Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have barely over a week to negotiate a broad package of must-pass items, including an extension of government funding, a deal to lift the spending caps for both defense and urgent domestic priorities, a healthcare package, disaster aid, an agreement to protect the Dreamers, and to provide additional border security.

The path forward on some of these issues is very clear. There are significant bipartisan majorities that would vote to extend CHIP, or the Children's Health Insurance Program, and community health centers. There seems to be a growing consensus on how we can pass the 702 FISA Court program.

I am also confident that we could assemble a disaster aid package that addresses the needs of all of the States and Territories--Texas, Florida, Louisiana, California, the Western States that have been plagued by fires, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands--as well as modifying what the Forest Service does so they don't spend all of their money simply fighting forest fires and not do the job they are intended to do, which is to prevent future forest fires by careful forestry programs.

Even where the path is murkier, the outlines of a deal exist. If we don't lift the spending caps in short order, the sharp ax of sequestration will fall on the military side of the budget and on the domestic side of the budget. That is a scenario everyone wants to avoid.

The majority leader continues to insist that we should raise the budget caps unequally, sparing our military but not critical domestic programs that create jobs, grow our economy, and help the middle class. We Democrats believe we absolutely must provide the resources our men and women overseas need to protect our country. We believe that strongly, but we also know that there are many important issues here at home--combating the opioid crisis, improving veterans' healthcare, shoring up pensions for millions of hard-working Americans who are approaching retirement, and dealing with rural development and rural broadband. These items are all crucial to the middle class.

The deadly scourge of opioid addiction has contributed to the first consecutive-year decline in life expectancy in the great United States of America since the early 1960s. That is an astounding and alarming fact that should rouse everyone in this Chamber to action. It is not occurring in most of our Western country allies.

Some of our veterans have been waiting in line for healthcare at veterans hospitals for over a year. These men and women served our country bravely. We have a solemn responsibility to serve them when they come home, and we are not living up to that responsibility right now.

Over a million Americans paid into pension plans with the expectation that they could retire with basic dignity. For so many of them-- teamsters, miners, food workers--pensions have fallen short, and a lifetime of careful savings may be ripped away from pensioners at the last moment. We could make progress on each of these issues through a budget that lifts the spending caps equally for defense and nondefense.

The Republican majority, which conveniently forgot its long history of opposing deficits when passing a $1.5 trillion tax bill, cannot, in good conscience, turn around and complain about deficits here. So let's make the investments we all know are essential in both our military and in our middle class.

Even on the most challenging issue we face, the fate of the Dreamers, there appears to be a path forward. Yesterday's immigration meeting at the White House was encouraging for two reasons. First, practically everyone at the table--including some of the most conservative voices on immigration, like the Senator from Iowa--agreed that we must resolve the future of Dreamers by passing DACA protections into law. That is a very positive development.

Second, President Trump appeared to endorse a narrow deal to protect the Dreamers, leaving the thornier issues for a later debate on comprehensive immigration reform--a debate that, personally, I would welcome, the sooner the better.

But first, we have to do this narrow deal. President Trump also backed off his demand that a DACA deal include an expensive and ineffective border wall across the entire length of the southern border. Of course, the devil is in the details. We Democrats have repeated time and again that we are ready, willing, and eager to support an effective, practical border security measure in a deal that enshrines DACA into law. The President yesterday seemed to agree with that. We agree with that. For these reasons, the meeting was encouraging.

Last night, a Federal judge ruled against the Trump administration's handling of the termination of the DACA Program. Let me be very clear. The ruling last night in no way diminishes the urgency of resolving the DACA issue. On this we agree with the White House, which says the ruling doesn't do anything to reduce Congress's obligation to address this problem now. A court case, of course, is no guarantee of lasting security. A higher court can quickly overturn it. Unsurprisingly, the Department of Justice responded to the ruling last night by saying that it ``will continue to vigorously defend [this] position, and looks forward to vindicating its position in further legislation.'' So the fact remains that the only way to guarantee the legal status for Dreamers is to pass DACA protections into law and to do it now. For that reason, a resolution to the DACA issue must be part of a global deal on the budget.

We cannot tolerate delay. Delay is a tactic employed by those who do not wish to see a deal. Let me just say, promises that maybe in the future we will do it--particularly on immigration--have vanished by the wayside.

