhine State recommendations and to ensure that the Rohingya, who have fled in the face of brutal military repression, have a right to return to their homes. However, she must continue to make this a top priority and work with the international community to provide both the safety of the Rohingya left in Burma and those who want to come home. It is going to be difficult since their villages have been destroyed. Are they going to live in camps? Will they have protection? Will they be safe? If the past is any indication, we have real challenges ahead of us.

Although I would count myself among those who have been disappointed with the civilian authorities and think they should have been more vocal, I am keenly aware of the real limits of their power and ability to

govern under the current Burmese Constitution and the military's control of a large portion of Burma's economy.

We have a challenge on our hands in Burma, and we need to be engaged. But the civilian leadership must take responsibility and must speak out. Too often, the international community has done too little, waited too long, or been caught unprepared by events that should not have surprised us. We continue to forget the lessons of the past and fail to live up to the post-Holocaust pledge of ``never again.'' Ignoring the genocide war crimes and crimes against humanity that continue to rage around the world sends a message to the global community that atrocity crimes are tolerable. We must respond robustly to the crisis unfolding in Burma because it is the right thing to do and because it is in our national interest to do so.

The United Nations is calling the military campaign ``a textbook example of ethnic cleansing'' against Rohingya Muslims. From credible human rights organizations and newspapers, there are consistent accounts of widespread extrajudicial killings, arson, rape, and other atrocities. At least 288 villages have been decimated, according to Human Rights Watch, which has used satellite imagery as evidence of the devastation caused by the so-called ``clearance operations.''

These current attacks on the Rohingya follow decades of state-led persecution and dehumanization. Government efforts to deny Rohingya citizenship rights, to restrict their freedom of movement and the practice of their faith, and to deny their basic human rights have all been identified as precursors to a genocide.

The U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights found that the attacks were executed in a well-organized, coordinated, and systematic manner by the Myanmar Security Forces, often supported by the armed Rakhine Buddhists. They have described the attacks as a ``cynical ploy to forcibly transfer large numbers of people without possibility of return.''

There were also appalling acts of sexual violence, which clearly amount to crimes against humanity and/or acts of genocide that must not be forgotten. Women and girls, some as young as 5, were raped by men in uniform in front of their families. U.N. and other health workers said that after this most recent August 2017 military crackdown, they treated dozens of Rohingya women and girls who escaped to Bangladesh for injuries consistent with violent sexual attacks.

One woman told Human Rights Watch that she and four other women were taken to a hut, slashed with knives, and sexually assaulted. The soldiers then set the hut on fire. She was the only one to escape alive. Another woman who was raped still has injuries from the machete attack and beatings that accompanied the rape and said she barely managed to escape from a burning house.

I also want to draw attention to the needs of the survivors, their families, and communities. There is an acute lack of healthcare available to the survivors, including reproductive health, psychosocial, and other critical services.

Seventy-five years ago, the world--and the United States--could have said they did not know what is happening. Today we do. Today we have no excuse. Instead, the international community must hold the perpetrators accountable. In addition, to date, no real progress has been made either holding perpetrators of serious violations accountable or in addressing the root causes underlying the situation in Burma. Therefore, there is an urgent need to act.

The strong statements by Ambassador Haley and last month by the Vice President must be followed up with action. The administration should lead efforts for action in the Security Council. The Security Council should insist that persons responsible for grave abuses be held accountable for their crimes. It also should press the Burmese authority to cooperate with the U.N. factfinding mission established by the United Nations Human Rights Council and grant unfettered access to its staff to Burma, including the Rakhine State.

We need to know what is happening on the ground. We need to know that in order to protect people and to get the evidence necessary to hold the perpetrators accountable. The Council should send a clear message that it stands ready to take additional steps to ensure justice, including through the International Criminal Court, and urge member states to pursue other mechanisms that might provide justice for recent abuses.

I should also add that Bangladesh deserves credit for keeping its borders open to the influx of refugees--600,000 have fled to Bangladesh, and they kept their borders open. Bangladesh has been one of the few bright spots in the current crisis and should continue to honor its promise to build shelters for new arrivals, accelerate humanitarian assistance, and provide the needed medical service for this traumatized group.

I also believe the United States needs to reevaluate our policy and approach to Burma. We need to have a policy in regard to Burma that we understand, that addresses these human rights violations, that reevaluates our approach for our relationship with the Burmese military, and that relooks at how to best use sanctions as a way to seek additional leverage with the Burmese Government and military.

I am working with a number of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, on legislation to seek to clarify U.S. policy and to address some of these issues.

As the President prepares for his upcoming trip to the ASEAN Summit in the region, Congress will be watching closely to see if he makes Burma and human rights a top priority during this trip and to see what he and his administration choose to undertake in the coming days to address the tragedy unfolding in Rakhine State.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It allows a point of order to be raised if the tax reform reported back to the floor by the committee increases the deficit. It is as simple as that. Do you believe we should act on tax reform that increases the deficit? If you agree with me that we should not be increasing the deficit with the tax reform reported back from the committee, then vote for this amendment or, if necessary, vote for waiving the point of order that may be raised.

