Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to highlight the importance of the Gateway Project and express my continued frustration with the administration's approach to infrastructure and this critical project. The current Hudson River tunnels were built in 1908 and are rapidly deteriorating, a problem that was made far worse by Hurricane Sandy. Time is running out, and we must quickly build new tunnels under the Hudson River before the current tunnels have to be closed for repairs.

The closing of either tunnel without a new tunnel in place would be devastating because it would essentially shut down the Northeast Corridor, the transit route from Boston to Washington that produces over $3 trillion in economic output, a full 20 percent of the national gross domestic product. The importance of this project cannot be overstated.

Unfortunately, despite repeated campaign promises to focus on infrastructure investment, President Trump has proposed severe cuts to infrastructure programs, including the Capital Investment Grant Program. That cut is significant because it was the likely source of funding for the Gateway groject. In addition to proposing to cut the funding needed for the Gateway Project, the Department of Transportation has been unresponsive to a number of important interim actions that are necessary to advance this critical project.

Given the lack of focus on infrastructure investment by the current administration and the continued roadblocks the administration has erected in front of the Gateway Project, I must oppose the nomination of Mr. Derek Kan to be Under Secretary of Transportation.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, later today the Senate Republicans will release their version of the tax bill. The bill will not include a single idea of Democrats in the Senate. Not a single Democrat has had any input into this bill. It was constructed entirely behind closed doors by the majority party, who have no intention of negotiating with Democrats because they locked themselves into a partisan process that only requires a majority vote.

They are trying to rush it through this Chamber with reckless speed. Why? Because my friends on the other side know that the longer their bill is out there for the public to see, the less the public likes it. Their only hopes of passing it are to rush it through before anyone can grapple with the stunning hypocrisy at the center of their plan.

The Republican majority has repeatedly promised a middle-class tax bill, but instead, they have concocted a bill grounded in tax cuts for big corporations and the very rich. They actually hurt middle-class people because they need to give those big breaks for the wealthiest.

While promising that their plan gives ``everyone a tax cut''--that is what Speaker Ryan said again today--multiple independent analyses conclude that the House Republican tax plan would increase taxes on millions of middle-class families, contrary to what Republicans promised and what Donald Trump has promised. They said: No middle-class people will get an increase. This is aimed at helping the middle class.

But the vast majority of the help goes to the wealthiest and biggest corporations. A New York Times analysis found that next year the House Republican plan would cause taxes to go up on one-third of all middle- class families. By 2026 taxes will go up on nearly half of all middle- class families.

So even if you come from a State with a lower tax rate--a red State-- it is probably a good bet that a quarter of the middle-class families will get a tax increase. I think the lowest I saw was 17 percent for West Virginia.

So this hurts middle-class people, and it hurts certain middle-class people much more than others--people who have student loans, people who have high medical expenses, people who come from States where there are large property taxes, people who have big mortgages. These are middle- class people. They should not get a tax increase.

Mark Mazer, director of the independent Tax Policy Center, said:

You could create a plan that just cuts taxes for middle-

class people. That's not what this is.

That is him, not me. It is what Republicans promised people.

Now, we will see what the Senate comes up with today. But several Republican Senators have already confirmed that the Senate bill has the same structure as the House bill, and, in at least one way, we know it is worse for middle-class families than the House bill because the House bill will reduce the value of State and local deductions by 70 percent, while the Senate bill eliminates it entirely. My friend from Ohio, Senator Portman, confirmed that a few days ago on FOX Business.

This should be a three-alarm fire for every House Republican in California, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Illinois, Colorado, and Minnesota. Senate Republicans are telling House Republicans there will be no compromise on State and local deductibility. It is full repeal or bust because Senate Republicans need the revenue raised by ending this popular middle-class deduction.

There are several deficit hawks in the Senate. We have stricter budget rules for reconciliation. If the Senate tax plan includes cuts to the corporate rate, the pass-through rate, and on upper tax brackets--which dramatically increase the deficit--they will need the revenue from the full repeal of State and local to make the numbers work.

So I say to every one of my Republican colleagues in the House who comes from a suburban district: This bill could be your political doom. Don't let the special interests, don't let the party leadership push you into doing something that is bad for so many of your constituents. You will pay a price.

House Republicans should kill the bill now if they want to have any hope of stopping the full repeal of the State and local deduction. They can't hide behind the so-called compromise in the House bill. It is nothing more than a temporary fig leaf for full and permanent repeal.

As I said, if House Republicans don't kill it now, it will come back to haunt them. The overwhelming Democratic turnout in suburban districts in Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania should send shivers down the spine of House Republicans who represent those districts. Voting to repeal the State and local deduction--walloping the middle- class and upper middle-class suburbs--would be political suicide, all this to bow down to the special big interests of large corporations.

Even with the compromise, the House numbers are devastating. Representative MacArthur said he was shown information that shows the compromise is good for his district, and he went from a no to a ``leans'' yes, according to POLITICO.

Representative MacArthur, go look at the real numbers.

Forty-three percent of taxpayers in Representative MacArthur's district take the State and local deduction, for an average of $11,987 per deduction. Over half of the value of these deductions is not the property tax at all. It is State and local income taxes, which will be taken away under the plan.