Unless DACA is on a must-pass deal--a must-pass bill--in terms of a global agreement, people are rightfully skeptical that it will ever happen. Somehow, somewhere, someone will say: I can't do it.

Let's not forget that the House has been a graveyard even for immigration proposals that have had bipartisan consensus here in the Senate. So it must be on a must-pass bill. Otherwise, we are not going to get it.

Congressional negotiators and the valiant group here in the Senate led by Senators Durbin and Graham are focused on this issue right now. The meeting they had yesterday--I talked to both Senators Durbin and Graham last night and this morning--provides a clearer picture of the parameters of the deal. The iron is hot. We should strike now. Delay will snuff out the hope of getting an agreement that both sides can live with. Let us press forward. Each side is going to have to give.

I am confident, though, that both sides can come to an agreement on border security. I am convinced now both sides want to find a consensus on DACA. Some will support a deal enthusiastically, others reluctantly, but, nonetheless, an agreement is within reach. We ought to get it done through the Senate, through the House, and onto the President's desk for signature now. So let's get the job done.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, there are a number of outstanding matters before the Senate that must be addressed by January 19. We must pass an extension of government funding. We must reach a deal to lift the spending caps to spare devastating cuts to our military support and funding for urgent domestic priorities. We must extend the Children's Health Insurance Program and community health centers and the 702 FISA Court program. We must pass disaster aid, and we must resolve the future of the Dreamers.

Some of these issues, particularly CHIP and FISA, could have been dealt with by the majority a long time ago. There are bipartisan majorities that would have voted to extend those programs, but the majority leader chose not to put them on the floor because they were busy pursuing a partisan ``favor the wealthy'' tax bill.

Some of these issues still require further compromise. It is no secret that we haven't come to final agreement on the spending caps. Both Democrats and Republicans want our troops to have the resources they need to do the tough job we ask of them. At the same time, we Democrats want to make sure that we are making the right kinds of investments in the middle class. The whole campaign was about the middle class, and now we are going to abandon them because there are such needs for defense. The two are not mutually exclusive. We don't believe they are, and our Republican colleagues have sort of lost their grip on saying: Well, we can't increase the deficit, after a $1.5 trillion tax cut mainly for the wealthy and powerful corporations.

So we are fighting hard to make sure we are making the right kinds of investments in the middle class. That is why we are pushing hard to raise the spending caps on the domestic side, so we can do more in the fight against the opioid crisis, so we can do more to help our brave veterans get quality healthcare, and so we honor the promise made to over a million pensioners who contributed to and earned every penny of their pensions. These are all very important issues. Ask a mom or dad whose kid is addicted to opioids whether that can wait. Ask a pensioner who is so nervous that he or she will not get enough dollars to retire on and feed themselves. Ask a veteran who has been waiting in line for healthcare because the Veterans' Administration is not fully funded for the healthcare needs of our veterans. They all think those are just as important--not more, not less than funding defense. We will stand firm and strong that both are important. The only argument our colleagues seem to have against this is that it increases the deficit and, as I said, they lost all claim to that one with the tax bill.

Now, teamsters, carpenters, and miners have worked their entire lives under the expectation that they could retire with a sense of dignity afforded by a modest pension. These are the ones our colleagues seem to be just adamantly opposed to. Let them go home to their miners, to their teamsters, to their food workers and tell them: You don't deserve a pension even though you paid in every month.

We can't just shrug our shoulders and do nothing. We ought to fix it.

My friend, the majority leader, thinks defense is important, but the other is not. We Democrats believe both are important, and we must and should do both together. Surely, the deficit, again, can't be the problem after adding over $1.5 trillion in red ink. So let's make investments we know are essential in our military and in our middle class.

We will also have to make sure the disaster package treats all our States and territories fairly; that California and Puerto Rico and the Mountain West and the U.S. Virgin Islands get the aid they need, just like Texas and Louisiana and Florida.

We have to reach agreement on a new healthcare package that admits the new reality of our healthcare system. The Republicans repealed the individual mandate in their tax bill, an act that will raise premiums and lower coverage. The old healthcare compromise legislation was crafted before the Republican tax bill. Patty Murray has said, under new circumstances, we need a new proposal. We cannot just enact the previous Alexander-Murray bill because of the change our Republican colleagues made to the healthcare system.

