Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, yesterday afternoon the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office came out with a score for the bipartisan Alexander-Murray bill. The CBO report confirms that the Alexander- Murray bill is a great deal for the American people. It does precisely what it was intended to do. It stabilizes the marketplaces, helps to prevent premiums from skyrocketing, and reduces the deficit, by CBO's estimate, nearly $4 billion.

As Senators Alexander and Murray noted, the report shows that their bill ``will benefit taxpayers and low-income Americans, not insurance companies.''

Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board--no liberal cabal, that is for sure--said today: ``The bipartisan compromise proposal crafted by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) now officially falls into the category of `so obvious it should pass immediately.' ''

That is not Chuck Schumer talking. That is not even Mitch McConnell talking--for those on the hard right who might doubt Mitch McConnell's fidelity. It is the beacon of the hard right, the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

They say, again: Alexander-Murray ``falls into the category of `so obvious it should pass immediately.'''

So, my fellow Republicans, what are you waiting for? Everyone on your side wants the bill. Jump on it. Support it. Let's get this done, and let's help stabilize our markets, whatever our views are on healthcare.

Above all, these reports should be all the evidence that President Trump needs to come off the sidelines and endorse the bill. It doesn't bail out the insurance companies; that is what he said he was worried about. It doesn't cost the government money, and, in fact, it reduces the deficit by $4 billion. So there is no good reason for President Trump to continue to obscure his position.

Leader McConnell has said he will put it on the floor if the President says he will sign it. By delaying, the President is harming healthcare markets, causing significant uncertainty, and doing nothing but hurting Americans who are trying to afford healthcare.

So, Mr. President--President Trump, not my dear friend, the Acting President pro tempore, the Senator from Alabama--President Trump, if you don't pursue this bill, the consequences will fall on your back. Make no mistake about it.

Mr. President, on taxes, later today, the House will likely vote on whether to pass the budget resolution that recently passed the Senate. My colleagues in the House should be aware that this budget will explode the deficit by $1.5 trillion. That is under the best of circumstances. That is under circumstances where they find $4 trillion of pay-fors. That is probably unlikely. It will slash Medicare and Medicaid by $1.5 trillion, and it will set up the same awful partisan process that caused the Republican effort on repeal and replace to fail, because when you try to do it with one party, it is fraught with peril. If you do it in a bipartisan way, a few people on either side will try to pull the bill off course but they will not succeed because they don't have the votes.

I remind my friends in the House who purport to be deficit hawks: You are voting for a budget that will increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion. Many of these House Members, particularly in the conservative wing of the caucus, particularly those in the Freedom Caucus, have spent their entire careers on the barricades, railing against the evils of deficits. What a stunning hypocrisy it would be to abandon those principles today and vote for this budget simply because it gives tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans and the most powerful, largest of our corporations.

Now I would also remind my Republican friends in the House-- particularly those in New York, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois, Washington, and Minnesota--that voting for the budget today is tantamount to voting for the elimination of the State and local tax deduction, and that would sock it to the middle-class taxpayers in their States and districts. To most of our Republican friends from those States, they are blue States, but there are red districts that are suburban, well-off. They will get clobbered if they take away the State and local deduction. Those are the constituents hurt the most--not the rich and not the poor--the middle class and the upper middle class. Not only will it raise their taxes dramatically, but most people would lose deductions between $10,000 and $20,000. That ain't chickenfeed.

It would lower home prices. A recent study by the National Association of Realtors done by Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the esteemed accounting firm, showed that eliminating State and local would erode property values, the rock of the middle class, by 10 percent. To middle-class folks in New York and, I believe, around the country, their home is their piece of the rock. They struggle each month, paying the mortgage, paying the taxes, paying for the upkeep, but they are hoping that by the time they reach later middle age they will own that home, and that gives their kids a place or gives their kids a nest egg when they pass it on. But this bill, by eliminating State and local, reduces across America, on average, home values by 10 percent. So it is a double whammy to the middle class, raising their taxes and lowering their home values. Why would we do that?

You don't have to take it from me. I will tell this to my Republican colleagues. Peter King is a hard, rock-ribbed Republican who has a lot of courage and who this morning was on TV talking about investigating Hillary Clinton, but here is what he said about repealing the State and local deduction. He said that it ``will devastate my district forever.'' That is a solid middle-class and upper middle-class Republican district on Long Island.

Here is what else Peter King said: ``How anybody from New York and New Jersey can vote for this budget without knowing what is in the tax bill is beyond me.'' He was referring to the State and local tax deductions.

I salute Peter King for telling it like it is. Having the courage to stand up and say to his own party's leadership: I will not forsake my constituents for a tax bill when I don't even know what the details will be. The remaining Members of the New York, New Jersey, California, and other delegations have

a decision to make. Will they protect the middle class and tens of thousands of homeowners in their districts or go along with the hard- right agenda that will cost their constituents hard-earned money for groceries, home repairs, and other needs, and do that all so that the very wealthy can get a huge tax break and all so that the biggest corporations which are flush with money can have even more money-- wrong.

I hear on the other side that we are talking about a tax bill for the middle class. To eliminate State and local deductibility hurts the majority of middle-class people in this country. That is what will happen if they keep that in there.

