Floor Statements

Mr. President, there is a possibility that by the end of next week, the Senate will have a vote again on a Republican healthcare bill assembled in the dark of night by one party, without a full account of what the bill would do. It will be a shameful return to the same process the majority used to try to ram a bill through in July, unsuccessfully.

To consider a bill like this without a full CBO score is worse than negligent; it is grossly irresponsible. We were told yesterday that CBO may be able to provide a baseline estimate of the cost of the bill but not the coverage numbers or a detailed analysis of how the bill would affect Americans' healthcare choices.

We are talking about one-sixth of the economy; we are talking about the healthcare of the Nation; we are talking about the lives, day in and day out, of millions of Americans who need healthcare; and we are not going to really know what the legislation does.

Senators will be voting blind. They say justice is blind, but the Senators on the other side of the aisle should be walking around here with a blindfold over their eyes because they don't know what they are voting on. Maybe they don't care. I don't know how any Senator could go home to his or her constituents and explain why they voted for a major bill with major consequences to so many of their people without having specific answers about how it would impact their State.

What we do know is that this new TrumpCare bill, the Graham-Cassidy legislation, is worse in many ways than the previous versions of TrumpCare. The new TrumpCare would devastate our healthcare system in five specific ways.

First, it would cause millions to lose coverage.

Second, it would radically restructure and deeply cut Medicaid, ending the program as we know it. It has been the dream of the hard right to get rid of Medicaid, which could happen, even though it is a program that affects the poor and so many in the middle-class--nursing homes, opioid treatment, people who have kids with serious illnesses.

Third, it brings us back to the days when insurance companies could discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. The ban on discriminating against people with preexisting conditions would be gone. We have had a lot of promises from the other side that they would never vote for a bill that didn't protect people with preexisting conditions. That seems to be going by the wayside in a headlong rush to pass a bill so that they can claim a political victory. What about that mom or dad who finds out his or her son or daughter has cancer, and the insurance company says: Yes, we will cover you; it will cost you $50,000. And they don't have it, so they have to watch their child suffer. This was an advance that almost all Americans supported. It was an advance most people on the other side of the aisle believe in--gone.

Fourth, the bill gets rid of the consumer protections that guarantee Americans' access to affordable maternity care, substance abuse treatment, and prescription drugs. All of those could be out of any plan. You can pay a lot for a plan and not get much for it in this bill.

Fifth, it would throw the individual market into chaos immediately, increasing out-of-pocket costs for individual market consumers and resulting

in 15 million people losing coverage next year--15 million people.

On the first point, the new TrumpCare would cause millions to lose health insurance in two ways: first by undoing the Affordable Care Act's major coverage expansion under Medicaid and premium and cost- sharing assistance, instead putting that into an inadequate and temporary block grant, and, second, by radically restructuring and cutting the traditional Medicaid Program through a per capita cap.

We don't have a CBO score yet, and we may not get one in time. But previous CBO scores of similar schemes have shown that 30 million Americans could lose coverage under this bill--30 million Americans--10 percent, approximately, of our population.

On the second point, the new TrumpCare would end Medicaid as we know it by converting Medicaid's current Federal-State financial partnership to a per capita cap, which cuts current Medicaid funding levels on an annual basis. This is a direct blow to nursing home patients and folks in opioid treatment, and CBO has said that 15 million fewer people would receive Medicaid under similar proposals.

On the third point, the new TrumpCare actually brings back the ability of insurers to discriminate against folks with preexisting conditions, as I mentioned.

Fourth, the new TrumpCare would no longer guarantee consumers affordable access to maternity care, substance abuse, and prescription drugs.

Fifth, like previous repeal and replace, it would immediately eliminate the individual mandate, which would raise the number of uninsured by 15 million, relative to current law, in 2018 and increase market premiums by 20 percent.

So vote for this bill, and right away 15 million will lose coverage, and premiums will go up by 20 percent. People who vote for this bill are not going to be happy with its results. Each one of these five things represents a major step backward for our healthcare system, bringing back discrimination against folks with preexisting conditions and ending Medicaid as we know it. These are overwhelmingly popular with Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. The hard right doesn't like it. The big financiers of the other party don't like entitlements, but Americans do. We are going to go backward--backward. We are going to go backward and not even know the effects.

Why is the other side rushing this through? They are ashamed of it. They need to have that political scalp: See, we abolished ObamaCare. But what they are putting in its place, even for those who don't like ObamaCare, is worse. They don't want to know that. The joy they will have--misplaced joy, in my opinion--of abolishing ObamaCare will evaporate quite soon when their constituents feel the effects of this bill and they hear about it from average folks who are so hurt.

The Washington Post summed up Graham-Cassidy yesterday. They said the bill ``would slash health-care spending more deeply and would probably cover fewer people than the July bill--which failed because of concerns over those details.''

Republicans couldn't garner the 50 votes for their various healthcare plans earlier this year because of how much damage those plans did to Medicaid, how they rolled back protections for preexisting conditions, and some opposed it because the process was such a sham. Well, all three conditions are here again with this bill: cuts to Medicaid, no guarantee for preexisting conditions, a sham of a bill.

There is a better approach. Right now, Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray are working in a bipartisan way--holding hearings, working through committee, coming back and forth between the parties with discussions. Each side is going to have to give; that is how it works around here--or should work--in trying to get a proposal that will improve things. That is the kind of legislating many Members of the Senate have said they want to get back to. That is the kind of process worthy of the world's greatest deliberative body.

After a rancorous and divisive healthcare debate, which took up the better part of this year, Democrats and Republicans have been working in good faith to come up with a bipartisan agreement on healthcare in the HELP Committee. The Republican majority would toss all of that away if they pursue Graham-Cassidy next week the way they are pursuing it-- returning to reconciliation, not working in the committees, no CBO report, making a mockery of regular order.

