Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, let me thank my friend from Florida for his kind words.

During these troubled times in the State of Florida--and we hope and pray that Irma will not do too much damage, although signs point in the other direction--the people of Florida could not have a stronger, more effective, more compassionate advocate than the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson. He knows how to get things done, and he knows how to inform people about what is going on. He is able to reach across the aisle, in a bipartisan way, to help in all times but, particularly, in times of need.

The people of Florida are lucky to have him as their Senator, particularly at this moment, I would say to my dear friend Bill Nelson.

Mr. President, yesterday, the congressional leadership and the President reached a bipartisan deal on three crucial issues: short-term aid for the victims of Hurricane Harvey, the debt ceiling, and government funding.

Alongside the aid package for Texas and Louisiana, the Senate will take up and pass an extension of government funding and the debt ceiling, both to December 15, although that may be modified to December 8, as I understand it. We all agreed to work together to avoid a default in December as well.

This is a good agreement for the American people, and everyone should breathe a huge sigh of relief. This agreement takes the threat of a shutdown and default off the table this month and will help us quickly get resources to FEMA and other agencies that are helping with rescue and recovery in the wake of Harvey and that will, in all likelihood, be needed in the wake of Irma as well.

The Nation has been clamoring for bipartisanship--for the two parties to work together to do the country's business--rather than to engage in needless brinksmanship. Yesterday's agreement was a ray of hope for both parties coming together on the big issues. Also, let it be a ray of hope that both parties can come together to help the Dreamers.

We Democrats have said from the very beginning of this Congress that we are willing to work with our Republican colleagues and the President for the good of the country so long as we do not sacrifice our principles. We have never been for obstruction for obstruction's sake, and we will never be for that. This agreement is a reminder that we do not always have to wait until the eleventh hour--risking shutdown, risking default--in order to compromise and do the right thing. Importantly, this agreement gives Congress a way forward on what are some of the thorniest issues this month, allowing us to move to other vital work.

The 3-month agreement is a compromise. In the past, so many of our colleagues have said: ``If the other party is President, we are not going to do anything to help.'' We did not want to say that. We did not want to say: ``It is all on you.'' We wanted to compromise. A compromise is just that--not dictating what should happen but working together. I give the President credit for understanding that in the Oval Office when Leader Pelosi and I made the compromise suggestion. I thank him for it.

Mr. President, since President Trump's decision to end DACA on Tuesday, it is absolutely necessary that Congress move forward to pass a clean Dream Act while 800,000 Dreamers anxiously await action by this Congress. There is no reason to wait. Let's put a clean Dream Act on the floor, which I believe would pass by a significant margin, and tell these hard-working Dreamers that they belong in this country, too--the country they want to be part of desperately. If the majority leader and Speaker do not offer a clean Dream Act, we Democrats will find other legislative vehicles to attach it to until it passes.

Let me say this. I spoke once again to the President this morning. He called and said that he wanted to help with the Dream Act. There are many ways to help, and here are two. One is to persuade other Republican Senators to cosponsor the bill that has been introduced by Senators Durbin and Graham. We now have four Republican cosponsors, and we need more. There are many in the Senate who seem to be sympathetic to the Dream Act. Maybe the President can help them get to cosponsor. The second is to urge my friend, the Republican leader from Kentucky, and the Speaker of the House, Mr. Ryan, to put the Dream Act on the floor ASAP. We can get this

done and get it done quickly. We can end the anguish of so many Americans and make sure that our economy continues to move forward so that it is not needlessly ripped apart.

There is other work that we have to do in healthcare to shore up the marketplaces, particularly by guaranteeing the cost reduction programs. Discussions in the HELP Committee between my good friend, Chairman Alexander, and our great ranking member, Patty Murray, are proceeding in a bipartisan way in, perhaps, the new spirit of the moment--maybe longer than a moment, we hope and pray. I am hopeful that the full Senate, this month, will be able to take up and consider bipartisan legislation that emerges from the committee in order to stabilize and improve our healthcare system.

In a similar vein, we must consider a multiyear reauthorization of CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program. Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden--again, in a bipartisan action--are having a hearing on CHIP today in the Finance Committee, and that should be another matter of immediate priority for this Senate.

Of course, as the people of Florida brace for Hurricane Irma, and the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have gone through it now, the Senate must be prepared to quickly respond to that storm just as we are doing with Harvey. We also have to take into account some of the other disasters that are occurring in States like Washington, Oregon, California, and Montana. Wildfires are raging out of control. They, too, will need disaster assistance. Because of the immediate and strong impact of Harvey and, it seems, Irma, we should not forget that our friends in the West will need disaster relief and will need it soon as well.

The deal we reached with Republican leaders and President Trump yesterday will allow Congress to work on all of these important items this month and in the following months without there being a looming specter of a shutdown or default on our debt. It should help to bring both sides together to, ultimately, get another deal on sequester relief, lower healthcare premiums, the Dreamers, and many other items in December. That is good for this Congress, and that is good for the American people--a ray of hope, as I said.