Now, some will say, in the House--and I have heard one of my colleagues from New York, a Republican: Oh, that Schumer is a Democrat; he is beating up on Republicans. But I went through this in 1986, the last time we had tax reform. It was the Democrats who were pushing the bill--Senator Bradley, a legend in this Chamber, and Leader Gephardt, one of the Democratic leaders in the House. Despite their entreaties, I told them not only would I not vote for any reform bill that had State and local deductibility in it, but I would lead the charge and round up others, and I did. I got a lot of flak from my fellow Democrats, but it was the right thing to do for my middle-class constituency in southern Brooklyn. So when I ask our Republican colleagues to buck their leadership to help their middle-class constituents, it is something I did with the Democratic leadership the last time tax reform was on the floor.

Some are already rationalizing their vote to approve the budget by putting their hopes in the vague possibility of some kind of compromise on State and local deductibility. The harsh fact is, there is no good compromise to be had on State and local. If you want to make taxpayers choose between the mortgage deduction and the State and local, it is like asking taxpayers to decide whether they want to cut off their right arm or their left arm. Some are talking about a cap. Well, where are you going to cap it? More than 50 percent of the total value of the deduction goes to taxpayers with incomes below $200,000. Cap it too low, and almost all those middle-class taxpayers get whacked. Cap it too high, and it doesn't raise enough money to offset all the cuts my Republican friends want to give the corporations and the top 1 percent. Republicans in the House shouldn't stake the votes on the prospect of a good compromise on State and local because there is not one to be had.

The bottom line is, any Republican plan that limits SALT is the equivalent of robbing middle-class families of tax benefits and handing it over to the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. There is no--no--compelling reason to do it. People aren't clamoring for it. We don't need to take a trillion dollars from working families and give it to millionaire CEOs, period.

If that weren't enough reason to vote no, the Republican leadership is still debating capping pretax contributions to 401(k) plans. Do you hear that, retirees and potential retirees? In their craving thirst to give the wealthiest people in America a tax break, they are going to say: You can't save money for retirement tax-free. What a gut punch to the middle class that would be. Despite the President's claims to the contrary, Representative Brady and Senator Portman have said that a 401(k) cap is still on the table.

So do you know what this bill has become? Again, in its desperation to help the wealthiest, it is like a quiz show. Which way do we hurt the middle class to pay for it? Door one is State and local deductibility. Door two is cap retirement. Who knows what they will pick in door three? It could be the mortgage deduction. Asking middle- class people to choose which poison to take so they can help the wealthiest makes no sense.

I would urge my colleagues in the House and here in the Senate: Stop doing this partisan bill that was dictated by the hard right, very wealthy individuals, very rich corporations, huge corporations. Work with us. We want to create a bipartisan bill that helps the middle class. We are for tax reform, and we can get something done.

Please stop this train in its tracks early on before it is too late and you will regret it. There are large numbers of Democrats, including this minority leader, who want to sit down with Republicans and come up with a deficit-neutral, middle-class, small business-oriented, bipartisan tax relief bill, not a plan to benefit the richest 1 percent or the largest and most powerful corporations that are already flush with cash. We want to work with our Republican colleagues on a real bipartisan deal. Defeat this budget, and we will.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, good morning.

Yesterday we all learned that our colleague Senator Flake will be retiring at the end of his term. After Senator Corker's announcement a few weeks ago, this was another blow to this body. Senators Flake and Corker are both men of principle, decency, and conscience.

In his address here on the floor shortly after his announcement, Senator Flake alluded to the great figures of history who toiled at these desks to remind us that our time here is only temporary. He is certainly right. It should comfort him, however, that history will judge Senator Flake and Senator Corker as two men of the greatest conscience to have graced this Chamber on either side of the aisle in a long time. This Senate will be much poorer for their departures.

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

Mr. President, good morning.

Before I get into everything, I have just seen that President Trump has resumed his Twitter war with another Member of this body, our friend from Tennessee. It is long past time for the President to quit his daily compulsion of engaging in Twitter feuds and, instead, get to work for the American people. We have a lot of serious issues to deal with in this country. Our challenges are too entrenched and complex to be solved if the President spends his time in a meaningless war of words on Twitter--today with this person, tomorrow with another.

We need President Trump to roll up his sleeves and get to work--to stop tweeting and start leading. Let me repeat that. Maybe the President will hear it. For the good of America, we need our President to roll up his sleeves and get to work--to stop tweeting and start leading.

Mr. President, concerning North Korea, instead of undermining his Secretary of State and picking Twitter fights with Kim Jong Un that risk a war, President Trump should formulate a serious strategy to put the heat on China to pressure the North Koreans and resolve this crisis. China holds the cards here, but they have done nothing to help us or very little at least.

Mr. President, on healthcare, President Trump should stop playing games with America's healthcare and publicly declare his support for the Alexander-Murray compromise.

President Trump is meeting with the Senate Republicans at their caucus lunch today, with Senator Alexander and all other 11 Republican cosponsors of the bill. Why not provide some clarity? Why not say, as he has said in the past, that he supports Senator Alexander's work? I believe many more Republican Senators want to sign their name onto this bill, but they are waiting to hear definitively from the President before they announce their support. After all, nearly every Republican here voted to extend the cost-sharing program already. It was part of their first healthcare bill. Every Democrat supports cost-sharing.

