Floor Statements

Mr. President, I honor today the life and sacrifice of one soldier in particular, U.S. Marine Corps LCpl Taylor Conrad, who was 24 years old and was a Central Louisianan.

Our military men and women deserve recognition. They sacrifice time away from family and friends and put themselves in harm's way to advance our country's interests. Every day, they risk their lives to secure our safety. In the case of Taylor Conrad, along with three of his fellow marines, he tragically lost his life last week when their helicopter crashed during a training mission in California.

A Louisiana native and Central High School graduate, Taylor exemplified the qualities of a good marine. He was tough, compassionate, and wanted to help others. In high school, Taylor played football and was an accomplished powerlifter. He also volunteered in the Best Buddies program, which matches students with schoolmates in the special ed program.

A teacher said:

The one thing that made Taylor such a special friend with

our kids is he didn't approach them in a way that he felt

sorry for them. He approached them in a way where he truly

wanted to be their friend.

The school's athletic director said Taylor's ``love for those who need the most is something I'll never forget.'' There was one child who would never speak except, with Taylor, he would laugh. That was the effect Taylor had on others.

After school, Taylor decided to serve our country by joining the Marines. He went on to become a CH-53 helicopter crew chief in the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing's Heavy Helicopter Squadron 465. One marine who served with Taylor had this to say of him:

He was the gold standard. He pushed everybody and he cared

about everybody. I wouldn't be the Marine I am now if it

wasn't for him.

Our hearts go out to everyone whose life was touched by Taylor. We especially pray for his family, including his daughter, who was born just last October. Their loss is great, and their hearts are heavy. I want them to know that Louisiana and our entire country mourn with them because our loss is great too. When they lost a brother, a son, and a dad, we lost a good man, a great marine, and a fellow American.

Thank you.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I wish to speak about some issues relating to the spending bill and things that happened in Louisiana.

Louisiana had two catastrophic floods in 2016 that affected not just our State but also Texas and Mississippi, with over 100,000 disaster victims who became eligible for SBA--Small Business Administration-- disaster assistance loans.

Here is one picture. Oh my gosh. Here is the window. The water is as high inside the patio area as outside, and the woman has a face of despair.

Here is another picture, which shows a family being evacuated in a boat. Obviously, it is a neighborhood with stop signs and nice trees and streetlights, and they are being evacuated. We can imagine what their family home looked like.

Fifty-six of Louisiana's sixty-four parishes had Federal disaster declarations. The August storm alone caused an estimated $10 billion in damage to private property, which, apart from hurricanes, made it the most expensive U.S. disaster in the last 100 years.

The most devastating thing was how little time people had to react. The storm was missing key cyclone characteristics, so the National Hurricane Center had no expectation of how devastating the storm would be, and the first parishes hit by the flooding had no time to evacuate or prepare.

Many families who were impacted by the great floods of 2016 in Louisiana lived outside what are called special flood hazard zones and were not required to and did not carry flood insurance. Indeed, about 80 percent of flooded homes did not have flood insurance.

Last year, I worked with the Louisiana delegation to obtain about $2 billion in community development block grants to help cover portions of those uninsured losses for Louisiana families and small businesses. We also got about $500 million in disaster tax relief to help with the uncompensated disaster losses. But with CDBG--community development block grant--funding, which is distributed through the Restore Louisiana Homeowner Assistance Program, it is arcane--there is something which is an arcane and arbitrary rule called duplication of benefits. The duplication of benefits rule states that if an individual is eligible for and received a loan from the Small Business Administration, that individual is ineligible for a grant from the Restore Louisiana Homeowner Assistance Program. The rule makes no sense. An individual who did the right thing and drew upon all available resources to rebuild their home and begin to put their life back together is denied relief.

Language that fixed this issue was included in the disaster supplemental passed by the House last year. The Senate was prepared to consider this in December, but the legislation was delayed--frankly, held hostage--by the minority party using it to gain leverage to get more government spending as part of the budget negotiations we are now in.

Now that this disaster supplemental has been rolled into the budget negotiations, we saw that the provision to fix the duplication of benefits issue was added, but it only covered Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico. So I worked with my fellow Louisiana Senator, Mr. Kennedy, and members of the Appropriations Committee to make sure Louisiana is treated the same as Texas and other States. Now this provision applies to individuals who were eligible to receive an SBA loan but did not take out a loan. What does this mean?

According to the SBA, 100,000 homeowners were eligible to apply for an SBA loan from the March and August 2016 floods; 38,000 applications were received, and 18,000 were approved.

As I am told, if you are eligible but don't take out the loan, you don't qualify for the Restore Louisiana grant. Again, I am told that if you are eligible but did not take the loan from the SBA, then you are not eligible then to receive the Restore Louisiana grant because of the duplication of benefits rule. There are roughly 82,000 homeowners who could potentially be eligible to receive relief from repealing or altering this duplication of benefits rule.

Now, there is some confusion in my State. I want to be clear. This does apply to the $2 billion CDBG grants the Louisiana delegation secured to help families recover from the 2016 floods in Louisiana.

Senator Kennedy and I also helped secure additional Army Corps resources to fully fund the Comite River Diversion, a diversion that takes floodwaters from the Comite River into the Mississippi and would have helped prevent many homes from being flooded--probably the homes these folks are being evacuated from--in the great flood of 2016.