Then, of course, there is the DACA issue. That is going to require further compromise. There are many Republicans in this Chamber who want to enshrine DACA protections into law--as every Democrat does--just as there are many Democrats who would pass additional border security measures into law--smart, reasonable, and practical border measures. A deal on this issue can be reached if both parties are committed to good-faith negotiations.

The problem thus far has been President Trump's insistence on a completely ineffective and absurdly expensive wall as part of any deal on DACA.

In fact, we learned this morning, in a stunning New York Times article by Ron Nixon, that the Trump administration is proposing to cut back from smart border security measures to pay for a border wall. I ask unanimous consent that the article by Mr. Nixon in the New York Times be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

According to the Times, which reviewed internal budget guidance from the OMB, the Trump administration would cut or delay funding for border surveillance, cut or delay funding for radar technology, patrol boats, and, maybe more crucially, Customs officers, all to ask taxpayers to pay for the wall--funding to upgrade surveillance aircraft, extremely effective at stopping illegal crossing at the border, particularly drugs, denied; funding to hire new Customs officers, denied; funding for video surveillance with infrared cameras in areas with high incidents of border crossings, cut to ``offset the

costs of Presidential priorities.'' What an absurd proposition.

Security experts have testified for decades that effective border security includes a variety of technologies and resources, drones, infrared sensors, Customs and Border Patrol agents, and officers. In some places, secure fence is appropriate. We agree with that. These were all ideas included in comprehensive immigration reform. That the Trump administration would cannibalize funding for these smart border security measures to pay for a wall that will not work makes no sense.

He said he campaigned on it. Oh, no, Mr. President. You campaigned on a wall that Mexico would pay for. We are waiting, but, again, to take away the things that are needed to protect the border for a symbolic and ineffective political gesture is wrong. There is nothing to this than politics. President Trump is fighting for an empty symbol rather than smart policy that will actually produce better security at our borders. We Democrats are willing, able, and eager to work with our Republican colleagues and the administration on smart, effective border solutions.

As I have said, there may be a few defined places where a secure fence makes sense, but a medieval wall that you can't see through across the length of the southern border will not make us any safer. Walls can be scaled over. Walls can be tunneled under. There are, as I have been told, many tunnels under the wall in San Diego, some of which have not been detected.

There is also the issue of eminent domain. The Federal Government would have to conscript hundreds of square miles of land from American citizens to build a wall. The administration still hasn't produced plans for where to put it, and, of course, President Trump promised, once again, that Mexico would pay for it, not taxpayers. If you can read anything into the election, it was for that. The polling data shows the majority of Americans don't believe the wall is the right thing to do.

It is not responsible to insist that American taxpayers pay for an absurdly expensive and ineffective border wall or else the government shuts down. If the President goes down that path and insists on the wall or shuts down the government, which he said back in September, make no mistake about it, a government shutdown will fall entirely on his shoulders.

If President Trump can find a way to get Mexico to pay for the wall, while American taxpayers pay for things that really make a difference to secure the border, he should reveal that to the American people. Until that time, Democrats will work with our Republican colleagues on smart border security, effective border security, just as we fight to protect the Dreamers.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my dear friend and I got to Congress in 1980, and I thank him very much for his leadership on the CHIP issue, as on so many other issues that pass through the Finance Committee, where he has done a terrific job. His caring for kids is unmatched, and he is a great asset to his State of Oregon, to this body, and to our country.

We have 2 weeks until funding for the government runs out. Alongside our talks about extending government funding, we have also been engaged in serious bipartisan negotiations on a number of issues that should coincide with that deadline. We have to lift spending cuts, pass disaster aid, a healthcare package, reach an agreement to enshrine DACA protections alongside additional border security, and of course there is the issue of 702 as well.

Those negotiations, though difficult, have been proceeding quite well. In fact, the four congressional leaders met with representatives from the White House last Thursday and had an encouraging meeting. Unfortunately, following that meeting, the White House issued a series of unreasonable demands entirely outside the scope of our ongoing negotiations about DACA and border security. It is part of a pattern of behavior on the part of this White House during sensitive bipartisan negotiations.

Over the past year, the White House has much more frequently been a disruptive force rather than a unifying force. To throw down a list from the hard-line wing of the White House at the last minute is not a very fortuitous or smart thing to do.