So the President has talked to me about wanting to be bipartisan on healthcare, and the best way to do it is to support Alexander-Murray. It is time that the President catches up to the rest of us and supports the bill. Right now he is the barrier.

Leader McConnell has said that if the President will sign it, he will put it on the floor of the Senate. It will get an overwhelming vote. It will then have to be put on the House floor. So Speaker Ryan will have no choice, or the rise in premiums will be on his back and the backs of his Members whom he seeks to protect.

Probably most of all, when we talk about the President, it is time to stop tweeting and start leading on taxes. Mr. President, it is time to start really engaging with the substance of the tax plan that your staff and congressional Republicans have put together because, Mr. President, your rhetoric does not match the reality on the tax bill.

The President has been selling his tax plan as a boon for the middle class. He told a group of truckers earlier this month that his tax plan is ``a middle-class bill.'' He said: ``The biggest winners will be everyday American workers.'' In his words, the Republican tax plan would bring about a ``middle-class miracle.''

President Trump, I urge you to look closely at the tax plan that your staff and congressional Republicans have put together. Ask the advisers around you what about this tax plan benefits the middle class and the everyday American worker more than the wealthy and the powerful, because trickle-down, if that is the only thing that benefits the middle class in your thinking, doesn't work. No one believes in trickle-down anymore except a small group of very wealthy business people who have undue influence on the Republican Party and, I hope, not on you, Mr. President.

Let's look at this plan that supposedly is a middle-class plan. It repeals the estate tax. That applies to a small number of families with estates over $5 million. It lowers the rate on passthrough entities. That benefits wealthy law firms and hedge fund managers so they can pay less in taxes than the average citizen. It lowers the top rate while raising the bottom one. The cut in the corporate rate would hardly help the American worker. This is trickle-down. Our Republican colleagues don't talk about trickle-down because they know most of America doesn't believe in it.

Our corporations are flush with cash already. They are flush with cash. Giving them more cash is not going to change their behavior. What are they doing with this cash? Most of the large corporations are not creating jobs with the cash they now have. Stock dividends, stock buybacks, dividends, increases in CEO salaries--that is where it goes. So this bill is not a middle-class bill. I believe the President believes it is. You have to read it. No more tweeting, no more superficiality--read the bill. Don't let your advisers just walk in and say: Mr. President, it is a great, middle-class bill, and you just let them go by.

It has already been shown--not just by me but by many others--that Mnuchin and Cohen don't tell the truth about this bill, and they know better. The Tax Policy Center said that the top 1 percent of our country will reap 80 percent of the benefits from this plan. They also said, Mr. President, that it is a middle-class bill. According to the Tax Policy Center--no one has disputed it--a third of all middle-class taxpayers will see their taxes go up. Is that a middle-class tax bill, Mr. President, one in which taxes go up, not down, on nearly 30 percent of middle-class taxpayers?

Now, if this is such a middle-class tax plan, then, why do Republicans here on the Hill keep floating new middle-class deductions to cut--the very deductions on which the middle class depends. First, it was the mortgage deduction and, then, the elimination of State and local deductibility, which made it into the plan. Now they are even talking about capping pretax contributions to 401(k) plans.

There are such huge tax breaks for the wealthy and such a huge deficit hole that the tax writers have no choice but to raise taxes on the middle class and cut deductions. Even the great doubling of the standard deduction, Mr. President, is undone by the elimination of the personal deduction. If you are a family of three, you break even. If you are a family of four, you lose money even before they cut the other deductions.

Now, on State and local, in many Republican districts in the House, in many of our Republican colleagues' States, over 30 percent-- certainly, 20 percent, and the lowest number is 17--of taxpayers would use that deduction. Eliminating the State and local deduction is a dagger to the heart of the middle class, Mr. President. You should tell your tax writers in the House and Senate to take it out of the bill.

Here is what PricewaterhouseCoopers just found out. Home values would go down 10 percent if we eliminated the State and local deduction. Homes are the piece of the rock for the middle class. People wait and struggle and pay every month so they can own their own home free and clear, and then that value declines because we eliminated State and local deductibility. Every homeowner is affected, even those who take the standard deduction.

If this were such a middle-class plan, I would say this to the President: Why wouldn't Republicans on the Hill scrap the repeal of the estate tax, which only benefits the very rich--not one drop goes to the middle class--instead of looking for more middle-class deductions, like the 401(k), to reduce or eliminate?

President Trump says he wants to do a middle-class bill, but if the only benefit to the middle class is this trickle-down theory, it is not a middle-class bill at all.

We Democrats have said all along that we want to update our Tax Code to provide middle-class tax relief. My caucus wants to provide tax relief to small businesses, not to big corporations. They are the ones that need the money to create jobs, not the big corporations who are flush with money.

Incidentally, as for AT&T, which is leading the charge for this tax cut, their average tax rate over the last 10 years was 8 percent, and they eliminated 80,000 jobs. So much for the idea that when you pay a low tax rate you are creating jobs.

So we offer this to the President: Come work with Democrats on a real middle-class tax bill. The plan your advisers put together with Republicans on the Hill doesn't do what you say it does. We can put together a tax bill in a bipartisan way that actually gets the job done for the middle class and that tells the rich corporate leaders and financiers that they shouldn't be in control of the bill, which they are now, and you, Mr. President, are going along wittingly or unwittingly. Either way is no good for you, no good for your party, and no good, most of all, for America.