We also secured $12 billion in mitigation grants specifically for Louisiana and about five other States, which is much more targeted for disaster States than the House bill. Again, the Senate bill is the same number of dollars but for fewer States, therefore, more targeted than in the House bill.

So the disaster relief portion of this legislation has taken some steps in the right direction. However, we still need additional clarification around duplication of benefits issues and legacy FEMA appeals matters.

I thank my Senate colleague from Louisiana for his work on this and hope to receive further commitments from the Appropriations Committee to continue to work on these important disaster recovery issues.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, as we vote this evening on the Pain- Capable Child Protection Act, I speak to the bill as a doctor who practiced in a hospital for the uninsured for decades. I mention working in a hospital for the uninsured because the uninsured are vulnerable, but if the uninsured are vulnerable, among those, the uninsured pregnant woman is particularly vulnerable. If we are to say she is particularly vulnerable, then we can say her unborn child is most vulnerable of all. So I speak to these folks with that background.

Our country has struggled to find a balance between those of us who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. As a pro-life doctor, I think the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act strikes a balance. Again, as a physician, let me say it is an obligation--our society's obligation--to care for the woman who is pregnant. Again, she is among the most vulnerable. Her child is the future of our society.

We all agree to this. You can see we agree because our social programs provide a safety net both for her and her unborn child. Example: Society pays for well-baby visits through Medicaid or through special programs for women if they are uninsured. If that child is born healthy, then he or she is more likely to be a healthy person, to contribute to society, to have life, liberty, and be able to pursue happiness.

Those of us who are pro-life and pro-choice can differ when the child within the womb deserves protection as a distinct human, but society has agreed at some point that protection is allowed. Again, I am pro- life. I think the protection should be when the child is conceived, but right now the law is divided.

If a pregnant woman and her child were killed by a reckless driver, there are two counts of manslaughter filed against that reckless driver--one way society acknowledges the life within the womb.

On one hand, let's be clear, a woman has the right to terminate that pregnancy at another point in the pregnancy. On the other hand, partial-birth abortion says that child's life cannot be terminated when she is coming through the birth canal. I think the rationale for this is that as a child comes through the birth canal, we recognize that child can live independently, if allowed to proceed. If you will, the criteria is: Does the child have the ability to live independently from the mother? Again, I think that is the rationale for the partial-birth abortion ban.

As it turns out, a child who is 5 months old within the womb has the ability to live independently. Again, I speak as a physician. When you see a baby in the womb at 5 months, it is incredible.

A friend of mine who works for me--actually, he and his wife are expecting now, and they are excited. They went and got the ultrasound, and they saw the child sucking on his thumb or her thumb--they don't know or they don't want to know. Nonetheless, it is marvelous what they see inside--the child. You can see him yawning, stretching. At 18 weeks, you can find out if it is a boy or a girl--and, thanks to modern medicine and the amazing neonatal intensive care doctors and nurses we have in this country, babies delivered as early as 20 to 22 weeks can survive and live healthy lives, perhaps one day to become the Presiding Officer in the Senate of the United States.

In recent years, medical research has shown that unborn children can feel pain as early as 20 weeks after they are conceived. As a doctor, I have to look at the scientific evidence we have when it comes to the beginning of life. At 20 weeks, studies have provided strong evidence that babies can feel pain despite the fact that the nerve connections between the different parts of the brain are still developing. That is why fetal anesthesia is routinely administered when unborn children require surgery in the womb.

By the way, doctors know this. I just got a letter from the Louisiana Academy of Family Physicians. One of their folks, Dr. Gravois, called me last night. Here is a statement from their letter:

Representing more than 1,900 physicians, including active

practicing physicians, residents in training and medical

student members, as well as the patients in Louisiana, the

Louisiana Academy of Family physicians

is the voice of family medicine in Louisiana. As advocates

for our patients, in August of 2015, the LAFP Congress of

Delegates passed the following resolution on Late Term

Abortions:

Resolved, that the LAFP is against performing elective

abortions 20 weeks and after, and further be it Resolved . .

. .

It goes on, but that is the take-home point. Family physicians take care of both the mother and her child, the totality of it.

By the way, I will say this bill includes explicit--explicit-- exceptions when a mother's life is at risk or in cases of rape and incest, again, attempting to strike society's balance between those of us who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice.

Versions of this law have already been passed in 20 States, including my State of Louisiana, but all babies who feel pain deserve the same protection. Most Americans agree, even some who believe abortion should be legal. Polls show that majorities of women, Independents, and Democrats support this protection. So I hope my colleagues will join in supporting this commonsense, humane legislation.

It is estimated this bill will protect 12,000 to 18,000 babies per year. Protecting unborn babies who can feel pain is the right thing to do. Protecting their right to life is the right thing to do.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, Republicans just passed the largest tax reform package in 30-something years, and middle America will go home in February with bigger paychecks than they did--I say in February because it will not take that long for the IRS to update their software. They will go home with more money in their pockets.

If there has been a theme in the Trump administration, it is that they want those working Americans, those middle-class Americans, to do better under this President than they did in the previous 8 years. That tax reform package is part of that, and I am amazed that my Democratic colleagues objected to it. They objected to middle-class Americans having more money in their pockets, in their take-home pay, for no other reason, I think, than to resist President Trump.