I hope we can keep on the track that we were on because the issues we are facing are mounting, and a major deal requires dedicated, bipartisan effort. Democrats are going to keep working toward a global agreement with our Republican colleagues, one that lifts the spending caps for defense and urgent domestic priorities in tandem, that sends our men and women in uniform the support they need, and that puts a downpayment on tackling the pressing issues here at home, such as combating the opioid epidemic, improving veterans' healthcare, and shoring up pension plans. These are every bit as important as helping our troops.

Our troops are extremely important, but we are a great country, and we don't have to say: To help the troops, we can't help the victims of opioid addiction. To help the troops, we can't help the veterans who once were troops themselves. To help the troops, we can't help working Americans keep the pensions they paid into year after year. All these folks want is to retire to a life of some degree of dignity.

When the majority leader said this morning that he is not for parity, he is saying we can't do both. He is telling victims of opioid addiction, many of whom are soldiers who have PTSD, and he is telling pensioners--some miners in his own State--and he is telling veterans who have to wait in line for healthcare that this country can't do both, that we can't protect our military, give them the funds they need, and deal with our domestic needs.

When Donald Trump ran, he said that we have to pay more attention to America. What the majority leader is saying is that is not the case. So let no one be fooled. When the majority leader says he is not for parity, he is not for helping opioid folks to the extent they need, he is not for helping veterans to the extent they need, and he is not for helping pensioners to the extent they need. We Democrats are there for both--helping the military and helping these folks here.

Over the weekend, I was in White Plains, which is a suburb of New York City. I stood with a mother who lost her son to an opioid overdose. A mother should never have to bury her son, especially Stephanie Keegan, whose son Daniel was a veteran who served our country bravely in Afghanistan. He did very well in school but had a duty to country. He was in the intelligence unit for a while, he was so brilliant. But he came home, as some do, nerves shattered by war, struggling with a severe case of PTSD. Stephanie told me that her beautiful, brilliant son Daniel--I saw his picture; an all-American boy, if ever there were one--her son Daniel waited 16 months for treatment by the VA and died 2 weeks before his first appointment.

``There are so many things that can be done to change this situation,'' Mrs. Keegan said. She is right. We can make a real investment in combating the scourge of opioid addiction, putting real resources into treatment and recovery, as well as interdiction. We can make a real investment in improving healthcare at our veterans hospitals so kids like Daniel don't have to wait almost a year and a half before they get the treatment they desperately need.

And what about hard-working Americans who need pensions? Retirement is one of the things Americans worry about most these days. For years, Teamsters and miners and carpenters paid into pension plans week after week, month after month, year after year. They took a little less salary in their negotiations because they wanted to know that when it was time to retire, they could retire with some degree of dignity. No one is going to get rich on these pensions, but at least they are there and provide a little bit of a nest egg for people in their golden years. As they put the money in week after week, month after month, year after year, they were told: You may not become rich when you retire, you may not be able to buy luxuries, but at least you will have a life of dignity.

Now those pensions may be stolen from millions in America, in this country. These folks contributed to and earned every penny of their pensions. Are we going to shrug our shoulders and say: We can't do that. Most Americans want us to do that; they don't want it to be an either-or situation.

Our colleagues would say: Well, that might increase the deficit. Don't come talking to us about the deficit anymore when you put together a $1.5 trillion increase in the deficit, the majority of which went to big tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and the biggest, fattest corporations in America. No more deficit talk from my colleagues here.

When we Democrats ask for parity in budget agreements, this is what we mean: We mean opioids. We mean veterans' healthcare. We mean pensions.

We need to defend and support the middle class here at home just as we must protect America from her adversaries abroad, which our military does so proudly and bravely. We agree that we need to support our military wholeheartedly, but we don't think that is a reason to leave the middle class behind. So let's do both. Let's lift the spending caps equally for defense and these urgent domestic priorities.

Our two parties can reach a deal like that, just as we can reach a deal to pass a disaster aid package that treats all States and territories fairly; just as we can have an agreement on a healthcare package that acknowledges the new realities of the healthcare markets, which were disrupted by Republicans when they repealed the mandate in the tax bill last year; and just as we can reach a deal on DACA-- protecting young people who were brought here as kids through no fault of their own--while at the same time making reasonable, appropriate, and smart investments in border security--something that in the past both Democrats and Republicans have supported.

