Floor Statements

Madam President, finally, one final word on a pending judicial nomination, Marvin Quattlebaum. First, for the benefit of the Senate, I would like to note that the only reason the current nomination is up, the nomination of Quattlebaum is up is because the two Republican Senators from South Carolina refused to return a blue slip for two judges nominated for the same vacancy by President Obama. Their right as the home State Senators to not return a blue slip was respected by the Democratic majority, Chairman Leahy, in 2013, unlike the Republican majority, which has already ignored the blue slip precedent and confirmed a circuit judge without the approval of both home State Senators. I want my colleagues on the other side to remember that their blue slips were respected during the Obama administration and to think long and hard about continuing to ignore them now that their party is in the White House.

Second, the nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President Trump's selection for the Federal judiciary. Mr. Quattlebaum replaces not one but two scuttled Obama nominees who were African American. As of February 14, 83 percent of President Trump's confirmed nominees were male; 92 percent were White. That represents the lowest share of non-White candidates in three decades.

It is long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it represents. Having a diversity of views and experience on the Federal bench is necessary for the equal administration of justice. After years of improvement, the Trump administration, as in so many other areas, is taking a giant step backward--this time, when it comes to the diversity of their nominations. I will be voting no on the Quattlebaum nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, after Columbine, Sandy Hook, Charleston, Orlando, Las Vegas, and too many more to name, the Nation convulsed, and we talked about reforming our gun safety laws to prevent more names and places from being added to the list. Each time, we talked, but the Senate, the House--this government--did nothing.

Now, in the wake of the tragic shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School that took the lives of another 17 Americans, we must try again to pass meaningful changes to our laws to keep our children safe. That is our duty, and there are many things we could and should pursue.

Yesterday, I suggested that comprehensive background checks would

be an excellent and necessary place to start. It doesn't make sense that we allow anyone, regardless of his criminal history--felons--or a history of mental illness, to walk into a gun show or to go online and buy a gun with no questions asked. There is no sense in that. When I wrote the Brady Law back in 1993, gun shows were not popular, and we didn't have internet sales to worry about at the time because there was no internet. These loopholes grew and grew and grew over time. Now, it is hard to know the exact number because we don't record the number of guns that are sold at gun shows or online, but about one-fifth of all gun sales happen without there being background checks.

It is likely that criminals and others who are up to no good have a higher percentage because they do not want to be detected and go through background checks. It is outrageous that so many guns are sold with there being no background checks whatsoever--whether you are a felon, one who is adjudicated mentally ill, or a spousal abuser. It is outrageous. We should close those loopholes and close them now. We should have comprehensive background checks, not just a little something here and a little something there. Comprehensive background checks are supported overwhelmingly by the American people.

Later this morning, just in about 15, 20 minutes, I will be meeting with several of the students--the brave, courageous students--from Stoneman Douglas High School. I want to hear what they have to say. These brave students, whether at the Florida statehouse or on national television, have spoken out with passion, with eloquence, with grace. I believe they are changing the way our country thinks about this issue. I hope--I pray--they compel us to do something significant because we cannot settle for half measures, not after what happened in Florida, not after so many tragedies.

The fix NICS bill is an idea that has wide support in this Chamber, but it is tiny. It is a grant program that addresses one specific issue. Now, we have a whole host of issues to address, not just one. Fix NICS was aimed by the Senator from Texas at a particular tragedy in Texas by which a member of the Air Force had a record that would have disqualified him from getting a gun, but the Air Force failed to send the statement to NICS. It is a good thing to make sure that doesn't happen, but we should not be aiming our gun legislation simply at one past tragedy. We must look to the future and what will prevent future tragedies. Comprehensive background checks will; the Fix NICS bill will not.

So let's not set our sights too narrow and squander this moment. Let's try for significant, bipartisan legislation that will make a real difference in keeping our children safe. Even as our caucus discusses what legislation is best--and in our leadership meeting, we had an outstanding discussion this morning--I look forward to working with our Republican colleagues to see if we can get something real done.

Mr. President, on another matter, today Senate Democrats will be introducing our legislation to reverse the FCC's repeal of net neutrality. It has the support of every single Democrat and one Senate Republican, Senator Collins from the State of Maine.

I say to all my Republican colleagues: This CRA is the best way to undo the terrible decision to repeal net neutrality. It is an important debate. At stake are two opposing visions of the future of the internet.

For its entire history, the internet has been free and open, accessible to all Americans. It has been a true public good, just as our highways have. Whether you are on Main Street or Wall Street, you have the same internet. Whether you are a consumer or big corporation, you have the same internet. Whether you are a teacher in a wealthy school or an underresourced school, you have the same internet. Equality of access has driven innovation and entrepreneurship and so much of what we value in the American spirit and the American economy. It is the American way.

Net neutrality rules were put in place to ensure that the internet remains that way--open and equal access to all, no matter who you are, how much money you have, how much power you have. But the repeal by the Republican-led FCC has opened us to an entirely new universe where internet service providers--the big boys--will have the authority to sell quality internet to the highest bidder. That means they could restrict customers' access to their favorite websites by forcing them to buy internet packages or pay more for premium services.

Big companies could pay to get faster internet service, while startups and small businesses and average Americans are left in the slow lane.

Everything from Netflix, to Amazon Prime, to Spotify, streaming television, sports, and movies could be slower if you don't pay up.

Public schools that don't pay for premium service could be put at a significant disadvantage.

Startups that are looking to get their businesses off the ground but aren't large enough to negotiate faster internet delivery with ISPs might never take off. Our startups in New York are scared to death of the elimination of net neutrality, and they have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in my city and millions throughout the country.

The internet without net neutrality is a tale of two internets, where the best internet goes to the highest bidder and everyone else loses.

We have an opportunity to save the internet with our CRA, which would reinstitute net neutrality rules that keep the internet just the way it is now. Democrats believe that the future of the internet must be as free and open as in the past; that the startup founder living in her parents' basement should be able to compete with the world's largest corporations; that the young student in an underserved school district should be able to find all the information he needs online; that every American should be able to afford easily accessible internet. If we start gradating the internet, it could dramatically hurt our economy and hurt equality in America--something we are all striving for.

Right now, unfortunately, only one Republican has signed up for the fair, open vision of an internet that we need and want to keep. All we need is one more. On this net neutrality day of action, I urge all Americans to contact their Senators and demand they sign up with us to save the internet.

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

Mr. President, in the wake of the horrific shootings at Stoneman Douglas High School, the deadliest school shooting since Sandy Hook, there has been a broad national conversation about the epidemic of gun violence in this country. It is being led

by a group of brave high school students, the friends and classmates of the fallen, whom I will be sitting down with tomorrow. Their passion and eloquence have been a moral course for change.

Thank God for these students. They are urging us now to have a debate in Congress about something very straightforward: What can we do to stop very dangerous guns from getting into the hands of very dangerous people? How can we keep Americans safe at our movie theaters, at night clubs, at concerts and churches, and above all, at our schools?