Mr. President, I would like to comment on the positive aspects of the bill we are about to vote on.

The most positive thing I can say about this is that working families and middle-income families across the Nation will be better off. Families who over the last 8 years have not done well will begin to do better.

Now, we have already discussed some of the things that others have discussed. Let me just comment briefly:

We have doubled the standard deduction to make filing of income taxes simpler. For most Americans, that will be a tax cut by doubling that standard deduction.

We have provisions in there to stimulate the economy, to create competition for workers so workers will now have a choice of one job or another. When that happens, of course, their wages rise, and their benefits get better.

We incentivize companies that are, right now, moving overseas-- because the taxes are so much lower elsewhere--to stay in the United States, to create American jobs, and to pay more American taxes.

Those are all good things my colleagues have discussed. Let me discuss some other ways perhaps that this bill benefits working families and middle-class families.

I am from an energy State. Louisiana produces so much oil and gas. The thing about energy jobs is it creates jobs for good families. They may not have a college education, but they are good people. They care about their children. In these jobs, they can earn over $100,000 a year in certain aspects of it, and they employ Americans in a way that Americans have kind of forgotten that it can be that way.

It is meaningful to me. We were in Illinois when I was born. My family moved to Louisiana because someone called my father and said: You know, Jim, if you move to Louisiana, you can sell to the people working at Esso, and you can make a good living.

So even though my father didn't work in the energy industry, he was one of those who benefited and made a living, which allowed me to go to medical school. I was the first generation in our family to go to college and go to medical school, and now I am a U.S. Senator. What an incredible privilege, all created by energy jobs.

One thing this bill does is it opens up a little more of Alaska for energy development--2,000 acres. One of my colleagues said smaller than the airport in Fargo, ND. I have never been there, but 2,000 acres is not a whole lot of land, But on those 2,000 acres, there is a lot of oil beneath.

Why is that important? We as a country can make a decision to be energy secure or not. If we are going to be energy secure, it means we are going to produce our own energy. This is not to rule out renewables, but for the moment we are going to continue as a country to consume natural gas and oil. We can buy it from countries such as in the Middle East where environmental standards are not as strict as ours, but when we do that, not only are we sending our jobs and revenue overseas, but we are also, in effect, endorsing their lower environmental standards, and that overall pollutes the environment.

On the other hand, if we buy from ourselves--using American workers, creating American jobs, using American environmental standards--not only do we get the benefits to the family and the benefits to the environment, but we have the national security benefit of being able to be energy secure.

Now, this is powerful. I first became aware of it, I think, in middle or maybe elementary school. I went to St. Luke's Episcopal Church. There was a guy there named Thor. What a great name, Thor. Thor told me his father was a pipefitter and was at that moment in Alaska working on the Alaska Pipeline. That was 40 years ago, so maybe my memory is a little fuzzy on everything but Thor's name. The point is, a fellow from Louisiana was going to Alaska, making great money, being able to provide for his family back home. That is a good thing.

As we develop our energy resources on the North Slope of Alaska, using American environmental standards, creating American jobs, we are changing the life of families like my family and for perhaps the family of the man I remember going to middle school with long ago.

I mentioned Thor's father was a pipefitter. Now, it is not just on those 2,000 acres. There will be a way of transporting that oil that is produced elsewhere. In South Louisiana, we make boats--boats that actually work off rigs and can create jobs both in the boatyard and in the maritime industry.

Thor's father was a pipefitter. You pipe out your oil, and you create jobs in that way. That comes to mind because when I was first elected to the Senate, I was going to a committee hearing, and some union fellows from Ohio came up to me to ask that I endorse the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Of course, I have always been in favor of it so they had my vote, but they made the point: We are union laborers. We work on the job. When we say there is $40,000 created in the building of a pipeline--sure, we may only be on the job for 6 weeks, but then we go to another job for 6 more weeks and another job for 6 more weeks.

I was struck that these working families benefit not from the actual production of America's natural resources but from the transportation of America's natural resources. So the economic benefit to working and middle-income families doesn't just stop with those who are perhaps doing the drilling, but it continues downstream and, as I mentioned earlier, even extends to a family like mine.

Now, let me mention another aspect of this that brings benefits to our working families and to our middle-class families. One thing I was helpful with was the restoration of the historic tax credit. The historic tax credit is a Federal tax credit first made permanent by President Ronald Reagan that allows somebody to go to an older building in a community and to restore it, returning it to commerce. So instead of a portion of our architectural heritage being destroyed, it is refurbished and is there for future generations to enjoy. More than the kind of aesthetics of seeing an older building become beautiful once more, it creates jobs.

Now, let's go back to this legislation, creating better jobs for working and middle-income families. First, it affects everybody. More than 40 percent of the projects under the historic tax credit program in the last 15 years have been in towns of less than 25,000 people. In my State, since 2002, the historic tax credit has contributed to 782 projects being built, bringing $2.2 billion worth of investment into these cities and towns across my State.

Now, when you have that much money, you create lots of jobs. It is thought, nationwide, according to the study by the National Park Service, the historic tax credit has encouraged more than $131 billion in private investment, rehabbing 42,000 buildings, creating more than 2.4 million trade jobs, returning a net positive to the U.S. Treasury.