In conclusion, an agreement can be reached on all these issues. Nobody wants a shutdown. Nobody wants sequestration to come into effect for either the military or the domestic side of the budget. So let's continue to work together. Let's commit to work together in good faith to make progress on these issues and get it done before January 19.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday the four congressional leaders had a positive and productive meeting with Budget Director Mulvaney and representatives from the White House, including Mr. Short. It was a good first step, but there is a lot of work to do. Ultimately, the budget agreement must lift the spending caps with parity between defense and urgent domestic priorities, it must include disaster aid, a healthcare package, and an agreement to enshrine DACA protections alongside additional border security.

Like our Republican colleagues, Democrats want to make sure our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to do their jobs. There is not an argument about that, but we also want to make sure there are crucial investments in economic development and job creation here at home--programs that support the middle class and help it grow.

That includes a number of things, including funding needed for the opioid crisis. Life expectancy has gone down in America for the first time in years because of deaths from the opioid abuse by young people and middle-aged people. Are we just going to shrug our shoulders at that? There is a lot more to do. It affects rural areas, urban areas, and suburban areas. There have been 63,000 Americans who have died from drug overdoses. Those are deaths on the battlefield, in a sense, as well--often the flower of our youth, the prime of America, so many in rural areas. These are kids who were full of potential. Many were veterans dealing with the wounds of war. They served our country and didn't get what they needed when they came home.

I had a father cry in my arms. His son had been grappling with opioids. Finally, they had persuaded the son to sign up for a treatment program, but the treatment program didn't have the funding it needed so there was a long waiting list, and the son died of an overdose while waiting on that list. We can't have that anymore.

What about veterans' healthcare? These are people who risked their lives for us. We need to do it.

What about millions of hard-working Americans who need pensions? One of the issues Americans are most worried about is pensions and retirement. For years, they paid into these plans. They were told: You know, when you retire, you are not going to be rich, you are not going to be able to buy luxuries, but at least you will have a life of dignity. Now those pensions have been robbed from so many people throughout the country. Are we going to shrug our shoulders?

I hear the majority leader say he is not for parity. ``Parity'' is not just a word, it is veterans, people who need opioid relief, and middle-class folks and working people who need pensions. Are our Republican colleagues going to do what they just did in the tax bill and abandon the middle class? Are our Republican colleagues going to do what they tried to do in the healthcare bill and take away healthcare from millions of working people, people in the middle class? ``Parity'' is the term we use around here. I would rather call it defending middle-class America. Just as it is important to defend America from foreign enemies, which our military does so bravely and proudly, we have to defend America here.

I plead with Leader McConnell not to abandon the middle class in this bill. Funding the military is a worthy goal and so is helping the middle class. For the past year, unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have been doing what the very wealthy people want and ignoring the middle class and working people. That is one of the reasons right now so many Americans say they would rather have a Democratic Senate than a Republican Senate. I would rather have a Senate that helps the middle class, whatever the political outcome, but our colleagues don't seem to be going for that.

I say to Leader McConnell, my friend, you cannot let the hard right dictate what you want because the hard right and their wealthy benefactors are not where America is. It is not even where the Republican Party has always been.

Now, in addition to parity helping the middle class, we need to do other things. We should pass a disaster package that treats all States and territories fairly given the necessity of relief in Texas, California, Louisiana, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. By the way, we need to make sure we straighten out things in the West so the Forest Service isn't robbed of the funding they need to prevent future forest fires as they take the money out to handle present forest fires. We need to do that.

I know a lot of Congressmen from the House want aid. Even though many of them opposed aid when New York and New Jersey had a crisis, we are not going to play tit for tat, but we want a fair bill, and we want our priorities recognized as well.

Finally, there are the Dreamers. This must be done now. Leader McConnell seems to think there is no urgency. We disagree strongly-- respectfully but strongly. There is an urgent need. We have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans who want America to be their country--who were

brought here through no fault of their own, who are working in our factories and offices, who are going to our schools, and who are serving in our military. Right now, every morning they wake up with a pit of fear in their heart that they will be deported and separated from their families. There is a very strong urgency there, and we have to get the Dreamers taken care of as well as these other needs.

So our language, our proposal on this budget deal is to take care of the middle class in terms of pensions and opioids and veterans, take care of disaster relief, take care of the healthcare problems we face-- we all know about CHIP, community health centers, and healthcare extenders--and take care of both the border and the Dreamers. We can do it all. We should do it all.