Then, according to IRS data, there are a good number for whom the property taxes are over $10,000, meaning the compromise still wouldn't help them. So I would not, if I were Representative MacArthur, listen to the numbers the Republican leadership is giving him. I would do my own independent analysis because I believe he would find them to be a lot worse than what the leadership is telling him.

I say to my other Republican colleagues: Don't fall for those quick numbers. Go do your own looking at this. It is a lot worse than your leadership is telling you.

One final point here on taxes, for some reason the conventional wisdom on the Republican side is that because of the stunning depth of their losses in the recent elections, there is even a greater need to pass the tax plan. We have to do this or we will fall apart, they said. It makes no sense. They are misreading the public.

Ed Gillespie, for all of his divisive ads, also ran a traditional establishment campaign. The linchpin of his campaign was the $1,000 tax cut for everybody. It got him nowhere. Exit polls from the Virginia election showed that the No. 1 issue on voters' minds was healthcare, and they voted overwhelmingly Democratic. Yet, amazingly, Republicans may repeal the individual mandate as part of their tax bill. How do they think that is going to fly?

Despite the spin from Republican leaders, passing this plan will not help Republicans climb out of the hole they are in. It will bury them deeper. Maybe if they pass the bill, they will not say they are in disarray for the moment, but already this bill has had a miserable rollout. You know that when a party rolls out their No. 1 legislative plan, there should be trumpets and bands, but the public knows already that the bill favors the wealthy. The public knows that middle-class people get a tax increase.

So at best, the rollout of this bill has been mixed. I would say it has been negative, and the American people agree because many more people are against this bill than are for it, according to all of the polls. Passing a partisan tax plan that favors the wealthy and raises taxes on millions of middle-class and upper middle-class families in the suburbs is no political cure. It is political poison.

The real way to win back the esteem of the American people would be to put partisanship aside, put a giant tax cut for the wealthy on the shelf, and come work with Democrats on real bipartisan reform.

Mr. President, I would also like to just announce my strong opposition to Mr. Wehrum to the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.

While working in senior roles at the Office during the Bush administration, Mr. Wehrum led the efforts to weaken clean air protections. During his tenure, courts ruled that the Agency violated the Clean Air Act 30 times. Mr. Wehrum represented industry clients against the EPA 31 times since 2008.

He does not deserve to be in this position. Anyone who cares about the lungs of their children should not want Mr. Wehrum in that position. I hope we will get some bipartisan support to reject this really awful nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over the past decade, the American economy has generated enormous wealth for wealth holders but, painfully, less work and less pay--fewer good-paying jobs--for workers. Average folks are having a harder time keeping up with the ever-rising costs as the rich get richer and corporate stocks soar.

Our economy would surely benefit from the kind of tax reform that gives small businesses and working Americans a break, while asking the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share. ``Their share'' doesn't mean they are doing something illegal; it simply means that as wealth goes up and so much money agglomerates to the top, for the good of the society, the wealthiest should pay more.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party has decided to pursue a partisan tax bill that would spin our economy even further out of whack, lavishing tax giveaways on the wealthy and corporate America, while raising taxes on millions of middle-class families over 10 years.

A New York Times analysis found that next year, the House Republican tax plan would cause taxes to go up on one-third of all middle-class families. Those are families who make--I believe it is between $56,000 and $150,000. One out of three in that middle-class, upper middle-class group is going to pay more in taxes, while those at the highest end get huge breaks. By 2026, taxes would go up on nearly half of all middle- class families.

I want to salute someone I almost never agree with--Senator Cruz. At least yesterday, he had the courage of his convictions to say that no middle-class person should pay more, even in New York and California. But that is not the case with this bill. Large numbers of people throughout the country will pay more. Large numbers of middle-class people and people struggling to the middle class will pay more.

So when Speaker Ryan says that under the House plan ``Everyone enjoys a tax cut all across the board,'' as he did yesterday, he is fibbing. I really want to use the ``L'' word, but to be nice, I won't. But Speaker Ryan, explain to us how you can say with a straight face: ``Everyone enjoys a tax cut all across the board.''

Every independent analysis and the more honest Republicans say that some middle-class people--a good number of middle-class people--get a tax increase. So Speaker Ryan, take it back. Start telling the truth about your bill. We know you are under pressure, but you have always been an honorable man, and this tax bill is tying you into a pretzel when it comes to telling the truth about it.

Look at what is done here. The personal exemption, which benefits large families, is gone. Yes, the standard deduction doubles, but if you have four, five, six children, you still pay more, even before they start whacking your State and local deductibility or your college loan deductibility or your healthcare deductibility.

Stunningly, the deduction for catastrophically high medical expenses is also gone, meaning that among the hardest hit under this plan would be some of the most vulnerable taxpayers. Eight million Americans deduct their out-of-pocket medical expenses because they are over 10 percent of their income. They plan their finances around this deduction. These families have someone with a chronic condition--maybe an elderly parent who has Alzheimer's, maybe a family with a young kid who has cancer.

I met a lady at the airport yesterday. Her name was Bridget. I didn't know who she was. She came over to me pleading. There was sadness in her eyes. She said: My son needs an orphan drug. It is very expensive. If I can't deduct the expenses, I don't know what I

am going to do. I won't be able to afford the drug. How can our Republican colleagues be so heartless and cruel? I know that you want to reduce taxes on corporations, but why do you have to do it at Bridget's expense?