Since fiscal year 2002, in Louisiana alone, it has, again, fostered more than $2.5 billion in private investment, creating more than 38,000 jobs. These are jobs--construction jobs, rehabilitation jobs--that allow a family to live with a good living wage. That is part of this legislation.

I should mention one thing in particular very topical on the historic tax credit. The World Trade Center of New Orleans is currently being refurbished. It was built in the 1960s and is being transformed into a world-class hotel condominium complex. It brings the city of New Orleans $400 million in infrastructure spending, 1,600 jobs in construction trades, as well as more than 450 permanent, full-time jobs. Instead of a crumbling eyesore, you have a jewel, but more than a jewel, you have 1,600 jobs created and 450 permanent jobs.

Let me mention the last thing that benefits working and middle-class families. My friends on the other side of the aisle talked about supposed negative effects on Social Security and Medicare. I am a doctor. I have been working in the public hospital system of Louisiana for 25 years. I understand the importance of safety net programs, if you will, like Medicare that allow our senior citizens to have the healthcare they need.

The dirty little secret is that, according to the people who run Medicare and Social Security, those trust funds are going bankrupt-- bankrupt. Under the Obama administration, they tried to address it by raising taxes, so they put a higher income tax on people, and the trust funds are still going bankrupt. Under ObamaCare, there were different things to try to save money within the system, delivery system reforms, and some are, frankly, good ideas--although I opposed ObamaCare, in general, some of these were good ideas, and I continue to endorse them--and the trust funds are still going bankrupt. So it raised taxes, we are trying to save money, and the trust funds are still going bankrupt. What can we do to try and rescue these programs that are so significant, so important to senior citizens, to all of us in this country--Social Security and Medicare in particular.

What about economic growth? I did an analysis once with another man which shows that if we just return to the economic growth that is common in our country--about 3.5 percent GDP growth per year--we will fully fund our trust funds for Medicare and Social Security.

Keep in mind, although we are cutting rates for corporations, the rates for funding Medicare and Social Security are staying where they are. So if our economy is doing better year over year, there will be more money going into these trust funds, not because the rates are higher--the rates remain the same--but because there is more money to apply the rates to.

Is it reasonable to have that kind of growth? Absolutely. From 1946 to the beginning of President Obama's administration, through 10.5 recessions--including one-half of the great recession--we averaged over 3 percent growth as a country. Now, under President Obama's Presidency, it was about 2 percent growth, and 2 percent versus 3.5 is all the difference in the world because it compounds. It goes like this if it is 2 percent, it goes like this if it is 3.5 percent, and at the end of 10, 15, or 20 years, those differences are remarkable.

I will say, under President Trump, for the last two quarters we have had over 3 percent GDP growth. Republicans take over, and the economy begins to do better. In the next quarter, it is estimated that it will be over 3 percent. With this legislation, increasing the amount of money families have in their pockets, building out our energy resources as we are in Alaska, creating jobs for Americans across the way, using things like the historic tax credit, returning money to the Treasury, but also creating American jobs will create that prosperity, that economic growth, so that instead of the 2-percent growth that we have had for the last 8 years, we have the 3.5-percent growth that we historically have had. That is a promise of this legislation. That will restore funding for Social Security and Medicare. That is the answer that has eluded the other side.

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

I yield back.

Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the historic rehabilitation tax credit. During the Finance Committee markup of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the committee adopted my amendment to return the historic rehabilitation tax credit to the 20 percent level, with the credit now claimed over 5 years, as well as a transition rule to grandfather approved and underway projects under the prior law and regulations.

The historic rehabilitation tax credit program provides jobs and investment in communities across the country. More than 40 percent of projects over the past 15 years have been located in communities with populations less than 25,000 people. Since 2002, the historic rehabilitation tax credit has facilitated 782 projects in Louisiana, bringing more than $2.2 billion of investment into cities and towns across the State. I am pleased this important provision will be preserved in tax reform.

For purposes of the transition rule in my amendment, ``taxpayer'' refers to the person who undertakes the rehabilitation of a building. In the case where a person makes an election under section 48(d), the term ``taxpayer'' means the lessor, since the lessor is the person who undertook the rehabilitation. It is intended that the historic rehabilitation tax credits be available during the transition period only to the extent such credits would have been available under the prior law and regulations.

Mr. President, I am proud of the work we have done in the Senate to develop a bill that delivers tax cuts to working families and significantly improves the competitiveness of our Tax Code. This will lead to greater investment, more jobs and opportunity, and an increase in economic growth.

I would like to take a moment to highlight an important, unresolved issue that we should consider as we work toward putting a bill on the President's desk.

Families in Louisiana are particularly prone to the negative impacts of natural disasters. From Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to historic flooding in multiple parts of the state during 2016, we have unfortunately seen some significant losses in our State; yet as we saw once again with the recent Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, Louisianans are resilient and watchful of neighbors through the tragedy and the recovery.

One aspect of recovery that many people don't see is the enormous amount of capital that flows into the storm zone from the reinsurance industry. In simple terms, reinsurance is insurance for insurance companies, and it helps Louisianans rebuild their homes, their businesses, and their lives.

Reinsurance transfers risk from the balance sheets of property and casualty insurance carriers so those companies can provide cost- effective solutions to consumers and businesses. A robust reinsurance market helps ensure that policyholders are getting the best rates possible on insurance for their homes and businesses. Many of the largest reinsurers in the world were founded in Europe 100 years ago or more, and a number of them do business in the United States through U.S. subsidiaries.