We need to get something real and significant accomplished. The problem of gun violence in this country is too immediate for another delay, too severe for half measures.

President Trump has been talking about comprehensive background checks. We are glad to hear that. We are glad that folks are finally starting to talk about the real issues of gun safety again. Democrats believe that, at the very least, in the wake of Parkland, we should strive for comprehensive background checks--closing the loopholes that allow anyone, regardless of a violent history or a history of mental illness, to walk into a gun show or go on the internet and purchase a gun. More than 90 percent of Americans and the vast majority of gun owners support comprehensive background checks. What are we waiting for?

There seems to be a discussion about a more limited proposal, the Fix NICS bill, sponsored by Senators Cornyn and Murphy, which improves the existing background check system in a few ways. I support the bill and I am a cosponsor, but the Fix NICS bill is not what President Trump has been talking about this afternoon and at other times when he says ``comprehensive background checks.'' Fix NICS was written to address one specific issue that was brought to light after the horrific shooting in a church in Sutherland Springs, TX. It is a proposal to address that specific problem, but it leaves unaddressed a host of crucial gun safety issues, including, and especially, the loopholes in our background check system. If we only pass Fix NICS, we will be right back here after the next shooting in nearly the same place. If all Congress does in response to the Parkland shooting is to pass Fix NICS, we will not be doing our job. We must do much more than that.

This week, the Democratic caucus will discuss what policies we believe will most effectively curb the uniquely American epidemic of gun violence. We will propose them and work with our Republican colleagues to perfect and, hopefully, enact them. I sincerely believe we can make progress even on an issue as fraught as this one, but it will require our Republican friends to break free from the iron grip of the NRA.

Our Republican friends face a simple choice: Do something real on guns or please the NRA. Doing both is impossible.

The NRA's No. 1 goal is to make sure nothing meaningful on gun safety ever happens. When there are national issues, when there are horrible shootings, they make a feint as if they might try to do something, but then they pull right back because they want nothing to be done.

As an example, after the shooting in Las Vegas, Senators tried to do something here in the Senate about bump stocks, the modification that allowed the perpetrator to automatically fire his arsenal of assault weapons. The NRA and many Republicans said that they would be willing to work on it, but then what? The NRA pushed the weakest possible measure--a simple review of the issue by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which had already said that they couldn't do anything about the bill. And then what happened? Nothing.

Now the NRA has pushed the House Republicans to attach the Fix NICS bill--the Cornyn-Murphy bill, a very modest improvement focused on one issue that happened in Texas, but it was not relevant to what happened here in Parkland. They tried to attach that to the NRA's No. 1 legislative priority, concealed carry reciprocity, a bill that undermines our existing gun laws, defeating the entire purpose of the legislation.

Even when it comes to the most modest improvements to gun safety laws, the NRA always finds a way to stand in the way of progress. If we are going to get something significant done to keep our schools and our kids safe from gun violence, for the first time in a very long time, President Trump and congressional Republicans will have to buck the

Mr. President, on another matter, last week the Republican-led FCC formally published a rule reversing net neutrality-- the legal infrastructure that kept the internet free and open to all Americans. The FCC's rule will give the ISP--the internet service providers--the authority to restrict customers' access to their favorite websites by forcing consumers to buy internet packages, such as cable, and pay more for premium access.

In this new universe, big companies that can pay to play could get faster internet service while startups and everyday Americans are stuck in the slow lane. It will mean the end of the free and open internet as we know it. The way the internet has driven innovation and entrepreneurship and the way it has provided unprecedented opportunities for Americans to learn and connect with one another could all change, with a profit-making organization at the toll booth deciding who pays what.

We have an opportunity to save the internet by undoing the FCC's ruling through the Congressional Review Act. All 49 Democrats have already signed on to the bill, and one Republican, Susan Collins, has joined us. We now need only one more vote, one more Republican, to reverse the FCC's ruling here in the Senate.

When we force a vote on this bill, for the first time, Republicans in Congress will have the opportunity to right the administration's wrong and show the American people whose side they are on--the average consumer or once again side with big corporate interests. Are they on the side of big internet service providers and corporations, or are they on the side of consumers, entrepreneurs, startups, and small business owners?

Tomorrow there will be a net neutrality day of action here on the Hill that I hope will focus the Senate's attention on the issue. We have 60 legislative days to pass the CRA, and I urge every single one of my Republican colleagues to join us and help save the internet.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise with a heavy heart for the people of Parkland, FL, and Stoneman Douglas High School, where yesterday 17 Americans were killed in the deadliest school shooting since Sandy Hook. It was the 18th school shooting this year, and we are only halfway through February.

Again, yesterday the scourge of gun violence visited an American school, a place where our kids should be able to learn free from the shadow of violence and mayhem. Again, we all watched the scenes with children running for their lives. Again, a twisted soul got ahold of an assault rifle and unleashed carnage on the innocent.

Even though we didn't see it, in millions of bedrooms and living rooms in Americans' homes last night, 10-year-old, 8-year-old, 12-year- old children were saying: Mom, Dad, what happened? What do I do if this happens in my school?

I address this Chamber knowing there are no words that could ease the anguish and the sorrow felt by the parents of those 17 Americans, by their friends and siblings, their neighbors and teachers.

As we remember the words of Scripture that tell us ``Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted,'' let us resolve to do something--something--about the epidemic of gun violence in this country.

Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, Senators from both parties engaged in negotiations for months to find a solution that would allow the Dreamers to stay in the United States as well as provide border security. On several occasions, those discussions have yielded results, including last night, when a bipartisan group of moderate Senators reached a breakthrough agreement.

The spotlight now turns to the rest of the Senate and especially to President Trump, who throughout these negotiations has not been constructive. President Trump has shown a remarkable ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. President Trump, since he created the problem by terminating DACA last August, has stood in the way of every single proposal that has had a chance of becoming law. He turned his back on not one but two bipartisan immigration proposals earlier this year. I went so far as to put the President's wall on the table, and still the President would not take yes for an answer.

Now President Trump seems eager to spike the latest bipartisan compromise, potentially with a veto. Why?

Because it isn't 100 percent of what the President wants on immigration? That is not how democracy works. You don't get 100 percent of what you want in a democracy--maybe in a dictatorship. You have to give and take. You have to compromise in order to make progress. We have tried to do that in Congress, to solve a problem the President has created. Yet, time and again, he has frustrated our efforts.

If the American people want to know why Congress can look so dysfunctional, they ought to look to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. If the President had been quiet, if the President had let us do our work, a bipartisan compromise would have already passed this Chamber with 65 votes, maybe more, and we would have a solution to protect the Dreamers. But here we are. Let's hope it happens.

If President Trump rejects another bipartisan compromise, there is no question that the American people will blame President Trump and no one else for the failure to protect Dreamers. With an obstinate President and a fractious House, I hope today the Senate rises to the occasion.