Now, Mr. President, one final word here on wildfires, which I know my colleague from California is ready to speak about. She has seen the damage and is working so hard to help the people of her State.

So we are going to talk about wildfires, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. First, we can't forget about the 3.5 million American citizens in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, who continue to suffer the terrible effects of Hurricane Maria, the strongest storm to hit the island in a century. It has been more than a month since Maria, and 75 percent of Puerto Rico is still without electricity, only a third of the island's cell sites are functional, and many who have diseases like diabetes and other diseases or who are in need of dialysis have been unable to receive their specialized treatments and medication.

One million Americans in Puerto Rico are suffering without access to clean water. We have seen the pictures of them drinking sewage and water from Superfund sites. I read this report that they have accidentally used wells located in one of the most contaminated Superfund sites, Dorado, to get water, because they are so desperate.

I have called on the White House to put a point person in charge of the recovery, and I repeat that request today. The administration should appoint a CEO for response and recovery for Puerto Rico, someone with the ability to bring all the necessary Federal agencies together, cut redtape on the public and private side, turn the lights back on, get clean water flowing, and help bring recovery. It is a national tragedy that deserves the most organized and efficient response. A CEO for response and recovery with a direct line to the President in the White House would help get the house in order.

Now, at the same time, we can't forget the devastation brought by wildfires out West. A group of Senators will be speaking on the floor today--my colleague from California is about to do just that--in support of swift passage of disaster aid for those regions, and I wholly support the effort.

As the number of forest fires and the cost of fighting these fires has risen dramatically, it has left the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior at a severe funding deficit. This has forced the Forest Service to take money from other accounts within the agency to cover the firefighting deficit, in a process called fire borrowing. Fire borrowing prevents the agency from carrying out its other missions, including investing in forest fire prevention.

As we have seen, the terrible forest fires rage across the West, hitting so hard the State of California, which my colleague is going to address. We must take action and provide the Forest Service with a long-term wildfire funding fix.

Some Members want to bog down this process with environmental and forest management riders, but I stand with Secretary of Agriculture Perdue and others who have called to simply fix the funding problem, without riders, to allow the agency to carry on its mission.

I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that my colleague be given the time she requires to finish her remarks because I went a little over.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I want to first thank my colleagues, particularly Sherrod Brown, our ranking member of the committee, Senators Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Franken, and so many others who have spoken so eloquently on this issue. I don't think it is a coincidence that many Members on our side have spoken and very few on the other side. Once again, it is one of those instances where the powerful will get more powerful. Everyone knows it, and people are not out there beating their breasts about this if they are trying to support it, and maybe there is a little bit of being ashamed.

This is what has happened here. We finally have an agency to protect the consumers against large institutions, most of which are good institutions, but some of which typically take advantage of the average person. They do it in a whole variety of ways. We saw with Equifax the idea that they didn't have to protect people's information and were almost nonchalant about it. We saw it with Wells Fargo, where people came up with a scheme. We see it all the time. The average consumer doesn't have the lawyers, the time, and the ability to study what is happening. They don't understand the long contracts where they sign away their rights to go to court. They need a bank account. They need a car loan. They need something, and, yes, their only recourse in this case may be a class action suit, particularly if it is $20 or $30. You are not going to go to court individually, but if it is thousands of people, a trial lawyer will make some money, yes, to protect those people. How horrible that people might have the ability to come together and hire a lawyer.

What is happening in the last 9 months is that--we have a lot of people who are disaffected. Many of the campaigns, including President Trump's campaign, understood that. But when President Trump campaigned, he campaigned as a populist against the powerful institutions, against the Washington lobbyists, and said: Let's do something for average people. But once he got into office, he embraced the hard right, whose goal in most cases is to just protect the powerful. They got this sort of drumbeat going on: Poor innocent people have too much power, and big banks and big corporations don't have enough. Let's go after unions, even though incomes are down and only 6 percent of private America is unionized. Let's go after them. They are too powerful. They make these big corporations squirm or pay a little more money to people or pay a benefit or pay some healthcare--how horrible. Let's go after the trial lawyers. I don't always agree with their tactics. I voted against them on occasion. But let's go after them, even though they are one of the few recourses that average people have. That is hardly as reprehensible as an Equifax or a Wells Fargo in doing what they do. But people on the other side somehow have this mythology because of the hard right and its machine and their think tanks and their media messaging--FOX News-- that somehow the powerful are getting a bad break in America and the average person has too much power.

What is wrong?

I will say this. It is going to lead to people being even more disillusioned, more angry, more sour, and we will move further away from what the American dream, ideal, and optimism are.

Our colleagues on the other side, my dear friends--I like them, I really do--wittingly or unwittingly are part of this movement, and it is a shame. It is a shame.

Community banks aren't beleaguered by these cases. They don't usually do this stuff. When I talked to community bankers who lobbied me on this, they basically said to me: No, we are with the whole banking association. The big banks want this.

This is not little banks. These are the Wells Fargos and the Equifaxes. We shouldn't do it. We shouldn't do it.

I worry about this country. I love this country. It has been so good to me, my family, and my people. I still believe to this day that it is what the Founding Fathers called it when they left Constitution Hall-- God's noble experiment.