My concern is the potential impact of the bill's base erosion provision on the reinsurance market and policyholders along the gulf coast. The base erosion provision has the rightful intent of targeting bad actors who implement strategies to avoid U.S. taxes; yet the provision may have an unintended consequence of negatively impacting cross-border reinsurers conducting normal transactions, which could affect the market and premiums.

Reinsurance is critical to families and businesses in Louisiana, particularly after a natural disaster, and I hope to work with my Senate and House colleagues on this matter as we work to get the bill to the President's desk.

Mr. President, I would like to take a short break from talking about the tax bill to talking about something equally as important and much more poignant.

I will first recognize and honor fellow Americans serving overseas in our military--men and women dedicating their time and effort to keep our country safe. Working far from home and often in danger, every day they risk their lives to defend our freedoms.

Today, I will talk about one in particular, U.S. Naval Airman Matthew Chialastri, who not only risked his life but gave his life.

Matthew was born and raised in Louisiana. He graduated as the valedictorian from Woodlawn High School in Baton Rouge, class of 2013. There, he was a member of the JROTC Program, and after graduating, he chose to enlist in the Navy.

After completing his training, he began his Active-Duty service with Patrol Squadron 30, a P-8 training squadron. Then he served aboard the aircraft carrier USS America, from December 2015 to October of this year. He was then sent to Commander Fleet Activities in Japan to begin preparing to join the USS Ronald Reagan. During the course of his service, he earned the National Defense Ribbon and the Navy Battle ``E'' Ribbon.

Sadly, on November 22, during a transport flight to the USS Ronald Reagan, Matthew's cargo plane was forced to make an emergency landing in the Philippine Sea. Eight survived. Three did not. Matthew and two of his fellow Navy servicemen lost their lives in service to our country.

This is a terrible tragedy. Our hearts go out to Matthew's family-- his mother, Marty, and father, Phillip, his fellow sailors, and his friends in Louisiana. We grieve with them.

As one of his former high school classmates said, Matthew could have had any scholarship he ever wanted to any school. He could have gone anywhere he wanted. He just believed that serving our country was first. That was his everything. Others who knew him described Matthew as smart, dedicated, and a strong leader. They said he could always make those around him laugh with his dry sense of humor and smile.

As Americans, we mourn the loss of Naval Airman Matthew Chialastri. As folks from Louisiana, we mourn the loss of one of our own, but we honor his memory and the example he set for those of us who benefited from his willingness to sacrifice. We thank him for choosing to serve, for his sacrifice. We are forever grateful.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the last 8 years were really hard for a lot of families. They have seen their wages stagnate and their benefits not go up. Indeed, what they have been paying for health insurance and flood insurance and many other things has risen even though their wages have not. So the goal of this bill is to decrease taxes on those middle-income, working families in order to give them the opportunity to have better wages, better benefits, and to bring relief to situations that are peculiar. Are they peculiar to Louisiana? No, they are not peculiar to Louisiana, and I will elaborate on that in just a second.

What could middle-class families in Louisiana do with better wages? They could pay off debt. They could provide more for their children. They could just live life a little bit more robustly and not have to, perhaps, move out of one home and into another because they can no longer afford the mortgage on the first. The goal of this is, first, to bring tax relief to working families and middle-class families. It is all part of an effort to cut taxes particularly for them.

Now let's talk about raising their wages. Folks want to have more money in their take-home pay after taxes, but

they also want to have higher wages and better benefits. This bill definitely creates that.

Our current Tax Code encourages companies to move overseas. When they earn money overseas, they keep it there and build plants and factories in other countries. They employ folks in other countries but do not bring that money home, employ Americans, or raise wages or give better benefits to those Americans. This changes that. Not only do we have tax cuts for the middle class, for working families, but we also encourage businesses to invest here, to create better paying jobs here.

I have heard some say: Well, wait a second. Unemployment is low now. Why does it matter?

Now is the time when workers most benefit if there is investment that creates more opportunity for those here in the United States. If there is a worker who is a welder and if he can either work here or there, businesses are going to bid for his services. They are going to pay more to get him to work. As they do that, just from supply and demand, wages will go up for the average American worker, for the average American family. Benefits will rise for those families, and the children of those families will have more opportunity. This is what that is about.

There is another way in which we bring relief to those middle-income families. Part of what we are doing here is repealing the mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Americans hate the government's telling them what to do. Yet, as part of the ObamaCare mandate, it tells someone: Even if you cannot afford that insurance, even if you don't buy it, we are going to make you pay a fine.

In 2015, more than 100,000 folks in Louisiana paid a fine for not having health insurance, and 37 percent--almost 40 percent--of those folks had an adjusted gross income of less than $25,000; 78 percent had less than $50,000. Think about this. The families who report incomes of $50,000 or less cannot afford insurance, and they are having to pay a fine because they have not. They are not millionaires or billionaires. These are families who are trying to make ends meet, who make a decision because the exchange policies are too expensive for them to buy, and now they are getting fined. This is part of the relief we are bringing to those working families by getting rid of that mandate.