The Dreamers are watching this debate right now because their futures depend on it. If we don't succeed, they face deportation to countries they don't remember. They have lived in this country their entire lives, pledged allegiance to our flag, built families, careers, served in our military. They didn't break any laws. They were brought here through no fault of their own. And despite their status, despite the fear that comes with living in the shadows, they strived hopefully to make a successful life in this country, which they love. What can be more American than that? We owe it to them to find a solution that can pass this body of Congress.

The only solution, unfortunately, that my friend the Republican leader has offered is the very partisan Grassley bill--no input from Democrats, no effort to compromise. We Democrats, on the other hand, have supported several bipartisan agreements on the table. We are ready to vote on them, including the genuine, bipartisan compromise that moderates, Democratic and Republican, reached last night.

There are plenty of things for everybody not to like in this bill. There is a lot I don't like in it, believe me. I think the wall will not accomplish anything. It will be an enormous waste of money and will be a terrible symbol of our America, replacing the beautiful lady who stands in the harbor I represent. But compromise is compromise. Democrats and Republicans will find provisions they don't want and wouldn't include if they had written it. But we have to do our jobs today. We have to rise above our differences, admit that no one will get everything they want, and accept the painful compromises that come with democratic government. That is what the Senate has done through the centuries. It has been hard. People have anguished. In the past, the Senate has risen to the occasion. Can it do it today? I say that to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. No one else seems willing to do it--not the House, not the President. It is the Senate--what President Washington famously called the cooling saucer for our politics--that can show the Nation how to lead, that can show the Nation what bipartisanship looks like, what compromise looks like, what progress looks like. The Senate can do that today.

Let's do our job. Let's rise to the occasion. And by the end of today, let's say to the Dreamers that the Senate believes America has a place for them too.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have waited a long time and worked very hard for the chance to vote on a bill to protect Dreamers. I regret that the only bipartisan effort of the group of moderate Senators to come up with a bipartisan compromise couldn't get the necessary 60 votes, and I expect the Grassley proposal will not get 60 either. I salute the eight brave Republicans who voted for the bipartisan compromise.

There is only one reason the Senate will be unable to reach a bipartisan solution to DACA--President Trump. President Trump created this problem by terminating the DACA Program last August. Since that decision, President Trump has stood in the way of every single proposal that could have become law.

In conclusion, immigration is always a contentious issue. There are intense feelings on both sides of the aisle. If there were ever a time for Presidential leadership, this was it. President Trump has failed his test of leadership--spectacularly.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1958 to the language proposed to be stricken.

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

Mr. President, as we enter the second day of the debate on immigration, everyone should be focused on finding a bill to protect the Dreamers and address border security that can get 60 votes. That is the ball game.

The majority leader's desire to vote on an unrelated, partisan immigration bill--legislation that is not only silent on Dreamers but is silent on border security as well--is not a productive way to begin debate.

Let's get to the crux of the issue. Let Republicans offer whatever they want on DACA and border security, and we will do the same. The leader supports the proposal by Senator Grassley, which is, essentially, the President's plan. Let's vote on that first. We will have several bipartisan bills to offer. We should vote on those too.

Democrats are focused like a laser on finding a bipartisan bill that can pass the Senate to protect the Dreamers. Several moderate Republicans are working toward that as well. The one person who seems most intent on not getting a deal is President Trump.

President Trump's contribution to this debate has been to put forward a proposal that contains a vast curtailment of legal immigration, far outside the scope of DACA and border security, and has demanded that the Democrats support it. Instead of making a proposal in good faith or working with Democrats on a compromise, President Trump is trying to force his unpopular, hard-line immigration agenda down the throats of the American people by calling it a DACA bill.

The President's proposal, now the Grassley bill, is so extreme on legal immigration that several Republicans have been critical of it, including my friends from South Carolina and Arizona. Yet President Trump somehow thinks that Democrats would be to blame for not getting a deal on DACA because we didn't go blindly along with his partisan plan--extreme as it is and with no input from Democrats.

That will not happen.

Only in a Kafkaesque, 1984 world could the Democrats be blamed for the current predicament on DACA. As much as the President wants to turn the world upside down, as much as he wants everyone to just accept what he is saying, the American people know better. Everyone here knows that President Trump has stood in the way of a bipartisan solution to DACA from the very beginning. Let's take a quick look at the history.

First, it was President Trump who terminated the DACA Program last August, not the Democrats and not the Republicans here. Unilaterally, we are in this pickle--worse than a pickle--in this bad situation because President Trump chose to end the DACA Program last August. That stands out above anything else.

Then President Trump turned his back on not one but two bipartisan immigration proposals. I went so far as to put the wall--the President's signature campaign issue--on the table for discussion. That still did not drive him to a deal.

Finally, now that we are working hard in the Senate to come up with a bipartisan proposal, President Trump is just trying to gum up the works. According to reports, President Trump may threaten to veto legislation that doesn't match his hard-line demands--``my way or no way'' and with no Democratic input. A statement this morning from the White House said the President would oppose even a short-term bill to protect the Dreamers.

So who is intent on kicking out these people who know no country but America, who work in our factories and offices, who go to our schools, who serve in our military? Who is intent on kicking them out? It is not the American people, as 90 percent want to support the Dreamers. It is not any Democrat and not a good number of Republicans on that side of the aisle. It is just the President.

On three separate occasions, President Trump has stood in the way of a bipartisan solution to DACA--a problem he created in the first place. Yet the President is in this dream world. He thinks: Oh, I can blame the Democrats for the impasse.

As I said, only in a 1984 world where up is down and black is white could this be true. Only in a 1984 world where up is down and black is white would the American public blame the Democrats for this. They know where Trump stands. They know it. The American people know what is going on. They know that this President not only created the problem but seems to be against every solution that might pass because it is not 100 percent of what he wants.

If, at the end of this week, we are unable to find a bill that can pass--I sincerely hope that is not the case, due to the good efforts of so many people on both sides of the aisle--the responsibility will fall on the President's shoulders and on those in this body who went along with him.

Bipartisan negotiations are ongoing and are, perhaps, very close to a conclusion. Nothing is ever certain given the contentious nature of this debate, but I am hopeful that Senators can put the President's hard-line demands to the side and come up with a deal that works for both parties. If we want to go beyond border security and the DACA kids, let's do comprehensive reform. We did it once. It worked pretty well in the Senate, but the House blocked it. Let's go back to it. First, the issues at hand are the DACA kids and border security. That is the only thing that can pass this Chamber--the only thing.

We need to push through to the finish line. There are only 2 days of debate remaining this week. Everyone has to make a final effort to reach consensus. That doesn't mean adding new demands or drawing lines in the sand. It means being willing to compromise and take yes for an answer. If we pass something, it might not be everything that either the Democrats want or everything that the Republicans want, but it may get the job done for the Dreamers and the overwhelming majority of Americans who would like to see them stay in the country.

Republican Tax Bill

Mr. President, on another matter--taxes--our Republican friends argued that their massive corporate tax cut was not such a huge giveaway to corporate America. They predicted that corporations would spend the tax savings on benefits for workers. The evidence is already mounting that those predictions were wrong. Since the passage of the Republican tax bill, corporations have been pouring billions of dollars into stock repurchasing programs, not into significant wage increases or other meaningful investments in workers.