I hope, for their sake and the country's sake, my Republican friends will turn back from this new TrumpCare and join us again on the road to bipartisanship. We have seen bipartisan sprouts bloom in the last month. Graham-Cassidy would snuff them out. Nobody wants that--nobody.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me once again thank my friend and colleague from Florida. There is no one--no one--who has defended his State more diligently, more assiduously, more effectively than the senior Senator from the State of Florida. I know there are close to 20 million people in Florida who are grateful, as are all of us.

Thank you.

Mr. President, we will vote today on the final passage of NDAA. I am pleased with the bipartisan manner in which the Senate has worked on this important legislation. Senators McCain and Reed managed the bill with great skill. I commend them for their bipartisan work on this important legislation.

Healthcare

Mr. President, I am going to use the rest of my time to address something that is not so bipartisan. It is terribly partisan, and that is the issue of healthcare. I hope the American people listen closely.

After a few months of lying dormant, TrumpCare is back, and it is meaner than ever. TrumpCare now lives under the name of Cassidy-Graham. Guess what. It is another bill that would drastically cut back on healthcare funding for Americans who need it most.

My colleagues, my fellow Americans, this is a red-alert moment for the entire country. Our healthcare system again is threatened by a hastily constructed piece of legislation, put together in a back room by only one party--no CBO score, no committee process, not a single hearing. Everyone is totally in the dark about the effects of this bill, yet there is an effort to rush it forward.

This Frankenstein monster of a bill that would harm so many Americans keeps coming back and back, and somehow each time it has managed to get worse.

Here is what we know the new TrumpCare bill would do. It would roll back protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. It would allow States to impose burdensome requirements as a condition on Medicaid coverage. It would defund Planned Parenthood, stripping millions of women of their right to access affordable healthcare. Most crucially, the new TrumpCare would plunge a dagger deep into the heart of Medicaid, immediately ending Medicaid expansion and establishing a per capita cap on Medicaid spending. That jeopardizes coverage for 11 million Americans and puts at great risk the coverage and affordability of insurance for the 12 million who buy insurance on the marketplaces.

It would take the money used for Medicaid expansion and subsidies and block-grant it to the States, imposing a massive cut on funding that helps so many Americans well into the middle class.

The term ``block grants'' may sound harmless, but in practice they are anything but. Right now, our healthcare system reimburses States for the costs of what their citizens actually need and use. Block grants are a fixed amount of money given to each State, forcing people who need healthcare to fight among each other as to who gets those dollars. People with parents in nursing homes will fight with those on opioid treatment, who will fight with those who have kids with preexisting conditions, who will fight with those who simply need to go see a doctor. They will all be pitted against one another in a heartless scheme, a heartless scheme that will hurt so many.

Block grants are a not-so-clever way of disguising a massive, massive cut to healthcare--cutting back care, raising premiums, hurting millions and millions of average Americans.

That is the case with this new TrumpCare. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities took a look at the new TrumpCare and found that the block grants in the bill would deprive States of hundreds of millions and sometimes billions of dollars. I am going to mention a few States here. My colleagues should know the effect of the bill. They don't.

CBO has told us--I will talk more about this later--that they cannot give us a full score but simply notes whether it meets the budget reconciliation numbers. They say it will cut a billion dollars. That is all it will say. We will not know how many citizens are hurt, but the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, whose numbers are very reliable, has done a calculation. I would ask my colleagues to pay attention. I just picked out some States. There are more. Arizona would lose $1.6 billion in Federal funding. Alaska would lose $255 million in Federal funding. Maine would lose $115 million in Federal funding. West Virginia would lose $554 million in Federal funding. Colorado would lose $823 million in Federal funding. Ohio, the State most racked by the opioid epidemic, would lose over $2.5 billion in healthcare funding. Iowa would lose $525 million in Federal funding. These are devastating numbers. My colleagues, if you don't believe the accuracy of these numbers, then have the courage and decency to wait for a CBO score. To pass this legislation before CBO measures out the effect on your State would be legislative malpractice of the highest order. These numbers, we believe, are accurate. They come from a group that has had years of expertise and accurately predicted healthcare effects. There will be devastating cuts to so many in so many States.

If you don't believe these numbers, then show us what yours are. Wait for CBO, an impartial arbiter, and see what they have to say. The numbers are devastating. They represent millions of Americans, especially middle-income and low-income, who will receive poorer healthcare, face higher costs, or both. Whom do they represent? You are an American family--a nice, middle-class family making a good income. You have a parent in a nursing home. It is likely to be paid for by Medicaid. That parent is at risk if this Graham-Cassidy bill passes. You have a young son or daughter afflicted by opioids. The treatment they receive would often be at risk if this bill passes. You give birth to a child with a preexisting condition who desperately needs help. We met so many of these families, every one of us. That child's life, in many cases, would be at risk if this bill passes. This is the poorest way of legislating I have seen in all my years here. To try to rush this bill through with no hearings, no CBO score, no knowledge of how it actually affects your constituents--how can we do that?

Already, some Republican Governors have spoken out against this legislation. Governor Kasich, Governor Baker, and 16 patient and provider groups have come out against this TrumpCare, including the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association. The ratings agency Fitch says Graham-Cassidy would be even ``more disruptive'' than all the other ACA bills. The American people have rejected TrumpCare repeatedly. Its numbers in the polls are below 20 percent. Hardcore supporters of Donald Trump do not want us to pass this bill. Virtually only one in five Americans wants us to pass this bill--hardly anybody-- and we are going to go do it for a political scalp? No, we can't.