Lastly, there is another form of relief. Louisiana had its great flood of 2016, which was similar to Maria, Irma, and Harvey, but this was an unnamed storm that affected tens of thousands of people. Through this bill, we bring disaster relief to the folks in Louisiana. They will be able to deduct their losses from their incomes, which will allow them to rebuild their homes and allow them to rebuild their businesses. As they rebuild those businesses, it will allow them to employ those who need jobs so that they may rebuild their homes and their lives.

This bill will cut taxes for those families. It will increase their wages and bring relief not only from economic stagnation but also from a natural disaster that was one of the most expensive storms in our Nation's history.

I am very pleased that this bill is advancing, and I look forward to it being passed. I look forward, most of all, to the increased wages, lower taxes, and the relief that it will bring to those families in Louisiana.

I now yield the floor to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. President, I wish to add my words to those that have been said.

Let me begin by saying that the achievement of this tax proposal is not about anyone in this Chamber; it is about the working families who for the last 8 years have not done so well. They have either lost their jobs or their wages have been flat and their benefits have not improved or, indeed, the cost of those benefits have risen dramatically. I can say, with the Tax Cut and Jobs Act that is being introduced today, they will increase their take-home pay, they will have higher wages, and they will have a better life.

Now let's talk about how that would be. How will these working families improve?

The Presiding Officer, the Senator from Ohio, mentioned in his remarks that businesses will have money to invest. There will be competition for workers. And if there is competition for workers, then workers are paid more. They are given better benefits. What do those better benefits and better wages mean? It means they can invest more in their family, in their children's future, and that, in turn, will change their family's life for generations to come.

So on behalf of those working families, I echo Chairman Hatch, that if there is a suggestion by anyone that can make this better, I ask them to bring that suggestion forward because this is not about Republicans, this is not about Democrats, this is not about

anybody in this Chamber; it is about those working families who, for the last 8 years, have not done as well as the American dream would say they should.

On behalf of those working families, I congratulate Chairman Hatch for this job. I look forward to the passage of this bill, and I look forward to all of the benefits of this bill coming to help the families of this country and in my State of Louisiana.

Thank you.

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, this is not about the budget, but it is about something that all of us can, unfortunately, understand the importance of.

On Sunday, October 1, U.S. naval aviation instructor, LT Patrick L. Ruth, and student naval aviator, LTJG Wallace Burch, were both killed when their Goshawk training jet crashed in Tellico Plains, TN. Lieutenant Ruth was a native of Louisiana, growing up in Metairie. Lieutenant Ruth served in the Navy for 9 years, beginning his career in the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps at Tulane University. He was commissioned in May of 2008. After flight training, he joined Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 126, based in Norfolk, VA, in 2012.

Lieutenant Ruth flew the E-2C Hawkeye as part of the tactical air forces of the U.S. Navy. His primary mission was early warning defense of the carrier battle group, as well as air strike control, ocean surveillance, and search and rescue coordination.

In April 2015, he moved to Naval Training Squadron 7, based in Meridian, MS.

As an instructor, Lieutenant Ruth trained the next generation of naval aviators in strike aviation, basic aircraft maneuvering, and landing skills.

Lieutenant Ruth was a dedicated naval aviator. As evidence, he earned two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals during his distinguished career.

Our brave men and women in uniform take extreme risks every day to defend our Nation. The risks are necessary, made to ensure that our military is fully prepared to face any threat. We are forever grateful for Lieutenant Ruth and those who answer the call of duty to keep us safe.

We must also think of the incredible sacrifices of Lieutenant Ruth's family and all military families. They may not be wearing uniforms, but they, too, serve our country.

I had the privilege of speaking with Lieutenant Ruth's family. I learned that his younger brother Shane is Active Duty Navy. His older brother is retired Navy. His sisters were, and are, so supportive.

Lieutenant Ruth's parents, David and Mary Ann Ruth, still grieve. How could any parent not?

But to borrow from President Lincoln's letter to a grieving mother:

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of

your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of

the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours

to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the alter of freedom.

Lieutenant Ruth is survived by his parents, David and Mary; his fiance, Jessica; and his four siblings. We grieve with you. You are in our prayers.

Lieutenant Patrick Ruth will not be forgotten.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Presiding Officer has been presiding on many occasions when I have risen to speak about the need to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and although we did not succeed in our last effort in the beginning of August, I, personally, along with Senators Graham, Johnson and Heller, am making one more try, and folks ask why.

The simple answer I can give is, there is a fellow back home by the name of Moon Griffon. He is a conservative talk show host who speaks with passion about the Affordable Care Act. Why does he speak with passion? Moon Griffon is very open. He has a special needs child, and he has to buy insurance. His premium per year is over $40,000--$40,000, with a $5,000 deductible and an additional deductible for his pharmaceutical costs. He has to pay $50,000 a year for insurance, deductible, and pharmaceutical deductible. The mortgage payment for a $500,000 home is what he puts up because he has to buy insurance. He has a child with special needs.

Now, there are many Moon Griffons across our Nation. Someone said, kind of as a wag, but I think there is a ring of truth to it, that ObamaCare, the individual exchange, only works if you don't because if you do work and you don't qualify for a subsidy, then you cannot afford it.