These stock buybacks--this stock repurchasing--which benefit, primarily, the people at the top have reached a significant milestone. Since the passage of the Republican tax bill, there have been over $100 billion in stock buybacks. As of last week, corporations had announced twice the number of corporate share buybacks as during a similar period last year. Let me repeat that. The number of corporate share buybacks has doubled since the Republican tax bill passed.

Why is that so significant?

It is that share buybacks don't help the average worker. They inflate the value of a company's stock, which primarily benefits shareholders, not workers. It benefits corporate executives, who are compensated with corporate stock, not workers, who are paid by wages and benefits. The money corporations spend on repurchasing their stock is money that is not being reinvested in worker training, equipment, research, new hires, or higher salaries.

According to analysts at Morgan Stanley, companies that were surveyed said they will pass only 13 percent of the Trump tax cut savings on to workers in comparison to 43 percent that they will spend on share buybacks. For manufacturers, it is even worse: 9 percent to go to workers, 47 percent to share buybacks.

The Republicans made a conscious decision to give corporations and the wealthiest Americans the lion's share

of the tax cuts and promised it would trickle down to everyone else. Unfortunately, trickle-down never works, and it is not what is happening now. Corporate America is doing what is best for corporate America, and working America is getting left behind. It goes to show you just who President Trump and the Republicans were working for when they crafted their tax bill. They gave corporations and the wealthiest Americans a huge tax cut and cut out everybody else.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I modify my amendment No. 1958 with the text at the desk.

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

Mr. President, last night the Senate took up a neutral bill on immigration to begin debate on legislation to protect the Dreamers and provide additional border security. It is a debate upon which the lives of the Dreamers depend. They were brought into this country as kids through no fault of their own. For many of them, America is the only country they remember. They learn in our schools, they work at our companies, they serve in our military, and they are stitched into the very fabric of our Nation.

This week we have the opportunity to offer these Dreamers protection and the chance to finally become Americans, and this is supported in every State throughout the Nation. Eighty percent of Americans--a majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans all support allowing the Dreamers to stay here and become American citizens. We have an opportunity to improve border security, as well, which is something that also has broad support.

Both Democrats and Republicans, in large numbers, have supported both helping the Dreamers become Americans and protecting our borders. That should be the focus of all our energies--finding a bipartisan compromise that would achieve those things and pass the Senate.

We can put together a bipartisan plan here in the Senate and sell it to the Nation. I know that there are other forces swirling around. That was true of the budget deal, but Leader McConnell and I put together an agreement. The Senate voted for it in large numbers, the House passed it with significant support from both parties, and the President signed it. We can do the same thing on immigration. The Senate can take the lead once again in a bipartisan way that can get 60 votes and move the Nation forward.

We all know Americans in every State--your State, Mr. President, my State, and every State--who ask: Why can't you work together and get something done? Well, this is a very difficult issue and we are all aware of that, but we can get something done. We are on the verge, but it is still hard. We are not there yet, but we can get something done. Let's work toward that.

Infrastructure and the President's Budget

Mr. President, on another matter entirely, the White House released its long-awaited infrastructure plan. After promising a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan to build ``gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways, and waterways all across our land,'' President Trump's plan turned out to be less than half a loaf. Instead of a trillion dollars or more of investment, the Trump infrastructure plan includes only $200 billion in Federal investment, relying on State and local governments and private entities to pony up the rest of the cash.

There is a great irony that on the same day the President put out the $200 billion infrastructure plan, the administration's budget slashed well over $200 billion in existing infrastructure investments that we do make every year. While the Trump infrastructure plan gives with one hand, the Trump budget takes more away than is given. That doesn't show much of a commitment to do infrastructure. That shows sort of a schizophrenic administration.

Even on the side where they try to give, the Trump infrastructure plan has a lot of flaws. Already cash-strapped State and local governments would likely have to raise taxes on their constituents to fund new investments. Meanwhile, private entities will seek projects with the quickest return on investment. If you have a big, large resort with a lot of wealthy people going there, yes, a private person might build a road, but if you have a bridge in Shreveport or in Rochester, a middle-sized city or anywhere else in the country, no private investor is going to invest in that. There won't be any money for it. Large parts of the country will be left out. And who will be left out most? Rural America, which lacks the population or traffic to attract investment, would get shut out. They have a set-aside for rural America, but it is not close to enough--not close to enough.

Worse, the Trump infrastructure plan would mean a slew of tolls-- Trump tolls--from one end of America to the other. Large developers are going to want to make a quick buck on new investment, and who is going to pay for

it? The average, middle-class, working-class American who drives and pays the tolls.

These companies--let's face it; everyone knows this--are not going to lend money to build a road and not get any return. When the Federal Government puts money into roads, they don't ask for a return, other than jobs created building the roads and jobs created because new companies, new housing, and other new things will locate alongside the road. It does pay for itself through what the economists would call external costs--externalities. But the companies that invest, the big financiers who invest will want an immediate return, and that means tolls--tolls, tolls, and more tolls. More tolls may not sound like a big deal to the bankers and financiers who put together Trump's plan, but they sure mean a lot to working Americans who commute on these roads every day.

I would remind people that the Federal Government has invested in roads and infrastructure for centuries, not decades. Henry Clay, a Whig--the predecessor party of the Republican Party--first proposed it in the 1820s and 1830s. Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, expanded our Federal highway system dramatically with huge positive effect in large parts of America. Ronald Reagan never cut infrastructure. He cut a lot of other things, but not infrastructure. He knew it was important. So why are we making this 180-degree, hairpin turn right now? It doesn't make sense.

There are other problems with the Trump plan. What about ``Buy American''? Everyone says they are for ``Buy American.'' The Trump infrastructure plan unwinds ``Buy American'' provisions. If we are going to rebuild American infrastructure, let's do it with American steel, American concrete, and American labor.

This is the kind of plan you would expect from a President who surrounds himself with industry insiders, financiers, people in Wall Street who look at infrastructure as an investment to be made by corporations. But infrastructure has always been something the government invests in because the benefits aren't immediately apparent to business. A road might not generate short-term profits unless it is dotted with tolls, but a factory might locate nearby and bring new jobs to the area. The private sector might not build high-speed internet all the way out to the house at the end of the road if there isn't a profit, but that family is just as deserving as every other family in America to be part of the internet, which is a necessity these days, just as electricity was in the thirties when Franklin Roosevelt proposed connecting all rural homes to the electric grid. The private sector then and the private sector now should not pick and choose. It will leave large parts of America out. That is why the Trump infrastructure plan falls short.

For almost our entire history, the consensus in Congress and the White House was that the government should lead the way on infrastructure. As I have mentioned, Republicans Henry Clay, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan believed that we need investment in infrastructure. Democrats still believe it.