Of course, the House bill takes an ax to State and local deductibility, a bedrock middle-class deduction that affects nearly every State but hits high tax States, like Virginia, the hardest.

Any House Republican who watched the returns in the Virginia elections last night must be shaken by the overwhelming Democratic turnout in suburban areas. According to pollsters, the No. 1 issue was healthcare, and this deduction goes. But overall, suburban Virginia said no to the Republican way. Suburban families will be the ones hit hardest by the elimination of State and local deductions in States like Virginia but also in Washington, New Jersey, California, Illinois, Minnesota, and Colorado.

Just last night, we learned from reporting that the Senate bill is likely to go even further regarding the State and local deduction--full repeal. There are some from my State in New York saying: Well, we have a compromise. A, the compromise still eliminates three-fourths of the deduction, but, B, that compromise is going bye-bye. The Senate is going to get rid of it. You can be sure it won't come back in a conference committee.

So I say to my House colleagues, particularly those from suburban districts: Stop the elimination of the State and local deduction now before it is too late. If it happens and you vote yes on this bill, you will be to blame. There is no way to duck and cover behind the SALT compromise any longer because the SALT tax writers have made clear that they want to repeal it entirely in the Senate. Because of the stricter Senate budget rules, the Senate language is likely to win out over the House language.

Make no mistake about it, a full repeal of the State and local deduction is coming down the pike one way or the other. Voting to advance the GOP bill is a vote to fully repeal State and local deductibility. I say to my Republican friends from all those suburban districts where a high percentage of people use the State and local deduction: If you think the results in Virginia and New Jersey were terrible for you, wait until you pass a bill that raises taxes on large swaths of middle-class families in your district.

The debate over the State and local deduction is illustrative of the central problem my Republican friends have with their tax bill. Every time you pull in one direction and change something to solve a problem, you have to push in another direction, and you end up creating a new one. It is like pushing on a balloon.

Just this morning, Speaker Ryan said the phaseout of middle-class deductions would never happen. They are only there to ``game the Senate rules.'' Well, if there is no phaseout, the real cost of the bill will be much higher. I say to my Senate friends who have talked about making sure we don't let the deficit go out of control that Ryan is saying we are going to let the deficit go out of control and game the Senate rules because the phaseout of middle-class deductions will not happen. If there is no real phaseout, the real cost of the bill will be much higher. It is a tough pill to swallow to anyone in this setting on the Republican side who believes in deficit reduction and who believes about $1.5 trillion--their rule--is about as high as you can go.

All of this is because our Republican colleagues are rushing this bill through. Something like this takes care. It takes hearings. It takes discussion. It takes experts. It takes affected groups all weighing in. That takes a while. That is how it is supposed to work. That is how the Founding Fathers wanted it to work. That is how we did it with the last successful major tax reform bill in 1986. I was there, and I know.

To rush a bill of this magnitude through the Congress in a span of a few weeks, with only one party doing the work, is reckless, it is irresponsible, and it will lead to a very bad result. It is why our Republican colleagues have such problems.

I repeat my plea to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Take a step back and consider doing tax reform the right way-- bipartisan, through the committees, input from both sides. We have shown, as in healthcare, when we try, we can work together. The Senator from New Hampshire is on the floor. She was one of the leaders in that.

Earlier this year, we came to a good budget deal. Senators Alexander and Murray put together a reasonable compromise on healthcare. We can do it again on tax reform. We Democrats want to do real reform, but our Republican friends must abandon this partisan, secretive, reckless process that will lead to no good for them and for the country and come to the table with Democrats.

One final point on the matter, Republicans repeatedly promised that the $1.5 trillion reduction in the corporate tax rate proposed by the Ryan-McConnell tax plan will lead the average American family to receive a $4,000 raise. Yet corporate profits are already at record highs. Wages are relatively stagnant. So color us skeptical that showering corporations with new tax brackets that will result in them having even more money will end up creating higher wages for workers. Far more likely what it will create is another round of stock buybacks and dividends, which, by and large, benefit corporate CEOs and the wealthy.

You don't have to take it from me. David Marberger is the executive vice president and CFO--chief financial officer--of Conagra, which I believe is a major Fortune 500 company. Here is what he told his shareholders this fall, the CFO of Conagra: ``In terms of if there is a corporate tax reduction and there's more cash, we bounce back to our capital allocation''--more stock buybacks.

Republicans think a corporate tax cut without guardrails would boost wages, and we disagree. Later this morning, Democrats will urge our Republican colleagues to put their money where their mouth is and prove us wrong. We will be offering an amendment that would snap back taxes to the old corporate rate if corporations actually fail to boost their workers' wages. It is that simple. Put your money where your mouth is. The only thing you are hanging your hat on, on this bill, which so hurts so many middle-class people is, well, everyone will get a big wage increase because we are reducing the corporate rate. We challenge you to accept our amendment. If the wages don't go up, the corporate decrease in taxes is repealed.

We are simply telling Republicans, don't write checks to corporations that their employees can't cash. If Republicans fail to support this amendment, they will confirm that their tax bill is a farce. They really don't believe it, when it comes to boosting wages for working Americans.