By the way, I think there is bipartisan agreement on this. Senator Bernie Sanders is now putting forward what we would call BernieCare, a single-payer proposal. He would not be putting that forward if he thought the

status quo is working. He is putting it forward because he realizes it is not. He has 16 cosponsors, if you will. Cosponsors are a testament to the fact that the status quo is not working. Well, I can tell you, since Medicare is going bankrupt in 17 years, the seniors who are on it will have their benefits threatened by adding another 150 million more Americans to the program. Those who have employer-sponsored insurance, I don't think they will want to give up their employer-sponsored insurance and trust in BernieCare.

So our last hope, we think, is relieving folks from the burdens of the Affordable Care Act in a way that preserves President Trump's goals of caring for all, taking care of those with preexisting conditions, covering all, lowering premiums, and eliminating mandates.

We have the basis of an approach. This past week, the HELP Committee has been having hearings, as well as the Finance Committee. Both Democratic and Republican Governors, insurance commissioners, stakeholders of other sorts, Medicaid directors, and all, whether Democratic or Republican, Governor or Medicaid director or insurance Commissioner, have said that if we give the States the flexibility to come up with their own solutions, they will find solutions that work better for their State than the Affordable Care Act--and it makes total sense. Clearly, Alaska is different than Rhode Island. Louisiana is different than Missouri. If we can come up with solutions specific for each State, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all that comes out of Washington, DC, these Governors, Medicaid directors, and insurance commissioners of both parties think we can do a better job.

We have a model of this. The Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as the CHIP program, has been very successful. It works on a block grant that comes down to States. States pull down the dollars. They can roll over money for 2 years, and they provide a policy for the children in their State. There are certain criteria and safeguards regarding what that policy must look like.

In fact, Senator Ron Wyden, last night, finished up his remarks praising the CHIP program, that it was reauthorized and what a victory for the health of children because this is a program that will work. There is a little irony there, as Senator Wyden had just finished criticizing the Graham-Cassidy-Heller amendment, which is patterned after the CHIP program. The irony, of course, is that he says our amendment will not work, and then he goes on to praise the program through which the money will flow and after which it is patterned.

What we do through the program is take the dollars going to States currently through the Affordable Care Act, and we pool them together and deliver them to States in a block grant, very similar and, indeed, through the CHIP program. Along that way, we equalize how much each American receives toward her care, irrespective of where she lives.

Why do I say that? Right now, 37 percent of the revenue from the Affordable Care Act goes to Americans in four States--37 percent of the revenue goes to those who live within four States. That is frankly not fair. I have nothing against those four States, but I don't see why a lower income American in Mississippi should receive so much less than a lower income American in Massachusetts or why someone in Arizona should be treated differently than someone in New York. I think we should equalize that treatment. Americans think that is fair. We do that with Medicare and Social Security and other popular programs. It is something we should do, as well, as we attempt to provide insurance for all to achieve President Trump's goals.

One example of this, by the way--Pennsylvania has twice the population of Massachusetts. Both of those States expanded Medicaid. Massachusetts gets 58 percent more money than does Pennsylvania. Again, Pennsylvania has twice the population of Massachusetts, but Massachusetts gets 58 percent more money. Both Northeastern States have cities with a high cost of living, but somehow Massachusetts does that much better.

Our goal, though, is through this grant that goes through the CHIP program--which Senators like Senator Wyden have praised, and rightfully so, as being an effective program for improving health, with safeguards needed to make sure the money is used wisely and that all States and all residents within those States will receive about the same amount of money toward their healthcare. This would be, if you will, not a Democratic plan, not a Republican plan but an American plan, in which Senators vote to trust the people in their State over a Washington bureaucrat.

We have critics who don't understand our bill. It is a partisan bill, we are told.

No. If you look at the residents of the States who do better under our plan, it includes States represented by Democratic Senators. Virginia does far better because they will get the dollars they currently do not--as do Floridians, represented by a Democratic Senator; Missouri does, represented by the Presiding Officer now but also by a Democratic Senator; and others that are represented by Democratic Senators, but the lower income Americans in those States actually have resources they currently do not have. Indeed, I implore those Senators not to vote a party line but rather to vote for those lower income Americans in their States so they can have the resources needed for their better health.

I will conclude by saying one more time: We have one more chance. On the Democratic and Republican sides, we recognize that the Affordable Care Act is unsustainable. On the Republican side, we want to give power back to the patients, back to the States, fulfilling the wish of those Democratic and Republican Governors, insurance commissioners, and Medicaid directors to give them the flexibility to do what they wish to do.

The Democratic vision, BernieCare, if you will, of which he has 16 cosponsors, is to consolidate every decision in Washington, DC. As for me, I will vote with the States, I will vote with the people, and I will vote with the wisdom of the average American as opposed to the benign ``we know better than you'' attitude of Washington, DC.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize and honor the president-elect of the Louisiana REALTORS, Mrs. Pam Foreman Testroet. Pam is a distinguished realtor in Louisiana whose career has been defined by her devotion to ethics and her ability to make people comfortable while making important life decisions.

The Louisiana REALTORS, LR, is a trade association tasked with helping its members in the business of real estate in Louisiana. LR represents its members on real estate issues before the State and Federal governments while also providing legal assistance and professional development opportunities. As president, Pam will ensure LR achieves its mission of ``providing optimum member resources while serving as the advocate for REALTORS and consumers.''