I hope that our mutual desire to fix the Nation's crumbling infrastructure without shifting the burden onto taxpayers and local governments motivates us to put the President's proposal to the side, as we did with the budget, and come up with one ourselves.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Trump administration delivered a budget to Congress that will drastically slash funding for education, environmental protection, transportation, Medicare, and Medicaid. Yes, folks, despite the President's promise that he would never cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, he is cutting two out of the three in this budget--or so he proposes.

Even with all those cuts, though, the Trump budget actually increases the deficit. Even in the realm of budgetary magic, the Trump budget pulls a trick so absurd that it would even make Houdini blush: Cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, and yet increase the deficit. How the heck did that happen? Only in the world of President Trump and his budgeteers.

Just weeks after jamming through a partisan tax bill that would greatly benefit big corporations and the wealthy while adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit, the Trump administration is now proposing a massive curtailment of the programs that help almost everyone else in America and, at the same time, increasing the deficit--a bad magic trick, very bad.

After an entire campaign's worth of promises to protect Medicaid and Medicare, President Trump proposes to cut deeply into both of them. After calling education the civil rights issue of our time in his first address to the Congress, President Trump proposes a 10-percent cut in education funding. Ask your school boards throughout America how they feel about that. Alongside his long-delayed infrastructure plan, President Trump proposes to cut transportation funding by nearly one- fifth--a decrease so large it would result in a net cut in infrastructure funding even if you add in the President's new infrastructure bill.

On the heels of a massive corporate tax cut, this budget is the very inverse of economic populism. It cuts back from nearly every program that helps the middle class and those struggling to reach it. The Trump budget is the encapsulation of an administration that promises populism but delivers plutocracy where the rich and powerful get the tax cuts, but everyone else just gets cut out.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I appreciate the process the majority leader agreed to this week, but the proposal he just offered does not address the underlying issues of this debate and why we are here. It does not address Dreamers, nor does it address border security.

As I said this morning, the Senate must focus on finding a bipartisan solution that addresses those two issues--Dreamers and border security. Rather than the partisan proposal offered by the Republican leader, I suggest we consider two proposals inside the scope of the debate, one for each side. Let the Republicans offer the President's plan, in the form of legislation carried by the Senators from Iowa and Arkansas, which the leader supports, and the Democrats will offer the bipartisan Coons-McCain bill--narrow legislation that protects the Dreamers, boosts border security, and adds resources for immigration courts.

Each is the opening foray--one for Democrats, one for Republicans-- and can start the process and let us know where we stand. Our legislation is ready to go, and we would be happy to vote as soon as the Republicans have their proposal drafted and ready for an amendment vote.

To begin this debate as the Republican leader suggests would be getting off on the wrong foot--unrelated to DACA and very partisan. Respectfully, I suggest we move to the bills offered by Senator Grassley and Senator Coons instead. Let's get this debate started on the right foot.

So I object to the leader's request.

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

Mr. President, before I begin, I thank my friend the Republican leader for his gracious invitation to address the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville this morning. I learned today that you don't say, as we say in New York, ``Lewey-ville.'' It is pronounced ``Lou-a-ville.'' It was a great pleasure to speak to hundreds of bright Kentucky students who are interested in the future of this great country. Seeing these kids gives you faith in the future of America despite all the ``sturm und drang'' we witness here in this city.

It was my distinct pleasure to give the Republican leader a bottle of Brooklyn bourbon as a thank-you for his invitation. I assured him that it was not a challenge to Kentucky's pride but, rather, to suggest that maybe Kentucky and New York were not so different at all. Our craft distilling industry is booming, and we have very good bourbon that is made in no place other than Brooklyn, NY. By the way, as long as it is made in America, it can be called bourbon. I am not sure if it can be called Kentucky bourbon, but it can be called bourbon.

Mr. President, now on to the business of the day. On the heels of passing a significant, bipartisan budget deal, the Senate returns this week to grapple with one of the most contentious of issues-- immigration.

Leader McConnell, to his credit, has promised a debate on a neutral bill with an amendment process that will be fair to both sides. Democrats and Republicans are working hard to find a bill to protect the Dreamers and provide border security that will garner 60 votes--no easy task. It is like threading a needle. I am sure we will have the opportunity to vote on a few ways to do it, but the key is to find a consensus bill that is largely acceptable to a significant number of Members in both parties. The purpose here is not to make a point, as the Republican leader just said. That is easy. The purpose is to get something done. That is hard, but it really is so important. It will not be easy, but it is, certainly, achievable.

Democrats are fully committed to protecting Dreamers, and we have long supported effective border security. Many Republicans are in the same boat. The only enemy here is overreach. Now is not the time or the place to reform the entire legal immigration system. Rather, this is the moment for a narrow bill, and every ounce of our energy is going into finding one that can pass.

Just like on the budget, this is an opportunity for the Senate to lead the Nation. Let the same spirit of bipartisanship and compromise that generated the budget deal carry forward this week as we debate the fate of the Dreamers.

Infrastructure and the President's Budget

Mr. President, on infrastructure, the Trump administration, today, released its infrastructure plan. Democrats released our own plan over a year ago and have waited just as long to see this plan, because infrastructure is an issue on which we thought we could find some common ground.

Unfortunately, despite a glaring need, the President's proposal would do very little to make our ailing infrastructure better. Instead of proposing direct Federal investments to help all parts of the country, the Trump infrastructure plan relies on private parties or States and localities to put up the lion's share of the money. In turn, those entities would have to either charge local taxpayers new tolls or raise taxes and other fees to pay for the new infrastructure. So a word that describes so much of the President's bill--probably about 80 percent of it--is ``Trump tolls.''

The Trump infrastructure plan is like a Hollywood facade. It may look real from afar, but, in truth, it is a flat mirage. The Trump plan has the skin of an infrastructure plan, but it lacks the guts. The lack of direct investment would leave out large parts of America, particularly rural America, where local governments don't have the money or the traffic to attract private sector investment. Small towns and cities throughout the heartland have waited too long for upgrades to their schools, roads, and water systems, as well as access to high-speed internet.

Just as Franklin Roosevelt said that every rural home should have electricity in the 1930s, Democrats believe every rural home should have access to high-speed internet in the 21st century. Roosevelt called for the REA in the 1930s, and soon enough--it took a lot--every rural home had electricity.

We Democrats are calling for the 21st century version of Roosevelt's vision. Every rural home should have access to high-speed internet, and that ought to be one of our goals in the 21st century. Very little could do more to revitalize rural America than that plan, which, by the way, we got a start on in our budget because we Democrats insisted on a certain amount of money being allocated for that. It was not enough to get the job done, but it was a start.

The administration's infrastructure would also result in tolls--Trump tolls--across America. Wealthy investors and large banks will only invest in projects that generate a profit. How do they get the profit? They charge middle-class Americans hundreds of dollars a year in tolls. In fact, it is written into page 20 in the plan. Page 20 of the Trump infrastructure proposal has a section entitled ``Providing States Tolling Flexibility.'' So the middle class need not ask for whom this bill tolls; it tolls for thee.