We are one nation under God, noble. We are a noble country. No one has had the ideals we have had for hundreds of years. We are an experiment. We keep evolving, changing, and adapting, as we should. But when I see what has gone on in the last 9 months--a combination of the President's appeal to lower instincts of people, to divisive instincts, and the hard right machine, which has too much power on the other side of the aisle--I worry. I worry. I worry about the country. I worry about our standards of decency and honor.

Everyone heard Senator Flake speak today. It moved all of us. It is a shame he is leaving this body because he has been a voice and a beacon. I didn't agree with him on most issues, as is pretty obvious by our voting records, but he stood for the right thing. I say to my colleagues, somehow we are doing too many wrong things around here. We are trying to take away people's healthcare. We say we want better healthcare at lower costs. That is what the President says, but we put a bill on the floor that does the opposite. We know it. We are doing it on taxes. We say we want to help the middle class, and the tax bill dominantly helps the wealthy.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are afraid to say they are helping the wealthiest because they think that is the way to create jobs because they know that Americans don't believe it--nor should they.

Most recently, the great Kansas experiment, the Koch brothers' own laboratory, totally flopped.

They say unions have too much power, and yet incomes in the middle class have declined. There are abuses. There are abuses everywhere, but middle-class incomes decline, fewer people have bargaining power, more people are paid lower, and there are 7 million fewer good-paying jobs in America today than 15 years ago. In part, that is because we don't have unions and because the hard right has learned through legal tactics to destroy them, and now with government legal tactics on the absurd argument that the First Amendment says you don't have to join a union or pay dues to a union.

This is just one of many issues where once again we are helping the powerful against the powerless. There is a political benefit, I understand. There is a fear if you go against these hard-right forces. I have heard it from my colleagues, but it is wrong for the country. I wish that maybe a bell would ring. There are lots of issues we don't agree on, but some of these issues don't have a basis in fact. That is why the floor is empty on the other side.

I respect my dear friend. He is a good, good man, in the Flake mold. He has to be here all night and defend it. He doesn't have too many others backing him up, and I think I know why, because deep down they know it is wrong. They can figure out that there is an abuse of trial lawyers, but they still know it is wrong. They still know it is wrong.

To sum it up, a ``yes'' vote is handing a ``get out of jail free'' card or the equivalent to Wells Fargo and Equifax. It is that simple. A ``yes'' vote is saying you believe that Americans who get taken advantage of don't have the right to seek recourse. A ``yes'' vote tells rapacious financial institutions that they can continue to hose consumers without any serious consequences or accountability, because we all know that average folks don't have the ability to go to court on their own to sue. We know that. Everyone knows that.

If there are abuses, let's fix them, but don't totally denude people who don't have much power from the little power they might have through going to court. I hope that maybe there is somebody, because the vote is close. It took a long time to bring this resolution to the floor because there were some people who wanted to stand up, but they

got ground down by this hard right machine that always wants its way.

They are doing great. Corporate America is making more money than ever before. Financial institutions are healthier than ever before, but it is not good enough. More--we want more. The ``more'' is fine if it didn't come at the expense of average folks when somebody is abusive.

The CRA is a meat-cleaver approach. Those who have issues with this should try to address them with a scalpel, not a bludgeon. I urge my colleagues one final time, those on the other side of the aisle, to vote no on this disapproval resolution on behalf of our constituents, who deserve to have more rights when standing up to the powerful when they are right, not less.

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.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Healthcare

Mr. President, first, on the issue of healthcare, since I last addressed this Chamber, the bipartisan agreement reached by Senators Alexander and Murray has amassed enough cosponsors to guarantee its passage. It now has 12 Republican cosponsors and 12 Democratic cosponsors. That is as bipartisan as it gets. I believe all 48 Members of my caucus will support the agreement, which means it has the necessary 60 votes. Even Leader McConnell has made it clear that he will put the Alexander-Murray bill on the floor as soon as President Trump supports it.

Let me make a direct appeal to the President.

Mr. President, come out and support the Alexander-Murray bill. You called it ``a very good solution'' already. Announce that you will support it, and it will pass through the Senate soon after.

The President's only stated concern was that the Alexander-Murray bill ``bails out insurance companies.'' I can assure the President that Senators Alexander and Murray took great pains to make sure the insurance companies would not get one extra penny from this deal. I have read the language. I have worked with them. It is good. It is strong. They have included provisions in the bill to prevent insurance companies from double dipping on the cost-sharing program and ensure that the money goes precisely where it is intended: to keep premiums and other out-of-pocket costs down for low-income Americans.

If the President wants even greater assurances, we can work to move back the start of enrollment 1 month. He may be able to do that administratively, but if not, that is something both Senator Alexander and Senator Murray wanted to do, which would ensure that there would be new applications, and the rates would be looked at as if cost sharing were happening, but the White House blocked it. If the White House and the President want to make it even stronger--I think it is strong enough already--then we can do that. From what I understand, the President might be able to do that administratively.

This idea that the President isn't supporting this because he doesn't want the insurance companies to make money on this--well, it is wrong. There is some other reason he doesn't want it done. Maybe he doesn't want a bipartisan bill. Maybe it is because he wasn't involved. Maybe it is because on issue after issue the hard-right Freedom Caucus people say don't do it, and he is afraid, because he is not showing much leadership when they stand up to him.