I know there are some on the other side of the aisle who say they can work it out so each State wouldn't be hurt as badly as under the current draft of the bill--these bad numbers--that they can tweak the formula for one State or another that would make the cuts less devastating. First, they are never going to come up with that kind of money. I heard one Governor was told by a Senator: Don't worry about the big cuts to your State. We will make it up with disproportionate share payments--uncompensated care. It is impossible. The amount of money in the DSH Program is so much less than the amount of these cuts that we couldn't even come close. That is what is being thrown around here. There are lots of different surmises: Maybe we will do this, maybe we will do that. We are playing with people's lives. That is so wrong. States will end up facing a harsh cut--most of the States in the Union--many States represented by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voted for the previous bills.

We shouldn't do it on substance, but we also shouldn't do it on the basis of regular order. To have such a major bill that affects so many people be rushed at the last minute in the dark of night--no discussion, no analysis, no real knowledge of how it affects each of our States--is legislative malpractice of the highest order.

If the Founding Fathers were looking at this Chamber now and watching, they would be turning over in their graves. An America founded on debate and discussion and sunlight is veering off all of that in a really nasty way. There is no regular order here. There are no bipartisan public hearings on the Graham-Cassidy bill. The HELP and Finance Committees are not debating the legislation. It is the same backroom, one-party sham of a legislative process that ultimately brought the previous bill down. A contrived, eleventh-hour hearing on block grants in the Homeland Security Committee--a committee that has very little jurisdiction over healthcare matters--does not even come close to suggesting regular order.

In conclusion, I think many of us on both sides of the aisle thought there was a ray of light in the last few

weeks. The partisanship that had governed this place for the last 8 months seemed to be breaking. I had good meetings in the White House-- hopes of working together. Senators Alexander and Murray began talking about how we move forward. I was joyful that maybe the partisanship could end and we could work together. The majority leader and I are getting along very well. This bill, if done this way and passed, would dash those hopes.

There is a way out. Senators Alexander and Murray have had hearings. They have had discussions. They are negotiating at this moment. What they will come up with will have some things I don't like and some things people on the other side of the aisle don't like. That is the legislative process. It is not to rush a bill through in the dark of night without even knowledge of how it affects people. CBO has said they cannot measure how many people would lose coverage and how they would be affected until a few weeks because this is a block grant. It takes a long time to weigh it.

So after 2 weeks of thinking bipartisanship--that flickering candle might gain some new light--this is the last thing we need. Let's not go back to the divisive, destructive healthcare process that paralyzed the Senate for much of this year. Let the leader and I encourage our Members to talk to one another and come up with bipartisan solutions-- not just on this bill but on bills to come. Let's pursue the bipartisan path courageously used by Senators Alexander and Murray.

In conclusion, I would ask every American who hears these words, who longs for us to work together, to call your Senators and Congressmen and let them know. Tell them this bill is even worse than the previous bills. Tell them it hurts average families dramatically. Tell them there is a better way. The same level of activism that we saw on the previous bills must be garnered now or this will just slide through in the dark of night, with effects that are desperate, devastating, and unknown. Democrats in the Senate, we have no choice. Our constituencies, our consciousness impels us. We will oppose the Graham- Cassidy bill in every way we can, using every tool at our disposal, and we ask the American people to speak out, once again, and make their voices heard. The hour is late, and the need is desperate.

I yield the floor.

Good morning, Mr. President.

As we continue to work on the NDAA, the Democratic side is committed to working with the Republican side in good faith to finish this very important legislation. I am pleased that the managers have already been able to include more than 100 amendments in the substitute. I hope we can do another package today.

Senators McCain and Reed are managing this bill with their usual great skill, and I very much appreciate their hard work. Particularly, I know how important this legislation is to Senator McCain and that he wants to see it through and see it through as soon as possible. We are going to help in that regard, of course.

Mr. President, last night, Leader Pelosi and I had a constructive meeting with President Trump and several members of his Cabinet.

One of our most productive discussions was about the DACA Program, to which we all agreed on a framework: to pass DACA protections and additional border security measures, excluding the wall. We agreed that the President would support enshrining the DACA protections into law. In fact, it is something, he stated, that for a while has needed to be done. The President also encouraged the House and Senate to act.

What remains to be negotiated are the details of border security with the mutual goal of finalizing all of the details as soon as possible. While both sides agreed that the wall would not be any part of this agreement, the President made clear that he intends to pursue it at a later time, and we made clear that we would continue to oppose it.

If you listened to the President's comments this morning and to Director Mulvaney's comments this morning, it is clear that what Leader Pelosi and I put out last night was exactly accurate and was confirmed again this morning by our statement, by the President's statement before he got on the helicopter to go to Florida, and by Director Mulvaney's comments. We have reached an understanding on this issue, but we have to work out details, and we can work together on a border security package with the White House to get DACA on the floor quickly.

Let me talk for a minute about border security. We Democrats are for border security. We passed a robust border security package as part of immigration reform in 2013, as the Acting President pro tempore knows better than anybody else. We are not for the wall, and we will never be for the wall. It is expensive, it is ineffective, and it involves a lot of difficult eminent domain--taking people's property--and, apparently, it is not being paid for by Mexico. In fact, I listened to FOX News this morning--I am starting to do that to see what is going on over there--and they keep saying that in the campaign the President promised a wall. Yes. He

also promised that Mexico would pay for it. Where is Mexico? It has said 12 times that it is not paying for it. That is not the promise he made.