The middle class is already struggling with the ever-rising costs of healthcare, childcare, college tuition, and prescription drugs. They don't need higher local taxes. They don't need Trump tolls on top of all of that. This is the kind of plan that you would

expect from a President who surrounds himself with bankers and financiers and wealthy people who don't mind paying a $20 toll every time they go to work. It is a plan that is designed to reward rich developers, large banks, and the President's political allies, not to rebuild the country.

It would put unsustainable burdens on local governments, which are hurting right now, and it would lead to Trump tolls all over the country, particularly in middle-sized cities, small cities, and rural America. No investor is going to invest in a bridge in Springfield or Hannibal, MO--to pick a couple of places--because they don't have the revenue to repay it. So those folks will be stuck, as will be much of America.

At the same time, the Trump proposal undermines important protections, like ``Buy American.'' We believe, if we are going to put some real investment into this, this stuff--the steel, the pipes, the concrete, and everything else--ought to be made in America and employ Americans. They left that out of the bill, unfortunately.

Democrats want to work in a bipartisan way to improve our infrastructure, which is why we put forward a real plan that would expand access to high-speed internet across the country, rebuild our roads and bridges, and modernize our electric grid, while creating millions and millions of good-paying, middle-class construction jobs. Unfortunately, the President's plan falls short on all of these fronts.

I would remind my Republican colleagues that the Federal Government has invested in infrastructure and road building for a very long time.

Henry Clay, from the great State of Kentucky, called for internal improvements--I believe it was in the mid-1800s--because he wanted and knew the economic benefits of connecting places that were called the Far West in those days--Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio--with all of the people who lived on the eastern seaboard. Henry Clay was not a Republican. He was a Whig. That was the predecessor party of the Republicans. Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican President in the 1950s, started the interstate highway program, which has benefited so much of America for so many decades. Ronald Reagan never cut back on infrastructure even though he cut back on lots of other programs.

It is brand new that President Trump is about the first President, in a long, long line of Democrats and Republicans, who doesn't really believe that the Federal Government should be at the forefront of building our infrastructure--whether it is highways, roads, bridges, water, sewer, the power grid, or high-speed internet.

I hope Democrats and Republicans can do what we did on the budget-- sort of ignore President Trump, because he is way off base on this, and come together ourselves, because people on both sides of the aisle have always believed in investing in infrastructure.

Mr. President, I have one final word on the President's budget request. We have now already dealt with this year's budget request, but he put in a budget request for next year, which was just sent to Congress. We just passed a 2-year budget on Friday. So the Trump administration should have no illusions about its budget becoming law. It will not become law. Yet Presidential budgets are still important as a statement of an administration's priorities.

Unfortunately, the President's priorities are so far away from what the American people want in terms of how he portrays his budget. The President's budget request, just 6 weeks after slashing taxes on the wealthiest and biggest corporations, after creating a massive deficit-- who does the President ask to pay for this? Middle-class and older Americans. He slashes education, environmental protection, and Medicare and Medicaid, while corporations reap billions in tax giveaways. Older Americans now have to worry about the Trump administration cutting Medicare and Medicaid in his budget. Many others, including children and working families, would be hurt by the budget as well.

If Americans want a picture of whom President Trump works for, the combination of the tax bill and this budget he proposed today makes it crystal clear: He is for the rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class.

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, yesterday, after months of painstaking negotiations, the Republican leader and I reached a 2-year budget deal. Not only will it end the series of fiscal crises that have gridlocked this body, it will also deliver large investments in our military and robust funding of middle-class programs. It will also give a significant boost to our Nation's healthcare and provide long-overdue relief to disaster-stricken parts of our country.

As I said yesterday, it doesn't include everything that Democrats want nor everything that Republicans want, but it is a good deal for the American people, and it is a strong signal that we can break the gridlock that has overwhelmed this body and work together for the good of the country.

Let me run through a few of the benefits this agreement will provide.

Our military has suffered from the uncertainty of endless short-term spending bills. This budget deal puts that to an end. It gives the military a significant boost in support and allows the Pentagon to make long-term decisions about its budget. It is the right thing to do.

I want to credit two people--first, my dear friend Senator McCain. He talked to me repeatedly, even when he was ill, about the need for funding defense. He also talked about the need for doing immigration and tried to make them go hand in hand. Senator McCain has been our leader in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle in terms of making sure defense is funded, and I know that today he is proud of what we are doing for the military.

I would also like to thank Secretary Mattis. He visited me repeatedly. He is a Cabinet Secretary who seems to be doing his job, rather than focusing on an ideological path that divides people. He worked hard for this and deserves a great deal of credit.

We Democrats have always argued that we want to fund our military and our middle-class programs. We need good help on both. A mother whose child has died from opioid addiction, a veteran who is waiting in line to get help, college students with great debt on their shoulders, pensioners whose pensions might be greatly diminished need help too. To say that our military needs help to the exclusion of all of these other worthy causes is not fair to them and not good for America. I have always argued that we can do both, and this budget shows we can. We can do both--fund the military and help fund the middle class. For those naysayers who said it could not be done, it sure can with this budget. I am proud of what it does for the middle class.

For a decade--we all know this; we all talk about it--our middle class has suffered from a needless and self-imposed austerity in Congress that has limited investments in jobs and education, infrastructure, scientific research, and more. This deal puts that to an end as well. For those who say we cannot do both, we can. I am proud of this budget, because it does. Let me go into a few specifics.

There are billions of dollars of support for childcare, for helping middle-class families shoulder the very heavy burden of childcare. They need to take care of their kids in a way that they can have confidence when both parents

work, and so often that happens. In single-parent families, that happens so often.

What about college affordability? The debt burden on the shoulders of those who have just gotten out of college and graduate school is huge. We are focusing on providing help here.

In this budget, we focus on police officers, teachers, and firefighters.

What about infrastructure? Our infrastructure is crumbling throughout America. Much of it was built 50 or even 100 years ago--roads and bridges and water and wastewater. We need to help those, and then we need new infrastructure.

How about broadband to rural areas and inner cities that are not getting it? Broadband is a necessity today. Kids cannot learn. Often, you cannot hold a job unless you can get broadband at home. In large parts of America, particularly rural parts, you cannot get it. We provide help, and rural America is very happy that we are doing this.

We provide billions to rebuild and improve veterans hospitals and clinics so that when our brave soldiers come home, bearing the scars of war, their country serves them just as well as they served us.

I mentioned opioids earlier. There is $6 billion, finally, to guard against the opioid-mental health crisis. The opioid crisis is widespread. The President has set up a whole bunch of commissions and given a whole bunch of speeches, but he hasn't funded it. We in this body have. We Democrats have led the charge. We have so many Members, like Senators Shaheen and Manchin; we have so many Senators, like Senators Heitkamp and Baldwin; we have so many Senators, like McCaskill, Donnelly, and Hassan, who have been talking about the opioid crisis for a long time. Their hard work has now produced the dollars that will give the treatment that so many who are addicted need and the infrastructure to prevent these bad drugs, particularly fentanyl, from coming into this country.