I urge my colleagues, if you are serious about the deficit, we shouldn't be passing legislation that increases it.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, what the chairman is saying is, basically, the process will be used in order to add to the deficit. Therefore, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305(b) of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, we are now debating the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018. The main reason this budget resolution is before us is to allow for floor consideration of tax reform. So I want to talk a little bit about what I hope will be our guiding principles on the way we would proceed on tax reform, because tax reform is needed in this country.

Our Tax Code is overly complex. There are significant problems, particularly as we harmonize with the international community. There are things we need to do in our Tax Code to make it a fairer tax code, to make it a simpler tax code, to raise the revenues we need to make sure we don't have deficits.

There are things we need to do. I hope that we will have three guiding principles, and I will talk about these three and how the budget resolution that came out of committee would violate each of these principles and why I cannot support it as it has been presented by the committee.

First, we should have an open process on tax reform. The last time we did comprehensive tax reform, in 1986, it took well over a year for us to be able to complete the work. We had numerous committee hearings. We had a lot of public input because, when you change the Tax Code, it has lots of different effects, some of which are not apparent. There are a lot of tradeoffs, and we need to do this in an open manner.

It is also important that we have a bipartisan product because we want the Tax Code to remain intact so people can plan. We don't want to see a Tax Code pass in one Congress only to be radically changed in the next Congress. That only happens when you have a bipartisan agreement where Democrats and Republicans are working together in order to bring about a consensus change in our Tax Code. It doesn't work if it becomes a partisan process.

The budget resolution that has been presented on the floor by the Budget Committee fails on this first guiding principle. It is not a process that will lead to a bipartisan result. It is one that is a partisan process. Reconciliation, by definition, becomes a partisan process when a budget resolution is passed along party-line votes.

Secondly, under reconciliation and the rules of the Senate, you cannot enact permanent tax changes because it would create deficits outside of the budget window. For that reason, if we want permanency in our Tax Code, let's use regular order, where we bring the bills up in our committees, we bring them to the floor, we offer amendments without restriction, and, at the end of the day, we can pass permanent changes to our Tax Code that are in the best interest of the taxpayers of this country. Once again, on the first principle of an open, fair process, the budget resolution presented by the committee fails.

The second principle, which I would argue that all of us should agree upon, is that we don't want to finance the tax changes through debt, that it would be wrong for us to do debt financing of tax relief because that only adds to our national debt and deficit. It affects our economic growth. It really presents, I think, a moral issue: Do we really want our children and grandchildren to pay for what we spend today? The budget resolution presented by the committee fails on this second guiding principle.

By its own instructions, it allows for a $1.5 trillion increase in the national debt by the tax changes that are presented. There is no pretense here. It says that we will allow for a $1.5 trillion increase in the deficit.

To make matters worse, there is a provision that was put in the budget resolution that allows the budget chairman to bring the bill to the floor without getting the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Taxation Committee score. In other words, we will be allowed to vote on a bill that may increase the deficit well beyond $1.5 trillion without having the objective scoring by those who are responsible to let us know what impact it has on the deficit. Instead, we will get a partisan evaluation by the chairman of the committee rather than one that is produced by the professionals who are charged with reviewing what we do.

Now, to make matters even more problematic on the deficit, the guiding principle we have here on what the committees are looking at is what was

presented by the so-called Big 6; that is, the Republican fiscal leadership of the Senate, the Republican fiscal leadership of the House, along with the fiscal advisers to the President. They have come in with an outline that doesn't add up to $1.5 trillion. It adds up to a much greater deficit number than $1.5 trillion. So we are starting with deficits well in excess of $1.5 trillion with a process where we may be asked to vote without knowing the impact on the deficit, but we do know it will add to the deficit. That fails the test that we all felt that we shouldn't be taking action on the floor on tax reform to increase the deficit.

The third guiding principle should be that we want to be fair. We want to be fair to the taxpayers of this country. The truth is that middle-income taxpayers are already overburdened. We know that. We know that it is tough. It is tough to make ends meet. So we certainly don't want to pass a tax bill that will increase the burdens to middle-income taxpayers. I would think that we all would agree on that particular point. When you look at the budget resolution that has been presented by the committee, it fails on that test.

It eliminates the estate tax--hundreds of billions of dollars of costs financed by middle-income taxpayers to the 0.2 percent of the wealthiest individuals in this country. It fails in eliminating the alternative minimum tax, which is a way that we, at least, capture a minimum tax from very, very high-income taxpayers. That is eliminated both on the individual side and on the corporate side. There are tax cuts, breaks, and reduction of rates for the wealthiest taxpayers in this country. How is that all offset? Well, some of it is not offset, but to the extent that we know that it is offset, the budget resolution would allow for cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Let me repeat that. We are going to cut Medicare by almost $500 billion in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country and we call that a fair tax bill? We are going to cut the Medicaid Program by a trillion dollars? We just went through that debate on the floor of the Senate on the changes in the healthcare system where we had significant cuts to the Medicaid system, and we saw the public reaction and rightly so because, when you cut Medicaid, you are cutting the lifeline from many families in this country--hard-working families who may have a child who was born with a difficult medical condition but they know they at least have the protection under our system. Those are the families who are at risk. Why are we doing it? To give tax cuts to 0.2 percent of Americans by eliminating the estate tax? The budget resolution that has come out of the Budget Committee fails on the third test of fairness. So whether it is failing on process or increasing the deficit or not being fair to middle-income families, this budget resolution should be rejected.