It is no secret that in each of these areas right now there are sticking points, but there are potential points of agreement. All five parties continue to have discussion groups on these four circles of areas--and to do them concurrently and come up with solutions quickly so we can meet that January 19 deadline because nobody wants sequestration to go into effect for the military or nonmilitary side of the budget. Our goal should be a global agreement on all these issues by January 19. That is the best way to resolve the issues we face.

I see my dear friend from Georgia waiting, and I yield the floor to him.

Mr. President, I very much thank my friend from Pennsylvania. As always, he is a gentleman as well as a great legislator and great leader. I meant those words very sincerely, unrelated to his yielding to me.

Mr. President, on year-end issues, we are staring down a litany of unresolved issues, and we are quickly running out of time to solve them. Not only do we need to pass an extension of government funding, but as I have said many times, we need to deal with budget caps, CHIP, community health centers, 702 FISA, a disaster supplemental, and of course the Dreamers.

I believe we could have resolved all of these issues had my Republican colleagues, especially in the House, not put them on the back burner while jamming through their tax bill. It is unclear still what the House is going to send us to keep the government open and whether it will be acceptable to the Senate.

At the same time, the House may move forward on an unacceptable disaster supplemental which still does not treat fairly California, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It doesn't include, as best we know--they are still working on it--cost sharing for Puerto Rico and additional funding for Medicaid, mitigation resiliency, and drinking water infrastructure. While House Republicans included some tax provisions in the disaster supplemental, they failed to extend the ITC for Puerto Rico, extend the childcare tax credit consistent with other States, and the tax bill also includes a devastating new business tax that treats Puerto Rico as if it is a foreign country, which could encourage manufacturers to leave the island. This tax could cost thousands of jobs and decimate Puerto Rico's economy at exactly the time when Puerto Rico is hurting from the hurricanes and needs all the help it can get. Those issues must be fixed before a disaster supplemental can move forward. Because of these inadequacies, the disaster supplemental may have to slip to next year. I think we can work it out in a bipartisan way--I certainly do--but just jamming it through without consulting us and not being fair to so many other parts of the country doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately, we still have not reached a deal yet on the Dreamers, who are very important not only to my caucus, not only to some on the Republican side but to the American people. They have overwhelming support. These kids were brought here very young, through no fault of their own. They learn in our schools, work at our companies, serve in our military, and pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in every single important way but one--their paperwork. This is an issue we have a moral imperative to solve here in Congress.

Democrats want to make sure that we have equal bargaining, and we are not going to allow things like disaster relief go forward without discussing some of the other issues we care about that I have mentioned. We have to solve these issues together, even if that means passing a clean, short-term CR extension of government funding with some anomalies--we always understand there always have to be some anomalies but not those that change the structure--and continuing the negotiations into January.

Now, Mr. President, on tax. Earlier this week, the Senate passed one of the worst pieces of legislation in at least a decade, maybe longer. The Republican tax bill will go down in history as a rushed, sloppy, partisan rewrite of the Tax Code that benefited those who already have so much while doing little or hurting those who have too little. It will be remembered as throwing the extraordinary income inequality we see today into overdrive and fulfilling very few of the ambitious Republican promises about growth, job creation, and deficit reduction. But perhaps most of all, the Republican tax bill will define the Republican Party as the party of the rich and powerful, the party against the middle class, and that will be a rubric we will hear from now until next November and even further on.

Yesterday in the Oval Office, President Trump admitted that cutting the corporate tax rate was ``probably the biggest factor in our plan.'' Despite all his rhetoric about this being a middle-class tax bill, as soon as it passes, he admits that lowering the corporate rate was the Republicans' primary goal.

As corporations get a massive, permanent tax break, individuals will get small and temporary ones. By 2027, 145 million American families making under $200,000--83 percent of the middle class--will be either paying more in taxes or get a cut of less than $100. That is according to the Joint Committee on Taxation--no partisan affiliation. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent of income earners in our country will reap 83 percent of the benefits from this tax plan. Those facts are what make this bill so dramatically unpopular with the American people by a 2-to-1 margin in some polls, and next year the American people will have the opportunity to reject this bill and move our country in a different direction.