Finally, on the wall, it sends a terrible symbol to the world about the United States--about who we are, what kind of country we are. Since the 1880s, a beautiful statue in the harbor of the city in which I live has been the symbol of America to the world--that great torch that symbolizes what a noble land we are. Can you imagine, if in future decades, that symbol were to be replaced with a big, foreboding wall? That is not who America is, was, or, hopefully, will be.

As I mentioned, we are for sensible border security, and there are many more effective ways of securing the border than by building a wall. A wall can be scaled over. I am sure that those who love the wall have heard of ladders. A wall can be tunneled under. I am sure that those who support the wall have heard of shovels. It is a medieval solution for a modern problem--a ``Game of Thrones'' idea for a world that is a lot closer to ``Star Wars.'' The thing is that we have new, modern solutions that use our best technology. We discussed some of them at the White House last night.

Drones. These drones can spot the difference between a deer and a human being crossing the border. We have great sensory equipment, and our military has specialized in this kind of stuff. A lot of it is made in Syracuse, NY, I am proud to say. We can rebuild roads along the border. Talk to the people in the Border Patrol, and they will say that a lot of places do not have roads so that, if they see someone crossing the border, they cannot get to them. Of course, there is the bipartisan McCaul-Thompson bill in the House--McCaul, a Republican, and Thompson, a Democrat--that has broad, bipartisan support and that sets certain standards. Every one of these ideas would provide better, more effective border security than would a medieval wall.

There is still much to be done. We have to put meat on the bones of the agreement, and the details will matter, but it was a very, very positive step for the President to commit to DACA protections without insisting on the inclusion of or even a debate about the border wall.

Mr. President, on the Equifax data breach, what has transpired over the past several months is one of the most egregious examples of corporate malfeasance since Enron. Equifax has exposed the most sensitive personal information of over half of the citizens of the United States--names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, and, in some cases, even their credit histories. Clearly, there were inadequate data security standards at Equifax, which is deeply troubling on a number of levels.

When you are a credit agency like Equifax, you have two principal jobs: calculating and reporting accurate credit scores and protecting the sensitive information of individuals that is funneled through that process. Stunningly and epically, Equifax failed to perform one of its two essential duties as a company--protecting the sensitive information of the people in its files. That is unacceptable, and there is no other word for it.

Even following the failure by Equifax--this huge, massive failure-- the company and its leadership failed to effectively communicate this breach to the public and, in the aftermath of the announcement, failed to address public concern. The company knew about the breach and did not notify consumers that their information had been compromised for far too long a period. Because Equifax waited so long to report the breach, consumers were put behind the eight ball. Their information was potentially compromised without their knowledge, and they had no ability to protect themselves. Meanwhile, hackers could attempt to take out loans in their names and potentially use the information for identity fraud or they could perpetrate a number of fraudulent schemes with the sensitive information that these horrible hackers had obtained.

Once the breach was eventually announced, consumers found themselves being forced to provide sensitive information to Equifax in order to verify whether they were impacted by the breach. In order to sign up for the company's credit monitoring services, customers were forced to agree to terms prohibiting their ability to bring a legal claim against Equifax. Isn't that disgusting?

Equifax creates the problem and then says: Customer, if you want to solve it, you have to give up your rights.

That is outrageous.

Equifax is saying: We royally screwed up, but trust us. We will not screw up again, but if we do screw up, you cannot sue us.

To make matters worse, in the weeks leading up to the announcement of its breach, while customers were in the dark, several executives at Equifax sold off their stock in the company. They claim that they had no knowledge of the breach. If they did, it would be one of the most brazen and shameful attempts of insider trading that I can recall.

We need to get to the bottom of this--the very bottom, the murky bottom, the dirty bottom. The Senate must hold hearings on the Equifax breach during which these executives will be called to account. There is no question about that. Beyond that, five things need to happen in the near future. I would like to see them in the next week.

First, Equifax must commit proactively to reach out to all impacted individuals and notify them that their personal, identifiable information may have been compromised and, if known, inform them of exactly what information has been released.

Second, provide credit monitoring and ID theft protection services to all impacted individuals for no less than 10 years. If an individual chooses not to use the credit monitoring service offered by Equifax because they naturally don't trust them, then Equifax should reimburse that individual for the costs of the alternative credit monitoring service they sign up for.

Third, offer any impacted individual the ability to freeze their credit at any point for up to 10 years.

Fourth, remove arbitration provisions from any agreement or terms of use for products, services, or disclosures offered by Equifax. This means that Equifax will proactively come into compliance with the CFPB's forced arbitration rule, and there will be no question that an individual will not have all legal rights at their disposal.

Fifth, Equifax must agree to testify before the Senate, the FTC, and the SEC, cooperate with any investigation, and comply with any fines, penalties, or new standards that are recommended at the conclusion of these investigations.

If Equifax does not agree to these five things in 1 week's time, the CEO of the company and the entire board should step down. These five steps are common sense. They are the baseline of decency. If Equifax can't commit to them, their leadership is not up to the job, and the entire leadership must be replaced.

Let me tell my colleagues, if Joe Public--if the average citizen did anything close to what the corporate leaders of Equifax did that led to this data breach and the awful response to it, that average citizen would be fired immediately. To give Equifax a week to implement these things is overly generous to people who did horrible stuff and then, after it happened, did nothing--virtually nothing--that showed they had remorse.

It is only right that the CEO and board step down if they can't reach this modicum of corporate decency by next week.

Finally, Mr. President--a lot to say this morning--a word on taxes. Last night at the White House, President Trump said he didn't want his tax plan to benefit the very wealthy. That is a good thing. We Democrats agree. Forty-five of the forty-eight of us signed a letter that no tax breaks should go to the top 1 percent. They are doing great. God bless them. I am glad they are doing well. They don't need a tax break. Middle-class people do.