Now, I saw where, as to the Big 6--I referred to them before--we have their outline. It is a broad outline. I acknowledge that. It is heavy on promises on tax cuts, and it is very light on how they are going to finance it. So some of us can start filling in the blanks as to who are going to be targets for losing important provisions in our Tax Code, but in a couple of cases, we don't have to guess because the outline specifically calls for it. One is the loss of deduction on the State and local taxes that we pay. To me, this is a direct attack on federalism. It is the same taxpayer who pays State and local taxes who pays Federal taxes, and now we are going to tell those taxpayers that they are going to have to pay taxes on taxes. That makes absolutely no sense. It is a direct attack on federalism. The work that our States and local governments do to provide services to taxpayers in this country should have the exact same respect as what we do at the Federal level of government.

We can only surmise that this might not be the last attack on federalism, that there could well be an attack on the way State and local governments finance their capital programs because that has been on lists before and there are big gaps as to how they are going to even reach a $1.5 trillion deficit target. That would concern us because State and local governments have already been hit by restrictions at the national level as to how they can borrow money.

Another area that we don't really have to guess about is the impact it is going to have on the real estate market. We know that the trigger to the 2009 recession started in the housing markets. Yet in this proposal that is likely to be done, if you eliminate State and local taxes, you are eliminating the deductibility of the property taxes. If you eliminate the deductibility of property taxes, you are affecting the value of homes here in America. The largest, single asset for many families could be very well jeopardized.

Then there is talk--the outline says we are going to take a look at all of the standard deductions; it doesn't give a lot of protection out there--of whether we will be looking at mortgage interest deductions and compromising that. Will these deductions be as valuable as they are under the current Tax Code? That is one of the reasons I said a process is important because, if you reduce the value of a deduction, you reduce its worth and you reduce the value of real estate.

I have been working for many years to improve retirement security. I am very proud to have worked with Senator Portman on these issues. We have done a lot of good things to make it easier for people to save for their retirement. Yet we don't know exactly how the proposal under this budget resolution will affect retirement security, but we do know that there have been discussions about the ``Rothization'' of a 401(k). What does that mean? It means that today if you contribute to a 401(k) plan, you don't have to pay current taxes on your contributions. You pay the taxes when you take your money out after retirement. If ``Rothization'' is mandated, it would mean that you would no longer have the ability to defer taxes on the contributions you make, as you can today on a 401(k). If that is mandated, it will affect people's ability to save for their retirement and very much affect retirement security in this country. Here is the rub. It doesn't raise any revenue. It is just the timing of revenue. By collecting the revenue today, we lose it tomorrow. It actually builds in a larger deficit in the out years. It is actually contrary to good budgeting from the point of view of preserving us from going further into debt.

We don't know if that is going to come out of the committee, but it certainly could come out of the committee in order to meet the instructions that have been recommended by the Budget Committee.

I could use the same arguments about how we could jeopardize the new market tax credits, which are very important for economic development; the historic tax credits, on which I have worked with many Members here and which affect economic growth; the work opportunity tax credit, which affects hiring people who have challenges in the workforce; and the low-income housing tax credit, which gives us affordable housing. All of those tax credits could lose value or could be eliminated under the outline we have before us.

So I hope we adopt some amendments. I hope we take a different course, but there will be amendments, I hope, that will be offered to eliminate the use of reconciliation for a tax plan so we can truly have a bipartisan tax bill that can stand the test of time--that we demand that we have the scoring before we vote on it so we know what we are doing, that we will not deficit-finance tax changes, and that we don't jeopardize the State and local tax deduction or the mortgage interest deduction or the retirement security savings that we have today or the various tax credits. I hope we will all clarify that together. I hope that we can get some of that done during the amendment process.

Let me make this clear. There is a better way. There is a better way. Let's give up use of this partisan process and start from the beginning on a bipartisan process that recognizes that we need tax reform, we need to do this, but let's do this in a bipartisan manner, let's know what we are doing, let's be fair to middle-income taxpayers, and let's do it in a way that will not increase the size of the deficit and will stand the test of time and where we can give permanent reform to our Tax Code. That is what we should be doing, and I regret that we are heading down a path that will make that impossible.

I yield the floor.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

Do you believe an open process is starting at maybe 2 o'clock tomorrow morning when no one is listening and that having 1 minute of time to debate an amendment is an open process?