My guest at the State of the Union was a woman named Stephanie Keegan, from Putnam County. She was the brave mother of a veteran who got hooked on opioids in the depths of PTSD. He waited 16 months for his first appointment at the VA, but he died of an overdose 2 weeks before he could get treatment. Stephanie Keegan has been fighting for this. She is a brave, strong woman who is lighting the candle. She was my guest at the State of the Union, and she is a happy woman this morning because all of her hard work after her son's passing is coming to fruition.

Of course, there is so much more in this proposal that we can all be proud of as Americans, in that we will not be neglecting people who have been neglected for so long: support for community health centers, which serve over 25 million Americans; a full decade of funding for CHIP, or the Children's Health Insurance Program; an effort to lower prescription drug costs for millions of American seniors who are caught in the Medicare Part D doughnut hole; disaster relief and recovery funding, not just for Texas, Louisiana, and Florida--important as they may be and are--but for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Western States; and a special select committee--we don't do this often--that will be empowered and under a deadline to deliver a legislative fix to the pension issue by the end of the year. It is this issue which has plagued so many working and middle-class Americans in many States, people who have paid into their pensions day after day, week after week, month after month, and who are now finding those pensions vanishing. We should provide relief for them just as we should provide relief for others. This commission is a strong, bright light that will focus on this issue and will create a path to a solution.

I salute so many of my colleagues who have worked so hard on so many of these pieces: Senators Murray, Wyden, and Tester, on healthcare; Senators Brown, Casey, Stabenow, Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly, Klobuchar, Baldwin, and Smith, on the pension's piece; Senator Nelson, on the disaster package. Senator Leahy, the ranking member of Appropriations, has done a great job on the whole thing. A lot of credit is due to each of them and to so many more of our Members because the final product is something that will benefit so many Americans over the next decade. Senator McCaskill was also very much involved in the pension issue, as well as many others.

I hope this budget agreement will pass the Senate in large numbers on both sides of the aisle. It will be easy to say: Well, I didn't like this, and I didn't like that. Yet this is the time to come together. This is the time to stand up for our soldiers, our middle class, and those aspiring to the middle class. I hope we will get a large bipartisan vote.

To that point, I have some pointed words for some in the House's Freedom Caucus--the hard right--who are starting to squawk about this budget deal. They say it raises the deficit. They just voted and cheered a bill that would add $1.5 trillion to the deficit in the form of tax breaks for mammoth corporations. They were willing to increase the deficit on the defense side of the budget, but all of a sudden, when it comes to our schools or our roads or our scientific research: Oh, we can't do it because of the deficit. It is blatantly hypocritical to ignore the deficit when it favors corporate America but raise the alarm when it comes to helping our veterans, our students, and those addicted to opioids. That is selective enforcement. That doesn't fly.

There is a lot of sophistry going on. Oh, when we reduce taxes, we will not have a deficit because it will keep the economy growing. Does anyone doubt that education keeps the economy growing, that scientific research keeps the economy growing, that building infrastructure keeps the economy growing? There is a lot of hokum flying around here that only when you cut taxes for big corporations do you grow the economy.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I think Americans are tired of the hypocrisy on the hard right, which treats a $1.5 trillion hole in the deficit by cutting corporate taxes with cheers--primarily taxes on the wealthy--and then says you cannot spend money on those who need relief from the student debt loans they have or who need help for healthcare or food stamps. It is utter, sheer hypocrisy.

Let this budget go forward through both Chambers and go to the President's desk, where President Trump seems willing and ready to sign. President Trump was not involved in this process. He was not constructive when he spoke and tweeted. He asked for a shutdown. I think, in this body--and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are learning this--oftentimes, we can get a lot more done when working with one another and letting the White House just sit on the sidelines, because you do not know what its positions are. As I once said, negotiating with the President is like negotiating with Jell-O, and, oftentimes, his positions are just so far over to one side of the political spectrum--Koch brothers-type positions--that they would never pass. So this is a good motto.

Immigration

Mr. President, now I have one more word on immigration.

Based on my continued conversations with the Republican leader, once we pass this budget agreement, we are ready to proceed to a neutral bill--a shell bill--on immigration next week. The Republican leader has guaranteed an amendment process, fair on all sides, where we will alternate amendments. That means some of the people who are on the very conservative side will get amendments and some on the very liberal side will, but so will there be an opportunity for a bipartisan compromise that will focus on the Dreamers and border security that will have a real chance of getting 60 votes. We should all be working hard to get that done in this Chamber.

I would say to my friends in America who care about the Dreamers to please let their Senators know, particularly those Senators who have not committed to helping the Dreamers, how important this is.

Next week will be one of the most vital weeks when we will be able to deal with the Dreamer issue in a fair, compassionate way. It has been swept under the rug for too long, but because of the agreement the leader and I came to a few weeks ago--and he has confirmed to keep his commitment--we will be able to deal with it. The House should be able to deal with it as well.

What Leader McConnell and I have agreed to should be something that

Speaker Ryan agrees to. To just put President Trump's bill on the floor means no immigration bill and no help for the Dreamers. We all know that. It will lose Republican votes as well as Democratic votes. It will not pass in the House.

I say to Speaker Ryan: Allow a fair and open process to debate Dreamers on the floor of the House, just as we are allowing in the Senate.

Leader Pelosi shouldn't have to stand and speak for 8 hours--I respect her for doing it--just to secure a vote on an issue as compelling and pressing as the Dreamers. What Leader Pelosi is asking for is the same thing that we have here in the Senate--no more, no less--a vote and an open process. That is undeniably fair. I hope Speaker Ryan will relent and promise a vote. There is an appetite on both sides and in both Chambers to get this done--both to help the Dreamers and do border security.

In the Senate, I know that everyone on the Democratic side and many on the Republican side are working hard to find a bill that can protect Dreamers and provide border security that can pass next week. We know this is a difficult task, and we know immigration is one of the more volatile issues in America, but we have to do it for the good of this country. The budget was a difficult process, but we came to an agreement. Let's do the same on immigration with a bipartisan agreement, where each side gives some, and we can all be proud that we got it done. The same effort and spirit that forged the budget deal should carry forward to the issue of the Dreamers. Let's get it done next week.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I very much appreciate my good friend, the junior Senator from Kentucky, for his fidelity to spending-- something we don't agree with--and for his fidelity of trying to get his amendments on the floor and debated--something we do agree with. I recently supported that right when the FISA bill came up, which I know was very important to him.

The difficulty we have here is that the government will shut down. We still have the House that has to vote. Frankly, there are lots of amendments on my side, and it is hard to make an argument that if one person gets an amendment that everybody else will not want an amendment, and then we will be here for a very long time.