But the devil, when the President says that, is always in the details, and we haven't seen any details. We haven't seen anything resembling a

plan yet. We hear it is being written in a back room by the so-called Big 6--all Republican--but I haven't seen it, Ranking Member Wyden hasn't seen it, and no Democrat in the Senate has seen it.

I can tell you one thing: If the President's tax plan repeals or rolls back the estate tax, it will be clear that a lot of this plan benefits the very rich, contrary to all of his words.

I would remind everyone that only 5,200 of the over 2.7 million estates in this country will pay any taxes this year. The estate tax only kicks in when couples with estates of nearly $11 million transfer their wealth. Go to North Dakota--and I know the Acting President pro tempore has nice family farms out there--and ask how many have an estate worth $11 million, and if they do, I am willing to exempt from the estate tax a family farm that is over that. But almost no one does.

A study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showed that of the 5,200 estates--here we have 2.7 million estates. Only 5,200 qualify for the estate tax because they are worth $11 million, and of those, 50 are small farms or businesses--50. Let's exempt those 50. Let's make all of these other guys pay. We need the money. They are rich. God bless them.

So when President Trump says the estate tax is a burden on the family farmer, I honestly don't know what he is talking about. There may be a few. They may make a lot of noise. God bless them. That is their right as Americans. There are very, very few. That is not what the facts say.

Let me show my colleagues the next chart. Of 2.7 million taxable estates, just 50 are farms and small businesses that would benefit from the repeal of the estate tax--2.7 million; 50.

There was an amazing moment last night at the meeting we held at the White House when the estate tax came up, and a few of the President's advisers said: Oh, no one pays the estate tax. There have even been news reports that Gary Cohn has told Members of Congress that ``only morons pay the estate tax.'' What they mean, of course, is that rich people--people rich enough to be levied estate taxes--can find ways around paying them; they can afford all of those lawyers and estate planners.

Well, first, they are wrong. Repealing the estate tax would add $269 billion to the deficit over 10 years--$269 billion. So there are a lot of people paying the estate tax. Maybe they are morons, as Gary Cohn once called them, maybe they are not, but there is a lot of money out there that comes in from these very wealthy with the estate tax.

Second, Mr. Cohn and the others who say this bring up an important point. The right thing to do is not repeal the estate tax but close the loopholes. If you have an estate worth that much, you should be paying the estate tax, not finding clever ways to avoid your tax obligation. Again, if you are rich, if you have a big estate, God bless you. That is the American way. But pay your fair share. Pay your fair share.

Democrats want to participate in reforming our Tax Code. There are lots of good things we can agree on--closing loopholes like this one, cutting taxes for the middle class, helping small businesses, bringing offshore deferred income back into the United States.

We have laid out three principles: no reconciliation--that means do it together, not how they did healthcare, which didn't end up with a great result; second, no tax cuts for the top 1 percent, who are doing just fine, God bless them; third, fiscal responsibility--we should not increase the deficit as we cut taxes, particularly now that we are going to have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to help the beleaguered States of Texas and Florida.

Some Republicans have characterized those three principles as lines in the sand that show that Democrats aren't serious about tax reform. So I would ask my Republican colleagues, which of the three do you not agree with? Do you think we should cut taxes on the top 1 percent? Do you think we should create deficits by cutting taxes on the wealthy? Do you think you should just go at this alone? If you agree with those, fine. Say so. Don't say that these are lines in the sand. We are offering some policy guidance that has virtually unanimous support in our caucus.

By the way, these three principles guided the 1986 tax reform, which was the most successful tax reform we have had in decades.

It seems to me it is not Democrats who would move the goalpost on tax reform but some Republicans who no longer want to play by the same rules

Mr. President, I yield the floor to my dear friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who is doing a great job getting this bill through.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, first, as we continue work on NDAA, Democrats are committed to working with our Republican colleagues in a constructive and productive way to finish the legislation.

The Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the committee, and the ranking member, the Senator from Rhode Island, have an outstanding working relationship that serves the body and the country well.

Mr. President, I would like to spend a minute this morning talking about tax reform.

We Democrats want to actually achieve tax reform in this country, but in a way that gives some relief to middle-class families. We don't want to give big tax breaks to those at the very top while working families are struggling to make ends meet, and we don't want a reform to balloon the debt because we know down the road many Republicans will use the debt as an excuse to come after Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Our caucus is united on that front.

But the President this morning tweeted, ``With Irma and Harvey devastation, Tax Cuts and Tax Reform is needed more than ever before.'' With all due respect to the President, a tax cut--particularly one for the very wealthy--is not going to help Florida or Texas rebuild from these storms. The President has it exactly backward in another way. We are about to add billions to the deficit to rebuild parts of our country, something we absolutely should do because it is an emergency, but that makes it even more important that tax reform be fiscally responsible and deficit neutral--not ``Tax Cuts'' as the President tweeted.

We would be wise to remember the Bush era when Congress passed a massive tax cut and put two wars on the national credit card. It exploded the deficit and debt. Ever since, many Republicans have been pointing to the size of the debt as a reason to cut back on earned benefits, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

So, particularly after all of this emergency spending for Harvey and Irma, which we absolutely must do, we should not pile hundreds of billions, maybe trillions more on top of the debt. Tax reform should be deficit neutral.

We are willing to work with our Republican colleagues on tax reform insofar as they are working on tax reform that is deficit neutral and provides middle-class tax relief. I think that point was made by my Democratic colleagues who went to the White House last night. We will not go along with the tax scheme to lavish the wealthy with lower rates or even more carve-outs or a plan that explodes the debt and the deficit. Unfortunately, what we have heard of the Republican plan so far reveals that they are designing a tax plan that does exactly that-- helps the wealthy above all. Case in point:

Last week, President Trump said that the estate tax was a ``tremendous burden for the family farmer'' and that it was crushing the American dream.