Mr. President, on Special Prosecutor Mueller, I want to take a moment to praise my friend from Virginia, Senator Mark Warner, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, for his speech yesterday about Special Counsel Mueller. It was an eloquent speech. I would like to associate myself with the substance of his fine remarks. If the President were to fire Special Counsel Mueller, our country would face a constitutional crisis. As my colleague from Virginia said, it would cross a redline. Additionally, there are steps below that brash and brazen act that would also cross redlines here in Congress, as Senator Warner noted, including the use of the Presidential pardon on members of the Trump campaign who have been convicted, whether those pardons are intended to subvert the investigation or prevent testimony and further cooperation.

So I say to my colleagues, just as firing Special Prosecutor Mueller would cross a redline, so would pardoning people like Manafort and Flynn. The bottom line is this: President Trump must allow this investigation to proceed without a scintilla of interference. He would be wise to listen to Senator Warner's speech yesterday and act accordingly.

Finally, Mr. President, since this is the last time I might be able to address this Chamber before the end of the year--let's hope so--I would like to look back at what the Senate has accomplished this year. The long and short of it, though, is that the Senate has not accomplished much to be proud of.

Despite winning only a slim majority in the last election--a condition that made this year ripe for cooperation between the parties--the Republicans used their power not to seek consensus or bipartisanship but, rather, to try to jam through a partisan agenda.

My friend the majority leader once promised that if he were ever given the majority, he would return the body to regular order. He cautioned against the Senate becoming an ``assembly line for one party's partisan legislative agenda.'' That is what Mitch McConnell said a few years ago. Sadly, that is exactly what the Senate has become under his leadership this year. For a man who professed to love the Senate and relish bipartisanship, this is probably the most partisan Senate that I have served in in all the years I have been here, and we have departed from regular order and the customs of the Senate in ways never seen before. For what end? Well, this Chamber, under Republican leadership, has devoted itself to furthering the interests of the wealthy and powerful, while ignoring or harming the interests of the middle class and working America.

Republicans will argue that they had a great year, pointing to three things--Judge Gorsuch, the use of the Congressional Review Act to roll back regulations, and their tax bill. All three of those things help the rich and they will help corporations, but they won't help the middle class.

Senate Republicans engaged in historic obstruction to keep a Supreme Court seat open so the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society could pick a Justice who would rule on the side of corporations instead of people.

Senate Republicans jammed through Congressional Review Act bills that rolled back protections for women, students, and workers, while lifting requirements placed on bad actors in the big oil, gas, mining, and gun industries.

They capped the year by passing a tax bill that provides huge tax breaks for the rich and biggest corporations, while providing crumbs and even tax hikes for the middle class.

They tried for months to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would send costs soaring for millions of Americans and cause millions more to lose coverage.

They failed to fully authorize CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and failed to rebuild our infrastructure, despite the President's promises.

The stock market is up, but wages are flat or nearly flat. The President and Republicans promised that they would stop outsourcing, and that hasn't happened. Even companies the President said he would personally save have sent jobs to Mexico, leaving families in the Midwest and across the country without the income they need this holiday season.

Time and time again, the middle class was an afterthought or simply forgotten by Senate Republicans and President Trump. That has been the story of the year. Republicans haven't accomplished much, but what they have accomplished has only benefited the wealthy and well connected.

The Senate's record this year has exposed the faux populism at the center of President Trump's political identity. Although he rode into office promising to help the forgotten man and woman, those are exactly the people he has forgotten, abandoning them in favor of wealthy special interests. Populism, unfortunately, under President Trump, has been traded for plutocracy.

The millions of Americans in 2016 who were frustrated at a Washington that didn't work for them feel more frustrated today, and the millions of working men and women who voted for President Trump--many of them are already feeling betrayed.

We hope that the future will be different and that our Republican friends realize that their legislative and political goals are better served by bipartisanship and compromise rather than gridlock and strife. If they do, we are willing and ready to work with them, but if they don't, voters will have a chance to move our country in a dramatically different direction in 2018. We are already seeing a yearning for that new direction in elections in Virginia, New Jersey, Tennessee, and even in deep red Alabama. If the Republicans continue to hurt the middle class and give handouts to big corporations and the wealthy, they are in for a reckoning next November.

I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his courtesy.

I object.