The only reason the President shouldn't support this bill is that he wants to continue intentionally hurting Americans. He has talked about that. He almost seems gleeful: ObamaCare will fail--even though he is trying to make it fail.

The President should know that premiums have shot up 30 percent in Pennsylvania because of the President's decision to end cost sharing. Premiums for silver plans will rise 20 to 25 percent if cost sharing is not restored. It is time for the President to stop the sabotage. He created the problem by for the first time not renewing cost-sharing payments. Now we have a solution that will renew them, but Democrats will have to give. Copper plans have never been our favorite. He should go along with the good compromise.

The President has told me repeatedly that he wants to work in a bipartisan way. He told me that he wants to work in a bipartisan way on healthcare. Well, on this one, I am from Missouri. Shows us. Show me.

It is time, Mr. President, to turn the page on healthcare and pass the Alexander-Murray bill. We have other pressing healthcare issues to grapple with. For the first time in history, again due to lack of leadership from that White House, the authorization for the Children's Health Insurance Program has expired. That must be reauthorized, too, and soon. Kids across America are depending on it.

President Trump, please stop the games. Stop the zigging and zagging. You are for it one day and against it the next. Stop coming up with fake excuses. Declare your support for this bill so we can move forward in a bipartisan way to improve our Nation's healthcare.

The Budget and Tax Reform

Now, Mr. President, on taxes, last week the Republican majority jammed through one of the worst budgets in history. That is not hyperbole; this is one of the worst budgets in history. They should hang their heads in shame. It increases the deficit by $1.5 trillion, slashes Medicare and Medicaid by $1.5 trillion, and sets up the same partisan process the Republicans used for healthcare.

Now it goes to the House for their approval, where many conservative House Republicans will have to rationalize voting for a bill that dramatically increases deficits. For many in the conservative wing of the House Republican caucus, the debt and deficit have been their No. 1 focus in Congress, their raison d'etre. Many campaigned on the singular promise--made with almost religious fervor--to lower our Nation's debt and deficit. They rhapsodize fiscal responsibility. They hold themselves up as the guardian of preventing the debt from being passed on to our grandchildren. They evangelize constitutional amendments requiring a balanced budget. They were willing to risk default on our Nation's credit for a spurious talking point.

The budget resolution will be a true test of the principles the Freedom Caucus and the hard right in the House have espoused about the evils of deficits for the better part of the last decade, because those same Members of the Freedom Caucus must now vote to approve a budget that increases the deficit by $1.5 trillion. The House bill didn't do that. The Senate bill clearly does. Yet, so far, we haven't heard a peep from the Freedom Caucus. The most scolding deficit hawks have morphed into deficit doves, eschewing principle for political expediency.

With respect to the deficit, any economist will tell you that a dollar less in revenue due to a tax cut is the same as a dollar less in spending. Yet the Freedom Caucus and deficit hawks only harp on the deficit when it is about spending cuts: Get rid of Medicare. Get rid of Medicaid. Slash them--programs every bit as popular and as important as any.

As Representative Walker, a conservative of the House, lamented, ``[The deficit] is a great talking point when you have an administration that's Democratic-led. It's a little different now that Republicans have both houses and the administration.'' Really? So you are a deficit hawk only when it is politically expedient, Representative Walker?

Well, the Freedom Caucus still has a chance to change the course of their budget when we vote this week. When the Freedom Caucus came out against the Republican healthcare bill, the Republican majority was forced to make concessions to them. If they were real deficit hawks, honest deficit hawks, consistent deficit hawks, nonpolitical deficit hawks, they would do the same thing here.

Let's see how Representative Walker and his fellow Members of the House Freedom Caucus vote on a GOP budget to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion.

Another point on the GOP tax plan. The Republicans are so wedded to their desire to give a massive tax break to big corporations and the superrich--which will blow up the deficit even in their fake math models--that they are searching for new ways to sock it to the middle class to make up the difference.

First, Republicans debated eliminating the mortgage deduction, then they included the provision to eliminate State and local deductibility, and recently there have been reports that some Republicans want to cap Americans' pretax contributions to their 401(k)s. That is one of the few provisions we have to encourage middle-class families to start saving for an early retirement. President Trump tweeted this morning that we are not going down that road. The fact that Republicans were even considering raiding American's retirement savings to pay for giant tax cuts for corporations shows just how backward their plan is.

The Tax Policy Center estimated that while the wealthiest 1 percent of America would reap 80 percent of the benefits under the GOP plan, it would also raise taxes on nearly a third of middle-class workers. That statistic reveals the rotten core at the center of this tax plan: The Republicans are so eager to give tax cuts to the rich, they are willing to explore many different ways of raising taxes on the middle class to pay for them. Each time, they bring up different methods--mortgage interest deductions, State and local deductibility, capping pretax 401(k)s--and then back off when they see the political and popular cost to each proposal. That shows you the dilemma they are in.

The fact is, there is no way the Republicans can avoid raising taxes on a good number of middle-class families if they are going to cling to such massive tax cuts for the rich and powerful and still make the numbers work, even with fake math.