Mr. President, one final word on the nomination of Mr. Robb to the NLRB. The NLRB protects workers' rights to form or join unions, bargain collectively with their employers, and act concertedly for mutual aid or protection. It is not clear to me, from reviewing Mr. Robb's background, that he believes in the mission of the agency.

In his experience as a labor and employment lawyer, he has defended companies against workers' unfair labor practice allegations, age and sex discrimination charges, class action age claims, and wage claims. The website of Mr. Robb's law firm brags about his efforts to delay and defeat union organizing at the Millstone Power Station in Connecticut. He was the lead counsel on the notorious Reagan-era case, which decertified the air traffic controllers' union. That resulted in President Reagan firing 11,000 traffic controllers and barring them from Federal service.

The general counsel for the NLRB sets the priority cases and determines when to bring charges against employers. It is a crucial role. Peter Robb's record shows he is not up to this job, and he will not defend workers in an agency designed to defend workers.

I will be voting no and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, later this week, the House will begin marking up the Republican tax plan in record speed, with no hearings, no real discussion. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans are mimicking the House in trying to rush through their bill as well. It is said, the Senate Republicans will unveil a plan of their own, although I don't expect there to be that much difference between the two.

What has united the Republican tax reform efforts so far in this Congress has been a stubborn desire to reduce taxes paid by big corporations and the superrich. That is the core. The middle class ends up with the leftovers. Shockingly, millions in the middle class will actually see a tax increase, not just a handful but a large number. This morning's New York Times did an analysis. According to them, one- third of all middle-class families would pay more in taxes next year under the House bill, and by 2026, nearly half of all middle-class families would pay more in taxes--almost half.

Here is the newspaper article. This is the New York Times. They defined the middle class as households between $50,000 and $160,000-- the backbone of America. Here is their headline. I don't know if you can see it. ``Republican Plan Would Raise Taxes on Millions of Middle- Class Families.'' Here is the headline again printed a little larger so everyone here in America can see it. ``Republican Plan Would Raise Taxes on Millions of Middle-Class Families.''

That is the case. They did their analysis. By the way, you say: Well, that is mainly in the coastal States. No. Even if it is not one-third, it is probably about 20 percent in the poorest of States. Large numbers of middle-class taxpayers in every State in this Union--coastal, noncoastal, New York, California but also Wyoming, Utah, and Nebraska-- would pay a significant tax increase.

Looking at the House bill, you can see why. Republicans either reduce or eliminate several middle-class tax deductions. The elimination of the personal deduction, for example, which lets families deduct roughly $4,150 for each person in the household, would be costly to families of three or more. If you have a lot of kids, this bill is bad for you. Taxwise--if tax policy influences behavior--they are trying to discourage bigger families. What does that say? Ending the personal exemption makes the Republican tax plan an anti-large family bill.

In many cases, the new benefits provided to the middle class are insufficient to fill the gap created by the loss of popular deductions, and, worse, many of the benefits are temporary, expiring after several years. So while some in the middle class may get an initial tax break, down the line, the break disappears, and taxes start to go up.

As pointed out by David Kamin, a professor of tax law at NYU--and they have a great tax department, proudly from New York--Republicans have reduced the value of middle-class tax breaks significantly over time.

To meet their desires not to increase the deficit by too much-- although $1.5 trillion is a heck of a lot--instead of reducing the tax breaks on the biggest corporations or the very wealthiest, they reduced them on the middle class. So in 5 years' time, the $300/person family credit is gone. The child tax credits--unlike the personal exemptions they replaced--lose value over time because they are not indexed. They only increase with inflation. The Republicans use the same gimmicks to make the value of middle-class deductions, like the standard deduction, lose value over time.

So while some middle-class families may see a tax decrease in the very short run, a considerable number see a hidden tax increase a few years later. They have front-loaded the benefits to disguise a tax hike in the outyears.

Look at this chart. Now, our Republican colleagues picked the perfect family to benefit from their tax break. This middle-class family, when they proposed it, is a family making $59,000 a year. Well, the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy looked at the Republican plan and found over one in five taxpayers, those earning between $56,000 and $150,000--the heart of the middle class--would see an average increase of $1,350 by 2027. Here it is. This is not a family who has medical expenses or kids in college--they lose those deductions--or a large mortgage or from a State with high personal income and sales taxes. This is the plain-vanilla, hand-picked family chosen by the Republicans to highlight the benefits of their plan.

It is true. In the first year, they get a break around $1,100, but over the years, they get an increase. By 2027, even this hand-picked Republican family gets a tax increase. The bottom line is, the Republican tax plan is like a ticking timebomb for many hard-working, middle-class families. Working middle-class families see a tax increase because the Republican plan reduces their benefits over time.

Meanwhile, tax giveaways for the wealthiest Americans and huge corporations get better over time. The estate tax exemption goes up from $11

million to $22 million for a couple, and then it is permanently repealed by 2023. The corporate rate cut and passthrough cut also stays permanent--a boon to wealthy shareholders. Middle-class tax deductions and credits expire. Deductions for corporations and the wealthiest are permanent or even get better.

As Mark Mazer, the director of the Independent Tax Policy Center, said, ``You could create a plan that just cuts taxes for middle-class people. That's not what this is.'' Yet that is how Republicans are selling it.