Does everyone here know what the estate tax is? It is a tax cut. It has been reformed. It was changed several years ago. It is now a tax cut for about the 5,000 richest families in America--approximately 0.2 percent of all of the estate owners in the country. The estate tax only kicks in when couples with estates of nearly $11 million transfer their wealth to their families. For families who have less than $11 million-- they do not pay a penny.

This is a tax cut that would primarily benefit people like the President and members of his Cabinet, several of whom have net worths in the millions and billions. My friend Senator Sanders has pointed out that the estate tax could potentially give a $53 billion tax break to the Walton family--the heirs to the Walmart fortune. They are hardly family farmers. To boot, the estate tax would cost $269 billion over 10 years and would go to a very rarified, small number of very wealthy people and not to anybody else. It is not exactly the deficit-reducing kind of policy Republicans have been talking about for years.

Yet Chairman Brady of the House Ways and Means Committee said yesterday that we Democrats should not jump the gun and criticize the estate tax. He implied that nothing is decided and that maybe the estate tax will not be a part of the tax discussions. I hope he is right, but I would remind him that Republicans have been in lockstep on estate tax repeal for years and that he himself carried legislation in the House to repeal the estate tax as recently as in 2015. As recently as August 11 of this year, Chairman Brady was asked on FOX Business news if he were looking to get rid of the estate tax. He replied, ``I am.'' So this idea that we should not criticize this idea because Republicans are not for it is just ridiculous.

Here is what Chairman Brady did yesterday. He did not even call it ``estate tax repeal''; he said ``job creating.'' This is a game we are going to hear a lot about over the next few months. Our Republican colleagues are afraid to talk about exactly what they are going to be doing when it comes to tax reform. I would like them to be honest and say that they believe tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans are what create jobs. Most Americans do not believe that, so they hide it by saying they are job-creating. ``We are doing job-creating taxes.'' This is the same problem they had with healthcare. They talked about one thing, but it was really another. The American people caught on, and that is why healthcare did not succeed. The same thing will happen with tax reform if they persist in--and are actually embarrassed by--what they are doing so that they cannot talk about it frankly, so they cannot talk about it freely.

Our Republican friends want to hide the fact that they are giving a massive tax cut to the rich by calling it job-creating or pro-growth. If they want to argue explicitly that tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are the best way to grow America, I welcome the argument, but say what you are doing. Don't just hide it under sort of false talk. To say that the estate tax is about family farmers is a statement that is just flat, plain wrong, deceptive. The estate tax shows how ridiculous and how egregious the canard is. Cutting the estate tax is not going to create jobs.

If Chairman Brady has a detailed discussion of how cutting the Waltons' $53 billion is going to create jobs or create jobs better than will training people, building infrastructure, or giving tax breaks to the middle class, I welcome it, but let's hear the discussion.

We are not going to let Republicans hide their agenda--tax cuts for the rich--by shrouding it in terms like ``pro-growth'' and ``job- creating.'' If they believe that giving a massive tax cut to the 5,000 wealthiest estates in America is going to create jobs, they have to show us how.

Another point. This morning, I was in the gym trying to exercise, as I try to do, and I saw my dear friend Senator Toomey say on television: Well, it is clear Democrats do not want to work with us.

Well, I walked faster on that treadmill--I spun the bike faster--when I heard that. There were 45 or 48 Democrats who signed a letter that said: Do not do reconciliation. Work with us on tax reform.

Is Mr. Toomey saying that we do not want to work with him because part of that letter said that we do not want to give tax cuts to the top 1 percent? If that is what he wants to do, it will be hard to work together, but we want to work with him--we want to work with you--but we want to have tax cuts for the middle class, not for the wealthy. When 45 Democrats have signed a letter that said ``Do not do reconciliation. Work with us,'' please do not say that we do not want to work with you. It is not fair. It does not set the bipartisan tone we are trying to set here. We have our strong views. We are willing to debate your strong views, but we want to work together.

Mr. President, on healthcare, on the Graham-Cassidy bill--and I see my good friend from Arizona is waiting, so I will just be a minute more--I have heard that a few Senate Republicans will be releasing a new healthcare bill today. No one has seen the exact print of Graham-Cassidy--both good men--but according to most reporting, it would take away even more benefits and hurt average Americans even more than the previous bills would have that were defeated.

Republican Governors like John Kasich have said that they are not for this bill. He said: ``Trying to pass something through here in the 11th hour--I don't get it . . . I'm not for it . . . I'm for stabilizing the insurance markets.'' Republican Governor Baker said that the Graham- Cassidy bill would ``dramatically, negatively affect the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We're talking billions and billions of dollars over the course of the next 4 or 5 years.''

So I hope that Republicans, instead of trying to repeal the ACA again with the Graham-Cassidy bill, will work with us to make it better. I hope they will heed the good words of my dear friend from Arizona, which are to go through regular order--that is the crucible; that is what this NDAA bill is doing--instead of trying to jam something through at the last minute. That will not work.

We need to start working together in a bipartisan way to improve the existing healthcare law. It starts with guaranteeing the cost-sharing program. Senators Alexander and Murray are genuinely working on a compromise proposal, which we hope will be ready soon.

Mr. President, finally, I would like to end on a positive note. Yesterday, the President's Legislative Director said that the topic of the border wall would not be part of the discussion between our two parties about the path forward for Dreamers. This is a very good thing. The border wall is expensive, unnecessary, completely ineffective, not being paid for by Mexico as promised, and it would have been a major sticking point in the discussions. I made these arguments to the President repeatedly over the last week, and I am glad the administration has taken that position. It is a sign of good faith.