Instead of capping middle-class deductions or pilfering retirement savings, how about Republicans drop their proposal to repeal the estate tax? Repealing the estate tax would cost the government hundreds of billions. Why are Republicans looking at middle-class deductions instead of merely scrapping the estate tax repeal, which goes only to estates of over $5 million--only to estates over $5 million. The number who benefit is tiny. It is in the thousands. Their estates get huge, huge benefits. Get rid of that instead of hurting the middle class. The logic is confounding, and our Republican colleagues will not even talk about it.

This plan is so rotten at its core that it has our Republican colleagues turning themselves into pretzels and jumping through hoops, and they can't really say what they believe--trickle down works. The only rationale for this entire plan is that if you give tax breaks to the wealthy and the big corporations, there will be a lot of job growth. It didn't happen when George Bush's tax cuts occurred. It didn't happen when Kansas dramatically cut its taxes. The Koch brothers' center, Kansas--they did just what the Koch brothers wanted. It was a disaster. Growth was much less than the national average even though the taxes were slashed. Although they don't state it, it is contrary to what our Republican colleagues believe.

I respect the Republican Member who comes up and says: Trickle down works; that is why we are doing it. Tax cuts for the very wealthy is what would fuel the economy.

No one else believes it anymore. History disproves it. It is fake. It is a fig leaf so that they don't have to admit what they want to do-- give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest of their contributors, the people who have sort of set up the sinew of this Republican Party with their think tanks and op-eds and so many other things, the Koch brothers network.

The American people should know that the money to pay for that giant tax cut for the rich is coming from somewhere, and it is likely to be coming from their pocketbooks.

Steel and Aluminum Imports Investigations

Finally, one final topic: steel and aluminum. Recently and shockingly, Commerce Secretary Ross has said he is waiting for the Republican tax plan before completing critical investigations into how steel and aluminum imports are impacting the capacity of steel and aluminum U.S. producers to supply our defense needs. I am not sure why the Republican tax plan has anything to do with this national security investigation, which could finally lead to some relief from the predatory trade practices from China and other countries. The two are entirely unrelated.

Secretary Ross's comments smell like an excuse for further delays-- and a bad one at that. I would like to see him explain his decision to the thousands of steelworkers whose jobs are on the line because their companies aren't competing on a level playing field because China repeatedly subsidizes, doesn't play by the rules, and cheats.

It is another classic example of the Trump administration promising one thing and doing another. President Trump has promised many times to crack down on China, and still, 10 months into his administration, his Commerce Secretary is once again needlessly delaying a preliminary step in that effort.

I have known him for 30 years. He is a New Yorker like I am. Every time I see Secretary Ross, I say to him: When are we going to do something on China?

Oh, we are going to do something tough.

Each time, there is a different excuse. This should have happened in the first 2 months of the administration. It hasn't.

Because of the Republican inaction, because of the President's unfulfilled and rapidly becoming broken promise on being tough with China, Senate Democrats will be sending a letter to President Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross demanding that the administration keep its promise to crack down on China's unfair and predatory trade practices. We are asking that they continue these investigations and expeditiously complete them. These trade investigations have nothing to do with tax reform, and there is no need to delay them.

One more thing on China. Today I read that Tesla--our great car manufacturing company--will be relocating to China.

When you want to sell cars and many other advanced products in China, you have to do one of two things: set up a joint ownership company which lets them steal our intellectual property or face huge tariffs. That is based on the fact that the WTO was poorly negotiated and China was regarded as a developing country. That was the fault of President Bush and President Obama; neither did enough to stop China.

Based on his campaign rhetoric, one would think President Trump would be tougher as China steals our family jewels. It is no longer clothing and furniture; it is our best industries. They steal our intellectual property by these joint ventures. Sometimes they do it by cyber theft-- a lot of times they do it by cyber theft--and it is hurting the good- paying jobs that might be available to our children and grandchildren. Based on campaign rhetoric, one would think President Trump would be tougher on China, but so far it has been a lot of talk and not very much action, and the delay in these investigations is another example.

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, I ask unanimous consent to use leader time.

Mr. President, first, on healthcare, my two good friends Senators Alexander and Murray have constructed a good, fair, bipartisan agreement that gives us a way forward on healthcare. It will offer stability in the markets, and it will help lower premiums.

We have seen President Trump's near-constant equivocation on the agreement. We shouldn't let it impede the progress of this very important bipartisan compromise. He is for the bill one day, against it the next. That is not uncommon; the President sometimes is for and against something in the same sentence. We can only hope he comes around again once he grasps what is in the bill.

The Alexander-Murray deal is not a bailout to the insurance companies at all; it is the opposite. We have taken pains to ensure that insurance companies do not reap any benefits from this program. That is what Alexander and Murray have done. They have explicit provisions in the bill to ensure that the cost-sharing program does what it is intended to do: Lower premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs for Americans who can least afford it.

I was reading an article this morning where they interviewed a retired manufacturing worker in Pennsylvania who was upset by the President's decision. The man said:

It seems like he is trying to hurt the middle class. . . .

He [President Trump] says he's going to make it better for

everyone. How does a (premium) increase make it better?

That is the question the President should ask himself. Ending cost- sharing hurts people, not insurance companies. Restoring cost sharing will help people, not insurance companies. Senators Alexander and Murray have made sure of it. I have talked to them about their language. It is good language, well intended. Maybe we can make it better. If the President has a suggestion, we welcome it, but as it is, it is pretty strong.