A few days ago on Hugh Hewitt's show, my friend the majority leader said that ``at the end of the day, nobody in the middle class is going to get a tax increase'' under the Republican bill. Again, that was Mitch McConnell: ``Nobody in the middle class is going to get a tax increase.'' Well, if Leader McConnell was referring to the House bill, that is just a bold-faced lie, and he ought to retract it, but to give the Senator the benefit of the doubt, maybe he is referring to the Senate tax bill still under consideration. Let's see.

In the Republican bill, will nobody in the middle class get a tax increase? We will wait and see. If past is prologue, I doubt it because the House said no middle-class person would get an increase, then their bill walloped the middle class. One-third get an increase immediately, and then half get an increase over the next 10 years.

I would remind my Senate Republican colleagues that their House Republicans sold their bill as a middle-class bill--a middle-class tax cut--and then put together a plan that raises taxes on millions of middle-class families, one-third of all families making between $65,000 and $150,000.

If the Senate bill follows the same path, promising universal, middle-class tax cuts but delivers smoke and mirrors and hidden tax increases, it will get clobbered in the court of public opinion, as it would deserve.

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, later this morning, after months of hemming, hawing, and delaying, House Republicans will finally release some legislative details about their tax plan. It may not even include all the details. The on again, off again nature of these deliberations should concern every Member of both Chambers. That is not how you construct sound policy, especially with something as complicated and impactful as the Tax Code. Each decision has enormous ramifications. Last-minute changes and sloppy drafting could change the fate of entire industries. Rushing it through in a hasty manner could have disastrous consequences.

We know why my colleagues are doing this. They don't want the public to know what is in this bill--increases on the middle class, breaks for the wealthy, big corporations getting a huge tax break, with no guarantee and very little likelihood that they will use the money to create jobs. That is why they don't want it to be public. It is not popular. On polls, it says: Do you support tax reform? They say yes. Do you support cutting the taxes on big corporations? They say, overwhelming, no. Do you support increasing taxes on the middle class? Overwhelming, they say no. Do you support decreasing taxes on the wealthy? They say, overwhelming, no. Those are the three tenets of this bill.

I hope my Republican colleagues here in the Senate are watching what is going on in the House--the problems they are having, the secrecy they need--and realize how difficult and dangerous it is to rewrite the Tax Code by the seat of your pants. Looking at the Tax Code and real tax receipts after all the loopholes, the wealthy in our country pay far less in Federal taxes than they did historically while the middle class pays more. Corporate profits are at a record high, while average wages have been stagnant. Those statistics articulate a real problem with the basic fairness of our Tax Code that tax reform could underline and could fix. This plan doesn't.

Instead, what we are seeing today is a plan that exacerbates the unfairness and inequality in our Tax Code. If the details of the Republican tax plan are anything like we have seen in the press--to repeal the estate tax, to create a huge new loophole for wealthy individuals in the form of a reduction in the pass-through rate, and lowering the big rates on corporations and the wealthy--this sure doesn't fit the bill of helping the middle class.

Meanwhile, to pay for all the tax giveaways in their bill, the Republicans are likely to make it worse for the middle class--not just not help them but hurt them. It will slash State and local deductibility, which is a bedrock middle-class and upper middle class deduction, that would hurt so many middle-class taxpayers. Nearly one- third of all taxpayers claim it from all over the country, the vast majority of whom make under $200,000 a year.

Today, Republicans will crow about reaching a compromise on State and local, whereby they don't eliminate the deduction; they just reduce its value by about 70 percent. That means the bulk of the deduction will go away for so many middle class Americans. I would remind my Republican colleagues over in the House, particularly those from States like New York, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Virginia, and Colorado, that this compromise will not solve your problem. You will still pay the price with the voters.

I have been in politics a long time. I know how this will affect people--this compromise. They will not look and say: Oh, it could have been worse. Maybe we would have lost the entire deduction. They will say: This year, I have the whole deduction, and next year, I have less than half of it. They will take it out on our Republican colleagues who vote for it, particularly from those States, and they are throughout the country--in well-to-do and upper middle class and middle-class suburban districts.

So anyone who thinks this compromise is going to help them doesn't understand how politics works. It is not what it could have been. It is what it is and what it will be. Now it is a complete deduction. What it will be is that you will lose 70 percent of that deduction. No one is going to breathe a sigh of relief and say: I could have lost 100 percent.

Taxpayers will see that the Republicans have capped the amount of mortgage interest they can deduct from purchasing a new home now. That is the latest. Again, that hits right at the middle class. The mortgage deduction doesn't really affect the wealthiest. They have all their money in unearned income and capital gains, and all of that is what affects them the most. But the mortgage deduction is one of the hearts of the middle class. To play with it--to reduce it, to cap it, so they can do tax giveaways for the very rich--is not going to fly, I don't think--not in America, not in the America most of us know.

Taxpayers in the big cities and small ones, in the exurbs and suburbs, who

commute to work, will also notice if they never receive the critical transit benefits they receive now. Thousands of dollars a year that help pay when you transit to work will be gone. Why? To help the wealthy.