So I would plead with my colleague, given the exigencies, that maybe a budget point of order might work, which would make the same point; that is, he believes the spending is too high. Then we could move forward and get a bill done and not risk a government shutdown. We are in risky territory here as both of my friends from Kentucky know. If that would accomplish the same thing and not hold us up here, we could let the House do its will and then, maybe, get the bill to the President, because we want to move things forward.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, first let me thank the Republican leader for his comments and his work these past several months. We have worked well together for the good of the American people. We had serious disagreements, but instead of just going to our own separate corners, we came together with an agreement that is very good for the American people and recognizes needs that both sides of the aisle proffered.

I am pleased to announce that we have reached a 2-year budget deal to lift the spending caps for defense and urgent domestic priorities far above current spending levels. There are one or two final details to work out, but all the principles of the agreement are in place. The budget deal doesn't have everything Democrats want, and it doesn't have everything Republicans want, but it has a great deal of what the American people want.

After months of legislative logjams, this budget deal is a genuine breakthrough. After months of fiscal brinksmanship, this budget deal is the first real sprout of bipartisanship, and it should break the long cycle of spending crises that have snarled this Congress and hampered our middle class.

This budget deal will benefit our country in so many ways. Our men and women in uniform represent the very best of America. This budget gives our fighting forces the resources they need to keep our country safe, and I want to join the Republican leader in saluting Senator McCain. We wish he were here because he has fought so valiantly and so long for a good agreement for the Armed Forces.

The budget will also benefit many Americans here at home: folks caught in the grip of opioid addiction, veterans waiting in line to get healthcare, students shouldering crippling college debt, middle-class families drowning under the cost of childcare, rural Americans lacking access to high-speed internet, hard-working pensioners watching their retirements slip away. Democrats have been fighting for the past year for these Americans and their priorities. We have always said that we need to increase defense spending for our Armed Forces, but we also need to increase the kinds of programs the middle class so needs and depends on. It is our job as Americans, as Senators, to make sure that middle-class people can live a life of decency and dignity so that they can keep in their hearts the American belief that their kids will live a better life than they do. In this budget, we have moved, for the first time in a long time, a good deal forward on those issues.

Alongside the increase in defense spending, the budget deal will lift funding for domestic programs by $131 billion. It will fully repeal the domestic sequester caps while securing $57 billion in additional funding, including $6 billion to fight against the opioid and mental health crises; $5.8 billion for the bipartisan child care and development block grant; $4 billion to rebuild and improve veterans hospitals and clinics; $2 billion for critical research at the National Institutes of Health; $20 billion to augment our existing infrastructure programs, including surface transportation, rural water and wastewater, clean and safe drinking water, rural broadband so desperately needed in large parts of rural America, and energy infrastructure; and $4 billion for college affordability, including programs that help police officers, teachers, firefighters.

The deal also boosts several healthcare programs that we care a lot about in this country. An increase in funding for community health centers, which serve 26.5 million Americans, is included. My friends Senators Murray, Tester, Sanders, and many others have been champions for these community health centers. I want to thank them for the hard work they have put in to get this done. The Children's Health Insurance Program will be extended for an additional 4 years. Credit is due to our ranking member, Senator Wyden, for his effort for this extension. American families with children who benefit from CHIP will now be able to rest easy for the next decade.

Seniors caught in the Medicare Part D doughnut hole will also benefit from this bill, which eases the coverage gap next year, helping thousands, millions of seniors afford prescription drugs. We have waited long for this. Rural hospitals that struggle, seniors, children, and safety net healthcare providers will benefit from a package of health tax extenders as well.

On the pension issue, Democrats secured a special select committee that must report a legislative fix to the problem by December 2018. Millions of pensioners--teamsters, carpenters, miners, bakery workers, and so many more--are staring down cuts to their hard-earned pensions. They didn't do anything to cause those cuts. Their livelihoods are staked to these pensions. We ought to make sure that they get every penny they earned. We Democrats would have liked to take up and pass the Butch Lewis Act. We couldn't reach an agreement to do that, but now we have a process and potentially the means and motivation to get it done. There were so many Senators, led by Senator Brown, who are responsible for this. I want to acknowledge him and Senators Casey, Stabenow, Manchin, Klobuchar, Baldwin, McCaskill, Donnelly, and Heitkamp, who worked so long and hard on pensions.

The budget deal also includes long-awaited disaster relief for Texas, Louisiana, Florida, the Western States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Many of these places are still taking their first steps on the long march to recovery. Much of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands remains damaged and in the dark. This recovery aid could not have come a moment too soon. Senator Nelson worked very hard for both Florida and Puerto Rico relief, as did so many others in this Chamber.

I would also like to thank our ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Leahy, who worked so diligently with his staff and his ranking members on these issues, as well as Senator Murray, who has been our beacon on health issues, where we have made real progress today.

The budget deal is a win for the American people. It will also do so much good for our military and for so many middle-class Americans and finally consign the arbitrary and pointless sequester caps to the ash heap of history.

A final point: Our work here in Congress on this budget deal between the Republican leader and me, between the Senate and the House was completed without a great deal of help from the White House. While President Trump threatened shutdowns and stalemates, congressional leaders have done the hard work of finding compromise and consensus. It has been a painstaking and months-long process. It has required concessions, sometimes painful, by both sides. But at the end of the day, I believe we have reached a budget deal that neither side loves but both sides can be proud of. That is compromise; that is governing. That is what we should be doing more of in this body, and it is my sincere hope that the Republican leader and I will continue to work together in this way to get things done for the American people.

Now, of course, we must finish the job. Later this week, let's pass this budget into law, alongside an extension of government funding. I hope the House will follow suit and President Trump will sign it. I also hope that Speaker Ryan will do what Senator McConnell has agreed to do--allow a fair and open process to debate a Dreamers bill on the House floor.

This budget deal will be the best thing we have done for our economy, our military, and our middle class for a long time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, here is just a brief note on taxes in answer to what my friend the Republican leader has said. The reason that 48 Democrats voted against the bill and the reason that at this point, despite huge amounts of ads paid for by the wealthiest of Americans, the bill is still unpopular with the American people is very simple: The vast majority of the breaks go to the very wealthy and to big, powerful corporations and their lobbyists. That is who wins on this bill more than anybody else.

If a bill focused on the middle class gave 80 percent of the breaks to the middle class, there would be loads of Democrats voting for it. We are happy that there are a lot of wealthy people in America. God bless them. They don't need the huge tax break--the disproportionate tax break that our Republican friends gave them. That is why the bill is unpopular.

Again, people like the Koch brothers and the thousand very, very wealthy--many of them so greedy--billionaires who don't want to pay any taxes put all of these ads on TV and have a whole propaganda machine. They still can't convince the American people.

Our Republican colleagues are afraid to talk about what they really mean in the tax bill--trickle-down economics. When they talk among themselves, they say: Give the wealthy a lot of money, give the big corporations a lot of money, and everyone will do fine. They don't have an honest debate on this because they are afraid to say it. So they act like they aim most of this at the middle class.

The only way this is aimed at the middle class is trickle down: Give the money disproportionately to the wealthy and the big corporations, and the middle class will benefit. We don't believe that. We would rather give the money directly to the middle class and be sure they are getting the benefit.