I continue to urge my friend the majority leader and the Speaker of the House to put a clean Dream Act on the floor, and I urge President Trump to support that as well.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, once again I want to thank my colleague from Illinois for both his passion and his intelligence in terms of his approach to the Dream Act. We are getting closer to getting this done. It is hardly done yet, but without the Senator from Illinois, we would not be as close to ``as close,'' so to speak, as we are today.

Hurricane Irma

Now, Mr. President, I want to first start off by saying that I hope that everyone in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina is staying safe as Hurricane Irma continues up the coast. Reports indicate that as many as 9 million Floridians have gone without power during the storm. Large parts of Miami and Jacksonville are under water. The Florida Keys have taken a particular beating. I saw the pictures on TV this morning.

As with Hurricane Harvey, the road to recovery will be long. As I said yesterday, I am ready to work with the administration and my Republican colleagues, when the time comes, to pass an aid package for the States dealing with Hurricane Irma.

National Defense Authorization Bill

Mr. President, as discussions continue on NDAA, I would highlight a few amendments that are important to the Democratic side. We will be offering two amendments as part of our Better Deal agenda, including a ``Buy American'' provision and an amendment that would drastically cut down on outsourcing.

For too long, loopholes in our ``Buy American'' rules have allowed Federal agencies to waive ``Buy American'' requirements and skirt the spirit of the law. A single loophole--the overseas exemption, which allows a Federal agency to waive ``Buy American'' rules if the product is intended for use overseas--accounts for 65 percent of the exemptions that the Department of Defense issues in a given year.

Senator Baldwin has an amendment that would eliminate these loopholes and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent by Federal agencies to purchase products that are made here in the United States.

My friend Senator Stabenow has been a leading voice on this issue as well. She has an amendment that would also roll back the overseas exemption by requiring the DOD to identify and give consideration to domestically sourced items before soliciting any offers for anything that is not ``Buy American'' compliant.

Right now, there are also several American companies with records of outsourcing American jobs that are receiving defense contracts, and companies receive a tax credit for outsourcing expenses rather than incentives to

bring jobs back to the United States. We should put a stop to both, and Senator Donnelly's amendment will do that. His amendment will give a tax credit of up to 20 percent for expenses that companies incur to bring jobs back to our shores.

Another critical amendment is a bipartisan amendment offered by Senators Graham and Klobuchar on the issue of election security. The consensus of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies was that Russia, a foreign adversary, interfered in our elections. Make no mistake--their success in 2016 will encourage them to try again. We have State elections in a couple of months, and the 2018 election is a little more than a year away. We must improve our defenses now to ensure that we are prepared. The Graham-Klobuchar amendment would greatly strengthen our defenses, helping to prepare States for the inevitable cyber attacks that threaten the integrity of our elections. We should pass it as part of the NDAA.

As Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed continue discussions on this bill--and I know their relationship is a good and strong one--I hope they strongly consider the inclusion of these three critical amendments.

Election Integrity Commission

Mr. President, speaking of elections, a word on President Trump's Election Integrity Commission, which is meeting with the public for the first time today in New Hampshire. I have three points.

First, I would like to dispel the idea that this Commission has anything to do with election integrity. It was borne out of the President's baseless claim that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally in the 2016 elections. That is just not true. The Commission will never find evidence to support that claim.

Second, the public officials on this Commission must stop making similarly outrageous claims about voter fraud in elections. Recently, the Commission's Vice Chair, Kris Kobach, claimed that the New Hampshire Senate election could have been swung by illegal votes because they found a number of voters who had out-of-State licenses. Of course, there are several reasonable, legal, legitimate reasons as to why someone would vote in a State while having a license from a different State. Most likely, if you live at a college in New Hampshire but come from out of State, your car has an out-of-State license plate. By State law, if you are registered at a New Hampshire college, it is perfectly legal to vote there.

We all know that the States set these laws. In fact, when the Washington Post tried to identify some of these voters, the first four they randomly called were all college students who lived in New Hampshire but who went to school elsewhere.

Yet this Commission and, I would say, particularly its Vice Chair, Mr. Kobach, are so eager to prove their point--which is virtually unprovable--that there is a huge amount of voter fraud that they come up with these baseless claims and then have to back off. Throwing these kinds of deeply misleading, bogus claims around about stolen elections and massive voter fraud without there being any actual evidence is extremely irresponsible and damaging to our democracy. They are so eager to prove their point about voter fraud, which is demonstrably false, that they are resorting to these crazy claims, discrediting their Commission and discrediting themselves.

Lastly, a broader point. The Election Integrity Commission is a punishment in search of a transgression that never happened, which shows that it likely has an ulterior motive.

Voter fraud is extremely rare. A comprehensive study by the Washington Post in 2014 concluded that out of over 1 billion ballots cast between 2000 and 2014, there were only 31 credible instances of voter fraud, and even some of those were debatable, according to the study. The Brennan Center for Justice concluded that an American has a better chance of being struck by lightening than impersonating another voter at the polls.

So why the need for a Presidential advisory commission? Because the real target of the Election Integrity Commission is not voter fraud but voter suppression, especially the suppression of African-American voters, poor voters, elderly voters, and Latino voters. Just like the campaigns for outrageous voter ID laws in State after State--many have been thrown out by the courts for being blatantly discriminatory--the Election Integrity Commission seems focused on throwing up barriers to voting through intimidation, misleading claims, and controversial tactics, like the widespread collection of sensitive, personal voter information.