While some working Americans and middle-class taxpayers watch their taxes go up, they will read about how Republicans repealed the estate tax, which benefits only 5,500 families whose estates are worth over $5 million. They will learn how, instead of keeping the estate tax or closing the egregious carried-interest loopholes, the Republicans reached into their pockets--the middle-class pockets--to pay for a big corporate tax break that has no guarantee and very little likelihood of producing jobs. They will learn that, while the reduction to the corporate tax rate is permanent, the increase in the child tax credit is temporary.

Big, wealthy corporations count far more than kids in this bill. Corporations get permanent benefits, and families with kids get temporary and meager ones.

The Tax Code is a reflection of fairness in our society. Do we want to be in a country where everyone pays their fair share, including big corporations and the very wealthy? I think so. I think most Americans agree with that. Yet right now, our Tax Code is slanted in favor of the rich and the powerful, and the Republican plan makes it only worse.

The Republican tax plan would put two thumbs down on a scale already tipped toward the wealthy and powerful. It wouldn't create jobs. It wouldn't raise wages. The Tax Policy Center, as we know, estimated that 80 percent of the benefits of the Republican plan go to the top 1 percent--this new bill doesn't change that a bit--while nearly one- third of middle-class Americans would see a tax increase; 80 percent of the benefits to the top of our country, 20 percent of the benefits to the other 99 percent. That is not a middle-class tax bill, as President Trump said it would be.

Surely, we can do better. If our colleagues--whether it be in the House or Senate, our Republican colleagues who are trying to go it alone--can't pass this bill, we would welcome them. We would welcome an opportunity to sit down together and come up with a bill that really helps the middle class.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise this morning with a heavy heart. My city, my dear city of New York, no stranger to terrorism, was once again its victim yesterday.

Yesterday afternoon, a man deliberately drove a rented truck into groups of pedestrians and cyclists, killing eight and injuring about a dozen more. Some of the injured were schoolchildren. These people were biking or walking home, enjoying a brisk and beautiful New York autumn day. It is tragic. It leaves a hole in your stomach.

Our hearts go out to the victims and their families, and we wish all of the injured a full and speedy recovery. We are also grateful--deeply grateful--to the New York Police Department and the first responders, especially Officer Ryan Nash, 28 years old, who was the first on the scene. He reacted quickly and decisively to bring down the attacker and bring him into custody. Who knows how much worse the tragedy would have been without his actions.

As one of thousands of New Yorkers who regularly ride on the path where this attack took place--in the last month, I have ridden on it twice--it hits close to home. My daughter went to the school near the scene, Stuyvesant High School, and she used the bike path I don't know how many times. This is our territory, our home.

The attacks are meant to confuse and terrorize, but, as the world learned after 9/11 and will learn again, New York doesn't scare easily. New Yorkers are resilient. We always bounce back. We won't let these terrorists get their way or affect our way of life. We will never let terror prevail.

True to form--something that made my heart swell with pride--the New York City Halloween parade marched on last night. Thousands of school kids went right into Stuyvesant today. The terrorists cannot stop us. They cannot change our way of life. We love New York. We love America. That bond holds us together.

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

Mr. President, thank you.

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

Mr. President, yesterday morning we learned that two members of the Trump campaign--Mr. Manafort, his one-time campaign chairman, and Mr. Gates, a close associate of Manafort's--were indicted on a dozen charges as part of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, including

money laundering, conspiracy to commit fraud, and conspiracy against the United States.

The fact that the activity in question took place partially before the Trump campaign offered Mr. Manafort the role of chairman in no way diminishes the gravity of the situation. If anything, it suggests that the Trump campaign was negligent in hiring as its chairman a man who was an unregistered foreign agent working for a pro-Russian proxy party in Ukraine. That man is now alleged to have been laundering large sums of money and concealing his identity as a foreign agent from the FBI and the Department of Justice, including during his time during the Trump campaign. Imagine having such poor vetting and poor judgment to hire such a person as your campaign manager.

We also learned that a Trump campaign adviser met with a Kremlin contact to discuss ``dirt'' they possessed on Secretary Clinton and had several email exchanges with other Trump officials about his outreach to the Russians. This disclosure should put an end to the idea that there was no communication or possible connection between the Trump campaign and Russia.

It is not fake news, Mr. President. It is not fake news. There was a connection between the Trump campaign and Russia. Who was involved, how much, and what happened are yet to be determined, but there was a connection, even though the President has denied that connection for months.

The President can assert whatever he wants on Twitter, but the facts are the facts. There were official members of the Trump campaign who were receptive to working with a hostile foreign power to obtain damaging information about their political opponent. These revelations should concern every Member of this body--Democrat, Republican, Independent, liberal, moderate, and conservative.

I understand the strength of the centrifugal forces in our politics that warp everything into a partisan battle between two sides. There are two sides to every argument, but no one is above the law, no matter what side of the argument one is on. The rule of law and American democracy are indisputable as our bedrock. We cannot abandon it for political expediency.

Special Counsel Mueller, who served both Republican and Democratic administrations--a lifetime public servant and a man of unimpeachable integrity--was appointed by President Trump's Deputy Attorney General. Mr. Mueller was a career prosecutor and is as straight of a shooter as they come. He must be allowed to finish the work he started without any interference. If he had nothing to fear, as he claims, President Trump would encourage Special Counsel Mueller to follow every lead and pledge his full cooperation. Instead, President Trump is again trying to divert our attention by making spurious allegations and trying to knock down anyone or anything in his way, playing right into the partisan, two-sides instinct of Washington. But this goes beyond partisanship. It goes right to the rule of law.