Well-intentioned Members on both sides should continue to sign their names onto this bill. I believe it has significant support within my caucus, and if Leader McConnell puts it on the floor of the Senate, I am pretty certain it would pass.

I urge my Republican colleagues to take a good, hard look at the bill and to cosponsor it. So many of my Republican friends have said: Why can't we be more bipartisan? This is a bipartisan agreement. It wasn't one party coming up with something and telling the other to be for it, as too often happens in this Chamber. It was done together by the chair of the HELP Committee and the ranking Democrat of the HELP Committee. It is truly bipartisan, and it is a good way for us to go forward and set a metaphor for future bipartisanship.

Mr. President, now on the budget, today the Senate will vote on more amendments to the GOP budget resolution, which increases deficits by $1.5 trillion, slashes Medicare and Medicaid by $1.5 trillion, and sets up this awful, partisan process--the same one our Republican friends used in healthcare.

The Democrats could have offered an unlimited number of amendments on the bill, but this bill is so bad that we didn't want to be all over the lot. We wanted to focus on a few issues where we know the American people are overwhelmingly with us, not with the language in the bill.

Here is some of what we are doing.

We are going to make our colleagues say that they want to vote to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion. After 8 years of crowing about debts and deficits under a Democratic President, the Republican deficit hawks seem to have flown the coop. This budget is going to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion. Our amendment would say: No, it should be deficit neutral. We have heard that for the last 8 years. Whenever a spending program comes about, I know our side says that spending programs grow the economy; their side says that tax cuts grow the economy. But if there is going to be an actual deficit, we should vote for it. Put your convictions where your votes are.

We are also going to make our Republican colleagues vote on whether they want to raise taxes on the middle class. The President claims that his tax plan will cut taxes, but it actually will raise them on millions of hard-working families. Today our Republican colleagues will decide whether they want to support those tax increases or protect the middle class from paying more taxes.

We are going to make our Republican colleagues vote on their specific proposal to eliminate the State and local deduction. Nearly one-third of all taxpayers take the deduction--red States,

blue States, everyone in between. As the chairman of the Finance Committee knows, 35 percent of Utahns take the State and local deduction. It goes right to the heart of the middle class and upper middle class, giving families tens of thousands of dollars in deductions so taxes are lower. The elimination of State and local deductibility is a sure sign that the Republican tax plan does not favor the middle class.

In fact, AP reported yesterday that, according to experts, the GOP tax plan may still allow corporations to claim State and local deductibility but not individuals. Did you hear that? Corporations can claim it, but individuals can't. Isn't that backward? It shouldn't be taken away from either one. What the GOP plan takes away from individuals and families, it makes sure remains for big corporations.

So today Democrats will ask our Republican friends to vote on our amendment, led by Senators Cantwell and Van Hollen, to protect State and local deductibility for middle-class families.

Senator Capito has an alternative amendment that is incredibly vague and leaves the door open to eliminating State and local. It doesn't say it will, but it leaves it open. That is why a coalition of groups, including the National Governors Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and organizations representing firefighters, teachers, and sheriffs have just come out against Senator Capito's amendment.

Senator Cantwell and Van Hollen's amendment, by contrast, is crystal clear: no elimination of State and local. I hope my Republican friends won't vote to raise taxes on so many of their middle-class residents.

Mr. President, finally, every morning I hear my friends the majority leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee talk about the need for tax reform because the middle class is stuck in a rut and the economy isn't working the way it should for American families. I agree with that assessment. We need to do more to grow the economy, create jobs, raise wages, and put money in the pockets of average Americans, but when you hear the details of the plan they have to solve those problems, your head spins. Lower the tax rate on big corporations and the top 1 percent, repeal the estate tax, which goes only to estates of over $5 million, and eliminate critical middle-class tax breaks like State and local deductibility. In what world does that deliver middle- class tax relief or solve the problems we are talking about?

It is the same game they played with healthcare: Complain about high premiums, deductibles, counties without enough insurers, and then each Republican bill exacerbates the problem.

The Republicans slide in their favorite solution--tax cuts for the rich--as the answer to every ill. If the economy is doing well, Republicans push tax cuts for the rich. If the economy is doing poorly, Republicans push for tax cuts for the rich. If our healthcare system needs to be improved, tax cuts for the rich. It is entirely divorced from the real problems in the economy and our society.

Our economy suffers from massive inequality, which is growing, with a concentration of wealth at the very apex of our country's elite. The rich are doing well in America. God bless them; I am glad they are. American corporations are recording record-high profits. Look at the stock market, which reflects that. God bless them too. We hope they do well. But looking at the GOP tax plan, the American people have to wonder, is now the time to tilt the scales even further in favor of big corporations and the very rich? I believe the American people will reject that approach soundly and roundly, and after the amendment votes today, the American people will have a much clearer picture of what the Republican budget and tax plan is about.

There is still a chance to turn back from this budget and the one- party legislating that has stymied this Congress. I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to reject this budget. Come work with Democrats, and we can produce real, successful, bipartisan tax reform.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. We completely agree on this issue. We hope Members on both sides will stay in their seats so we can finish quickly, without going through the ridiculous vote-arama that we have done in previous years.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1553

Our side was in early.