I think what this Commission is trying to do flies in the face of what the country is all about. We want everyone to vote. We do not want to scare people, intimidate people, or make it harder for people to vote. If there were overwhelming evidence of fraud, obviously we would need to do something, but there is not. As I said, it is a solution--a nasty solution--in search of a problem. The Election Integrity Commission ought to be disbanded, and we will be looking for ways to do that legislatively.

The real threat to election integrity comes not from voter fraud but from foreign meddling and cyber attacks. We should pass the Graham- Klobuchar amendment rather than continue with the nonsense of this Commission.

Moreover, with voter participation rates being so low, we should be spending our time and energy encouraging more Americans to exercise their fundamental right to vote rather than wasting taxpayer dollars for a commission to solve a problem that does not exist.

50th Anniversary of the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation

Mr. President, before I yield the floor, today is the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation, which does great work in my State in combating a very debilitating type of disease. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of the foundation and encouraging more research, better access to care, and improved treatments for patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

The New York-based Crohn's & Colitis Foundation, along with its partnering chapters across the country, is the largest national voluntary health group seeking the cure for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. It also works to improve the quality of life of children and adults affected by these diseases.

One in every 200 Americans struggles with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, collectively known as inflammatory bowel diseases, IBD. Although no cause has been identified for Crohn's disease, recent research suggests hereditary, genetics, and/or environmental factors contribute to the development of the disease. Further complicating matters, ulcerative colitis is the result of an abnormal response by the body's immune system.

The Crohn's & Colitis Foundation sponsors basic and clinical research of the highest quality and offers a wide range of educational programs and supportive services for patients and healthcare professionals. In 2015, IBD Plexus was launched. IBD Plexus is a groundbreaking initiative that provides the infrastructure and capacities to facilitate and accelerate research into the causes and treatments of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

Federal agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health through the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense each support meaningful research and public health activities on Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services both play a significant role in approving new treatments and facilitating health care financing policies that impact patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

I deeply appreciate the work of the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation and its longstanding dedication to the patients it represents. They have endeavored to improve the quality of life of so many Americans, and the U.S. Senate recognizes the foundation's 50th anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 16 years ago today, my city, our country, changed forever. On September 11, 2001, our country was attacked; the World Trade Center towers fell; the Pentagon was in flames; and the smoke rising from an empty field in Pennsylvania reminded us that as cataclysmic as the attack was, the conspirators had planned even greater destruction.

It was a day of fear and helplessness, of phones ringing endlessly-- when they worked--husbands calling wives, wives calling husbands, folks in search of brothers, sisters, neighbors, and colleagues.

I will never forget the next day. President Bush provided a plane so that Senator Clinton and I could fly back to New York. The smell of death was in the air. Lined up outside before you entered into the grounds where the Twin Towers were, were hundreds of people with little signs with pictures: Have you seen my father Jim? Have you seen my daughter Mary? That will stay with me forever.

More than 3,000 souls were taken from us--a guy I had played basketball with in high school, a businessman who had helped me on my way up, a firefighter with whom I had done blood drives. It was one of the bloodiest days on American soil since the Civil War.

On September 12, 2001, I called on Americans to wear the flag in a sign of solidarity. Every day since, I have worn this flag in remembrance of those who were lost and those brave souls who died rushing to the towers to find those who still might be alive. God willing, I will wear it every day of my life for the rest of my life.

September 11 was one of those before-and-after moments. Nothing has been the same since. We awakened to a new manner of evil that had previously been beyond our imagination.

But on this day, as we solemnly remember those who were taken from us, let us also remember what that day revealed about us. ``On a normal day, we value heroism because it is uncommon,'' wrote Nancy Gibbs of Time Magazine 3 days after the attack. ``On Sept. 11, we valued heroism because it was everywhere.''

Firefighters and police and union workers searched, undaunted, through dust and smoke, through fire and ash, for citizens who might still be alive, trapped in the rubble. Average Americans pulled the wounded to safety. Folks from coast to coast lined up for blood drives and pooled their money for donations.

I will never forget the picture of a man who owned a shoe store two blocks north of the towers and was giving out shoes to everyone because they didn't have theirs on as they rushed to get out of the towers-- just a small act of charity and selflessness. It was repeated over and over again because those kinds of acts are deep in the American soul.

This morning I came from the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. Where once there were mighty towers, now there are two deep scars in the Earth. But all around the memorial, New York City is alive and thriving.

In the days after, they wrote it off. They said that no one would live south of Canal or Chamber Street, companies would flee, and New York's greatest days were over. But we New Yorkers are a tough breed. We rebuilt. We came back stronger.

On this day, we should always remember that beside our distinctive spirit of independence, resilience, and uncommon heroism are essential parts of the American character.

I do have to say how proud I am of my city. Downtown is bustling, and 50,000 people live there who didn't live there before. Businesses have relocated. It is a new ``in'' area. Bin laden is gone. The evil men with him are gone. We thrive.

God bless America.

Mr. President, as Hurricane Irma continues to buffet Florida, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Florida and the rest of the Southeast that is in the storm's path. The Democratic caucus and I stand ready to work with the majority leader and his caucus, members of the administration, and officials in Florida to provide them with the resources and aid they need.

Just as we were able to speedily pass an aid package after Harvey, I expect we will come together to support rescue and recovery efforts in the wake of Hurricane Irma and in some of the other disasters, particularly the fires out west.

Mr. President, this week we will begin consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, as we do each year. As usual, there are hundreds of amendments that have already been filed and a whole lot of tough issues to consider. We Democrats want to work in a constructive and productive manner to process as many of these amendments as possible and work through even the most difficult of issues.

I know that Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed have an excellent working relationship, as well as a great deal of respect for one another. I hope they can build a strong managers' package that will be acceptable to both sides.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.