The President has a tendency to call anyone who disagrees with him and anyone who has facts that he doesn't like a liar, dishonest, and this, that, or the other thing. This has demeaned and degraded our Presidency and even our country. There are places where it must stop, and it should stop at the rule of law. I say that to President Trump, who may never listen, but I say that to my Republican colleagues here in this Chamber.

The Founders of the Republic put at the center of our civic life no religion, dogma, or sovereign, but rather the rule of law. It is what separated the American experiment from the hereditary monarchies of the era and outdated ideas like the divine rights of Kings.

The rule of law holds in check our people, including our President. Donald Trump is President, not King. He cannot decree things to go away or say that facts are not facts. He is as subject as anyone else to the rule of law. That is what makes our democracy so grand. No one--no one--is below the rule of law's protection, and no one is above its reproach, including the President of the United States. It safeguards our democracy from the usurpations of demagogues and would-be dictators. It is why this noble experiment--the American experiment-- continues, and Donald Trump is shaking the foundation of that when he tries to get out from Special Counsel Mueller's due process.

What Special Counsel Mueller represents is the rule of law at work in 21st century American democracy. Intentionally and spuriously impugning his integrity or smearing his efforts as partisan is not only inaccurate, it is not only false, it is not only fake, but it is damaging to a core ideal in our country, the independent and impartial rule of law that no man--even the President of the United States, even Donald Trump, think what he may--is above the rule of law.

Special Counsel Mueller's investigation must be allowed to proceed unimpeded, and my friends on the other side of the aisle must help dispel the notion that his investigation is in any way partisan. To their great credit, many of my colleagues have done just that in the last 24 hours, and I salute them.

The American people must have faith that when the very foundations of our democracy are shaken by a hostile foreign power, our independent judicial system built on the rule of law will not be degraded by partisan politics. We must loudly reject forces and actors that will try to make it so--on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Our leaders-- our Republican leaders in the House and Senate--have an obligation to tell Donald Trump to lay off Mueller's investigation. Let it proceed where it goes. That is what our democracy is all about, and that is what leadership is all about.

Mr. President, good afternoon. This morning, the former chairman of the Trump campaign for President and a close associate turned themselves in to Federal authorities on a dozen charges, including acting as unregistered agents of a foreign power and conspiracy against the United States. The indictments of Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates show that the special counsel's probe is progressing in a very serious way. Mueller is moving forward.

What we know now is that an alleged unregistered foreign agent, who is charged with laundering tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments on behalf of their agenda, was given a chairmanship of a campaign for the Presidency of the United States and, with it, untold influence on the future President and his party. We know that Mr. Manafort has had continuing contact with the President since his resignation from the campaign.

Just as shocking was the admission by a Trump campaign adviser that he met with a Kremlin contact to discuss so-called ``dirt'' on Secretary Clinton. While we know that Mr. Papadopolous had extensive email exchanges with other Trump officials regarding his outreach to Russian officials, his admission released today raises many more questions than it answers. Mr. Mueller and his team should be allowed to seek answers to those questions without interference from the President or anyone else.

The stakes could not be higher. We are talking about the pride and wellspring of our grand democracy--free and fair elections--which have been going on for more than two centuries and were disturbed and adulterated by a hostile, foreign power, with no good intent for the people of this country. It is critical that we need to get to the bottom of this. That is Special Counsel Mueller's job, and he must be allowed to perform it without interference.

The rule of law is paramount in America. We pride ourselves on it. The investigation must be allowed to proceed unimpeded. The President must not, under any circumstances, in any way, interfere with the special counsel's work. If he does, Congress must respond swiftly, unequivocally, and in a bipartisan way to ensure that the investigation continues and the truth--the whole truth comes out.

On judges, Mr. President, this week the majority leader has scheduled votes on four circuit court nominations. It is the first time, in my memory, that the Senate is being asked to process four circuit court judges in a single week. The circuit courts have an immense influence on our country, adjudicating some of the thorniest of legal issues. Only the rarest and most vexing circuit court decisions are appealed to and taken up by the Supreme Court. For this reason, we typically don't sandwich circuit court nominees back to back to back to back only a week--only a week--after they have emerged from committee because Members who are not on the Judiciary Committee usually need time--always need time to review these candidates for such important, powerful, and far-reaching positions.

Why has the majority leader departed from this practice? Well, one can argue it is because the Republican agenda has been such a failure in this Congress, the leader has chosen to try and accomplish through the courts what Republicans have been unable to achieve through the legislative process. The Republican agenda has been so unpopular with the American people that it has stalled at every juncture so now they have made a brazen move to pack the courts with activist judges and remake them in their conservative, ideological image.

Why has the majority leader done it? The hard right, frustrated by the failure of repeal and replace, has, for months, been pressuring Senator McConnell to do something aggressive. Senator McConnell, once again, despite his desire to make the Senate work--and I believe that is sincere--is bending to the hard right of his party by jamming through these judges, breaking the norms and traditions of the Senate in the process. I intend to oppose these extremist nominees.