Pam began her career in Baton Rouge working for the Louisiana State Legislature and the constitutional convention. She held various jobs in New Orleans and Houma, LA, before pursuing her dream of a career in real estate in 2003. After receiving her real estate license, Pam became actively involved in REALTOR organizations, serving as a director on boards at the local, State, and national levels.

Pam's top career priorities include client satisfaction, ethics, communication, technology, and education. As evidenced by her numerous awards, Pam has excelled at those priorities. Pam's awards include: 2005 Rookie of the Year, 2007 REALTOR of the Year, 2008 Congeniality Award, 2010 RE/MAX Cooperative Spirit Award, Louisiana REALTORS 2013 REALTOR of the Year, 2016 Louisiana REALTORS secretary/treasurer, and, finally, 2017 president-elect of Louisiana REALTORS.

I would like to congratulate Pam on her astounding career and her ascension to the position of president of the Louisiana REALTORS. Her election as president is a testament of her work ethic and the positive impact she has had on those with which she has come in contact. I know Pam will excel in this position, and I am proud to have her in the great State of Louisiana.

Mr. President, we are struggling right now to find a replacement for the Affordable Care Act. The American people have voted in four successive elections for such a replacement, culminating in the election of Donald Trump to be President of the United States.

Now, one can ask oneself, if the Affordable Care Act is so great, why would the American people continue to want to have a different program? I think the wisdom of the American people is that they do not want the government so intrusive in their lives, and secondly, there is a sense that somehow the Affordable Care Act is not entirely fair, that perhaps there are some who do better under the Affordable Care Act than others. Our country is about equity.

By the way, I am a physician, and for 25 years I have worked in the public hospital system of Louisiana trying to get healthcare for those who otherwise did not have it. I am all about those who do not have insurance or those who are fully insured getting better care. Ultimately, to have better care, there has to be adequate financing for that care. So we begin to look at the numbers that underlie how the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare, if you will--finances healthcare across the Nation. It is very interesting.

If you look at the numbers from Health and Human Services, three States--Massachusetts, California, and New York--get 37 percent of the money that ObamaCare spends on Medicaid expansion and health insurance access. Three States get 37 percent. And although I don't have an accurate depiction of what the demography is, I estimate their population to be roughly 18 percent, if that much, of our Nation's total population. So they get twice as much, if you will, on a per- beneficiary basis than the rest of the Nation put together. That is not fair. And if we are going to provide access for patients--our fellow Americans--to healthcare, ultimately we have to have adequate financial resources to do so.

My colleague Senator Graham will speak in more detail about the inequities between the States, but let me just say as a guideline, how do we create equity? How do we create fairness so it is not just three States that benefit, but wherever you live, if the Federal taxpayers are contributing to your access to insurance, you get about the same amount whether you are in Louisiana, Colorado, South Carolina, Mississippi, or in California, Massachusetts, or New York? That is about equity.

What we attempt to do--and we are going to submit this as part of the Graham-Cassidy amendment--is we attempt to establish fairness for all Americans in terms of the support they receive from the Federal taxpayer. What we will do, beginning in 2020, is begin to equalize the payments between those States receiving very little, those States receiving a lot more, and those States that are kind of right where they should be. We do this by beginning with a formula that acknowledges that the poorer the people, the more support they need; the older the person, the higher their medical expenses. So between poverty and age, it is a good starting point about how to divide those dollars. Between 2020 and 2026, we will actually gradually move those high-cost States down, those lower cost States up, and keep those just- about-right States just about right, until at the end, wherever that American lives, she or he is getting about the same amount as every other patient receiving support across the country.

When we say this--I am a physician. I know that if you have more disease burden in one State, that is a costlier population. If your average age is greater in one State, that is another aspect of a costlier population. We can go through those sorts of factors. So we do put wiggle room at the end, so that if a State is higher cost because they have more disease, they would get a little bit more money. But on the whole, if you net it out, wherever that American lives, she or he would get about the same amount of money.

Senator Graham will go over this in more detail, but it turns out that the average American receiving benefits under the Affordable Care Act--if you combine Medicaid expansion and the tax credits people receive, the average credit is somewhere in the mid-$6,000 range; call it $6,400, $6,500. But if you look at what some States receive, in Massachusetts, it is about $18,000 per person. Now, that is a lot of money. So if the average is $6,600 and in one State it is $18,000, that is not fair.

Now, I would submit that if we equalize that treatment; if we just treat people fairly; if no matter where you live, the amount you get is not dependent upon the State in which you live but upon your need, then we can actually provide access. We can fulfill President Trump's campaign pledges of continuing coverage, caring for those with preexisting conditions, lowering premiums--lowering premiums--and eliminating mandates.

By the way, it isn't just Republican-represented States that would benefit. We can look at West Virginia. These are some preliminary numbers. West Virginia would receive in 2020 about 43 percent more than they would based upon current trajectories. Indiana would receive about 48 percent more. Let's look at Montana. Montana would receive about--my gosh--Montana would receive over 100 percent more than they are currently scheduled to receive.

This takes the money that has already been allocated, and instead of focusing it on three States--there are a few more; call it seven, but those are the States that really bring it home--if, instead of all of this Federal largess going to three States, we distribute it fairly, all Americans can do better. All Americans can do better.

Ultimately, we should be about fairness in this Chamber, not about partisan politics.

I thank the Chair for the privilege of addressing this issue, and I now defer to my colleague from South Carolina.

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