Mr. President, today we are adopting S. Res. 327, the National Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Awareness Week resolution. In 2015 I sponsored a similar resolution, National Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Awareness Month, which was inspired by the story and memory of Amanda Hansen. Ms. Hansen was a 16-year-old, living in West Seneca, NY, when she tragically lost her life to carbon monoxide poisoning while attending a sleepover at a friend's home. Her heartbreaking story focused attention on this issue and spurred action to prevent future deaths from exposure to this deadly gas. As a long supporter of this resolution, I believe that every home across our great Nation should have carbon monoxide alarms installed that can detect and prevent carbon monoxide poisoning, a silent and odorless killer. By bringing awareness to carbon monoxide poisoning and reminding our fellow Americans to diligently check their home-detection systems, Americans can take the necessary actions to ensure the safety of their loved ones.

I again send my deepest condolences to the Hansen family for their loss and to the many American families who have suffered from the passing of their loved ones due to carbon monoxide poisoning.

With the help of Amanda's spirit, I will continue to fight for congressional action to help prevent future tragedies. Today I stand proud to be a Member of a body that unanimously supports the adoption of National Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Awareness Week.

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

Mr. President, last night the Senate passed an awful, partisan rewrite of the Tax Code. I said a good deal about the bill over the course of the debate and added my concluding thoughts into the Record before the final vote, but let me just reiterate one point. The Republican tax bill will cement the Republican Party as the party of the wealthy and the party of the big corporations against the middle class and the working people of this country.

Corporations get permanent tax breaks. The individual tax breaks expire. By 2027, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 83 percent of the middle class--that is almost 145

million American families--will either get a tax increase or a tax cut of less than $100.

Meanwhile, according to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of earners in our country will reap 83 percent of the benefits of the tax plan.

Let's go over that again. The middle class, 83 percent, either get a tax increase or a tax break of less than $100. The top 1 percent, the wealthiest, get 83 percent of the benefits. Middle-class America is asking something: Why does the top get far more than I do? Why do I get a tax increase when so many of them get a huge decrease? To boot, millions of middle-class Americans will now go without health insurance and millions more will see their premiums rise. At the same time, multinational corporations and wealthy hedge fund managers enjoy a massive tax break. To repeat, the legacy of this bill will be to cement the Republican Party as the party of the rich and powerful against the middle class.

We Democrats have been saying this for years, but our Republican colleagues with this tax bill have done us a major favor. Even their Republican supporters are realizing where the Senate Republicans and House Republicans are--on the side of the most wealthy, on the side of the big powerful corporations, not on the side of the middle class.

Whenever we have had a Republican President and Republican Congress, we get the same thing--a program of tax cuts for the rich, higher deficit and debt, and then threats to Social Security and Medicare. That is what happened under President Bush, and we are seeing the exact same playbook today. There is nothing about this bill that is suited to the needs of the American worker or the American economy. My Republican friends would propose it in a booming economy or recession, whether we have surpluses or deficits. No matter what, it seems to our Republican friends that tax cuts for the rich and big corporations are the answer to our problems. The benefits will trickle down like magic to the rest of us.

Trickle down is the entire philosophy of this tax bill--trickle down. When they say they are helping the middle class, when they say they are creating jobs, it is because the wealthy get money and, in their belief, will create jobs. It hasn't happened. It hasn't happened. Corporate America has more money than ever before. The stock market is higher than ever before, and job creation isn't.

That is where this bill is at. There is nothing about this bill that suits the needs of the American worker, as I said. Trickle down has been widely discredited as an economic theory. It has been discredited by recent history, and it will be discredited again.

Our Republican colleagues are clinging. They are saying: This bill is so unpopular, but don't worry, once the economy takes off, once people see hundreds of dollars in their pockets, they will change their mind.

The economy is not going to take off. The wealthy will do better. There will be a lot of dividends. There will be a lot of stock buybacks, not too much job creation. AT&T is a big American company and a fine American company. Their tax rate over the last 10 years was a mere 8 percent, and they cut 80,000 jobs. That one statistic belies all this trickle-down bunk that our Republican colleagues still cling to even though it is outdated and disproved, and the American people will have their chance in 2018 to reject this philosophy and move our country in a dramatically different direction--back toward government that works to lift up the middle class rather than one that gives more to those who already have so much. From now until then, we Democrats will focus like a laser on making things better for working Americans and the middle class. The contrast, particularly this tax bill, which so benefits the wealthy and powerful, could not be more clear.