Finally, Mr. President, on taxes, the Republicans have promised to release the details of their tax plan this week. After months of talking about a plan with very few specifics, we will finally get to see how the Republican leadership plans to rewrite the Tax Code. From all indications so far, the details of the Republican tax plan will be cheered by those in the country clubs and corporate boardrooms. Working Americans, on the other hand, might not have very much to cheer about.

The top 1 percent, law firms, hedge fund managers, can celebrate a lower top rate and an enormous new tax loophole in the form of lower rates on passthroughs. People who will most take advantage of these passthroughs are not small businesses. They can't afford all the lawyers and stuff. It will be the biggest, the most powerful, the richest, the wealthiest 5,200 families in America--those with estates over $5 million--who can celebrate the absurd repeal of the estate tax. Corporate America can celebrate hundreds of billions in tax cuts, which large corporations usually spend, not on new jobs--it is not what the history shows--but on CEO bonuses, stock buybacks, dividends. So while the wealthy and well-off will be busy celebrating the new tax breaks they might get if the Republican plan passes, working America will be looking over their shoulder at some real tax hikes.

Republicans are debating how to eliminate or reduce State and local deductibility--a bedrock, middle-class deduction claimed by nearly one- third of all taxpayers, the vast majority of whom make less than $200,000 a year. The Republican framework says they are going to eliminate the deduction, which totals tens of thousands of dollars a year for many working families. That is why removing State and local raises $1.3 trillion in revenue, and the GOP plans to spend that tax increase they are getting from the middle class on tax cuts for big corporations and the superrich. To be clear, it is a $1.3 trillion hike on middle-class families.

Now, there is a compromise on State and local deductibility that has been floated in the press. It is hardly much better. The Republicans are talking about continuing to allow State and local deductibility for property taxes but not income and sales taxes. That compromise raises $900 billion, meaning that Republicans, even with the compromise, are instituting nearly a trillion-dollar tax hike on working families to pay for breaks at the very top.

No matter how they construct this compromise, Republicans are still socking it to the middle class and the upper middle class but this time picking winners and losers. Sales taxes hit consumers the hardest. Ending the State and local deductibility for sales tax would fall on the backs of working-class and middle-class Americans, particularly in States like Tennessee, Florida, and Nevada, which don't have an income tax but have a large sales tax. States like Chairman Brady's, Texas, on the other hand, which have very high property taxes, would be much better off.

Worse still, the tax hike from this so-called SALT compromise would heap pressure on State and local governments across the country to make the agonizing decision about whether to raise taxes or cut spending for services--education, law enforcement, hospitals, highway building--on which their middle-class constituents rely.

A warning to my Republican colleagues from high sales tax States like Tennessee, Florida, and Nevada and high-income States--a lot of Republican Congressmen in those States of New York, New Jersey, California, Minnesota, Virginia, Colorado--that this State and local compromise will not solve your problem. The compromise does not solve your problem. It will still hit your constituents right in their wallets.

Now, another debate on the other side of the aisle is how to cap Americans' pretax contributions to their 401(k) plans. Can you believe it? Here in America, where we want to help the middle class save, where we want to encourage savings, we are making it harder? In layman's terms, here is what our Republican colleagues want to do. They want to tax your 401(k)s. I can't believe my Republican friends are even considering such a bad idea. We have had bipartisan support on expanding the ability to retire, particularly now that so many companies are no longer giving pensions.

Giving Americans the ability to put away pretax dollars for their retirement is one of the few provisions in our Tax Code that encourage early savings. Capping the amount Americans can contribute pretax or, in other words, turning every 401(k) into something more like a Roth IRA, will discourage Americans from saving and handicap their ability to retire with dignity and security now that defined benefit plans are declining.

For years, we Democrats--often joined by Republican colleagues--have fought for policies that would make 401(k)s more attractive, provide greater benefits--in other words, the exact opposite of what the Republican leadership is considering. We have put forward proposals on autoenrollment, increasing incentives for businesses that enroll workers and match contributions and letting small businesses pool together to offer plans. Each of these ideas would encourage more Americans, particularly younger families who have great burdens on them, to start saving early for retirement, which everyone agrees is essential to building up enough of a nest egg to live out your golden years in some degree of dignity and comfort.

The Republican proposals say to every future retiree that they don't care about your ability to retire. They just want to get your tax revenue into Federal coffers as soon as possible so they can give a tax break to the very wealthy--that top 1 percent.

The contrast could not be clearer. Democrats want to expand and enhance 401(k) plans, not cut them and cap them. That is a better deal for American workers and for middle-class families.

So instead of this one-party, secretive approach, Democrats and Republicans should be meeting with each other, talking about tax reform in a bipartisan setting to forge a bipartisan proposal. That is what committees were designed to do. That is what regular order was designed to produce. Just like on healthcare, our Republican friends are straining the legislative traditions of this body and risking their ability to govern effectively--we saw what happened with healthcare--by going at it alone.

The American people expect more of their elected officials than that of an assembly line of partisan legislation, crafted in secret, considered with such haste. I know why our Republican colleagues want to rush this through. They know the more the American people learn about this bill, the more it favors the wealthy over the middle class, the less they will like it. Just like with healthcare, once this bill is unveiled--now only 30 percent of the American people support it and even fewer will. Maybe our Republican colleagues will see the light and work with us to get good tax reform that focuses on the middle class, not on the top 1 percent.

I yield the floor.