The majority leader has already filed cloture on this package. I hope that we can proceed quickly--hopefully, today--to ensure its passage.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I will speak on leader time. I know that the Senators from Colorado and Virginia wish to follow.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Trump administration made a terribly wrong decision to terminate the DACA Program. The Dreamers came to this country through no fault of their own. Many know no other country but this one. They work every single day in our businesses. They go to our schools. They serve in our military. They are a boon to our economy. All they want is to live, work, and contribute to this country like generations have done before. They want to be Americans, as so many people do, because we are such a great country.

Congress has the ability and, I believe, the responsibility to act and to protect those Dreamers before the program is completely terminated in 6 months. Why not do it right now? President Trump has called on Congress to act; so why don't we?

I would ask my friend the majority leader and Speaker Ryan to put a clean Dream Act on the floor in both Chambers in September. Every Democrat is ready to vote for that legislation. We know many Republicans in both Chambers would vote for it as well. It would likely pass without much fuss. But if we can't get that to happen, we will add it to vehicles that are moving--legislative vehicles--until we get it done. It is that important to us and to America. We could solve this problem tomorrow, rather than letting the fear of deportation hang over the heads of 800,000 Dreamers, who are studying and working, and some are in the military serving in the United States today.

So I would like, again, to say to Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan: Put a clean Dream Act on the floor in a bipartisan vote. This body-- and, I believe, the House--is ready to pass it.

In a short time, Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, Leader Pelosi, and I will head to the White House to meet with President Trump. We have a lot we need to get done this month: an extension of government funding, raising the debt ceiling, passing aid for the victims of Hurricane Harvey, and protecting the Dreamers. So far, we Democrats haven't heard much in the way of a plan to accomplish all these goals from the Republican leadership, who hold the majority in both Houses of Congress, as well as the President's seat. I hope that this changes this morning. I look forward to hearing the President's plan and the Republican majority's plan for accomplishing all these things that Congress must accomplish in September.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I want to thank my colleague from Hawaii for her outstanding words. She comes from a State like mine that thrives on diversity, welcoming people from all over the globe and making us stronger, and she has been a symbol of that herself as well as all the millions of wonderful people she represents in Hawaii.

I rise this afternoon alongside my colleague from Hawaii, my colleague from Washington State, and others to make a case for the swift passage of the Dream Act. There are 800,000 Dreamers living in our country today, hard-working folks who came to this country through no fault of their own. To many, America is the only country they have ever known. More than that, they contribute so much to our country. They work in our companies, go to our schools, even serve in our military. All they want is to live and work and contribute to our great country. Why wouldn't we want them to?

The President's decision yesterday to end DACA threw their futures in doubt, threatening to rip apart families and telling people who have worked so hard to become Americans that they have to leave the country. The President's DACA decision is also bad economics. It would deprive thousands of employers that rely on these hard workers.

The Libertarian-leaning Cato Institute estimates that ending DACA would cost employers over $2 billion in 2 years alone. The Center for American Progress found it would drain $433 billion from our GDP over 10 years. That is why more than 500 business leaders--some of the leading business people in our country--have signed on to a letter in defense of DACA. That is why Microsoft recently said that protecting the Dreamers was their No. 1 legislative goal, greater than a cut to the corporate tax rate. That is how much Dreamers mean to them personally and to their bottom lines.

The economic consequence of ending DACA would be far-reaching and likely devastating. There would also be a devastating moral cost if we didn't pass the Dream Act to protect these kids.

I am reminded of a young woman, Kirssy Martinez, who was brought to this country from the Dominican Republic as a very young child and grew up in my city, in the borough of the Bronx. After graduating high school in New York City, Kirssy was stuck in the shadows. She worked small jobs as a waitress and as a babysitter. Though she was a good student coming out of high school and even had a few scholarship offers, she couldn't attend college because she didn't have a green card.

The DACA Program granted her temporary legal status. She worked hard to scrape together enough for loans and enrolled in Bronx Community College. A few years ago, I spoke at her graduation, where she was the covaledictorian of her class. I watched her. What a wonderful young lady. She had a perfect GPA, 4.0.

Kirssy represents what we think of as the best of our country. She is part of what makes America great. Like generations before her, she wants to study hard, work hard, and give back to her community. What kind of country would we be--what kind of country have we become if we say that Kirssy and 800,000 hard-working folks just like her are not welcome.

Congress has a responsibility to act. I know the Presiding Officer sees it that way as well, and I very much appreciate it. We should do, as soon as we can, whatever we can.

I repeat what I said to the majority leader and the Speaker of the House this morning at the White House: Put a clean Dream Act on the floor in both Houses. It will receive bipartisan support. I believe it would pass by significant margins in each House. We could remove the fear of deportation and give peace of mind to 800,000 Dreamers if only our leadership would put the bill on the floor. It is that simple. If we don't see a clean Dream Act in September, we, as the minority, are prepared to attach it to legislative vehicles in the fall until it passes.

These Dreamers are Americans in their hearts. They ought to become Americans in the law books as well, and we Democrats will not rest until that happens.

Thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I welcome the Presiding Officer and every other Senator back from the district work period. As we all know, much has happened since we last were here.

North Korea has tested several ballistic missiles and reportedly tested a nuclear weapon, alarming well-meaning nations around the world.

In Charlottesville, neo-Nazis and White supremacists marched through the streets, reminding us we are not done fighting the darkest elements of American society--racism, bigotry, hate.

Right now, large parts of the fourth largest city in our country remain underwater. I extend my most heartfelt sympathies to the people of Houston and to those across parts of Texas and Louisiana who are just beginning a long road to recovery from Hurricane Harvey. Having lived through Hurricane Sandy in my home State of New York, I remember the agonies of families who lost their homes, lost their businesses, and, particularly in the first month, had a sense of helplessness about what had happened to them. Our thoughts and prayers are with everyone in Houston.

We thank all the first responders and the rescue organizations--the police and fire departments--that are on the scene, as well as those everyday American heroes. Americans always rise to the occasion to lend a hand, such as the folks who drove to Houston with boats hooked to their cars to help rescue stranded families. In rough times, Americans pull together, and Congress will do its part to provide relief and aid to the people of Houston this month.

Needless to say, we have a busy work period ahead of us. In addition to a recovery package for Houston, we have to pass appropriations to keep the government open, raise the debt ceiling, protect the Dreamers, provide certainty on the cost-sharing program that helps keep healthcare premiums down, and much more. The to-do list is lengthy. Nearly all the items I mentioned will require votes from Senators from both sides of the aisle. The best way to tackle and ultimately pass legislation on those issues is for us to work in a bipartisan way this month.

Mr. President, on taxes, unfortunately, we are off to a very bad start because President Trump has scheduled a meeting on tax reform today with only Republican legislative leaders. Just as they did with healthcare, Republicans seem to be excluding Democrats from the legislative process from the very beginning.

The majority leader announced prior to the break that he would likely pursue changes to the Tax Code on reconciliation, meaning the Republicans would only need the votes of their own party. Now they are meeting about the issue without even inviting Democrats to join in preliminary discussions.

Very simply, if Republicans hope to avoid the same pitfalls that ultimately brought down their effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, they ought to abandon the misguided idea that one party can enact major changes to the Tax Code. An effort such as this requires two parties, and the result for the American people will be better if we all work together. The American people understand clearly that if Democrats were included in the debate, tax reform would be much more likely to help the middle class. If Republicans are the only ones in the room on tax reform, the vast majority of the benefits are likely to go to those at the very top. That is what the Republican Party has stood for for years.

Mr. President, on another matter, over the past 6 weeks, North Korea has repeatedly tested the resolve of the United States with the launch of several ballistic missiles. The rogue regime has threatened to launch a missile in close proximity to Guam, a U.S. territory, and has, in fact, fired a missile over the territory of our ally Japan.

The United States must respond to these increasingly bellicose actions with firmness and levelheadedness. The President of the United States has to lead the way. The President of the United States should be firm, level, and above all else, credible. The President's words matter--especially on issues of national security--but thus far, President Trump has responded to North Korea with bluff and bluster, hyperbole and exaggerated language: ``fire and fury like the world has never seen.'' That is the kind of language we typically hear from the North Korean regime, not from the President of the United States.

The harsh fact is that because President Trump bluffs and blusters, he will be much less effective in dealing with North Korea in the long run. Foreign leaders--especially our allies--don't know whether they can trust his words when there is so much hyperbole involved, and it undermines his ability to lead in a geopolitical crisis.

I urge the President to speak with caution, to speak with prudence, and to always speak credibly as well as strongly. It is paramount that North Korea understand the position of the United States and that when the President of the United States makes a statement, it believe we are prepared to act accordingly.

Mr. President, finally, on the DACA Program, today the administration announced it would terminate the program after a period of 6 months. Most Americans know how heartless this DACA decision is, ripping families

apart, telling people who worked so hard for years to become Americans that they now have to leave the country. These are folks who were brought here as children through no fault of their own. They may have known no other country but ours and have voluntarily registered themselves with the government in order to live, work, and give back to our great country. Make no mistake--they contribute greatly to our country. These hard-working people and their contributions are vital to our economy, vital to our communities, schools, and institutions, such as the military.

They are also vital to tens of thousands of businesses, small and large, that will be hurt if the administration's order stands. Ninety- one percent of DACA recipients are employed, paying taxes and paying into Social Security. A study by the Center for American Progress earlier this year found that ending DACA would drain $433 billion from our national GDP over 10 years. Even the Libertarian Cato Institute estimated that ending DACA would cost employers nearly $2 billion over 2 years. The human and economic toll of rescinding DACA will be far- reaching.

It is telling that Attorney General Sessions--not President Trump-- made the announcement today that the administration would be ending DACA, and he did it without taking a single question. It shows that President Trump is not proud of what the administration has done today; otherwise he would have come forward himself. It shows that he is probably ashamed of this decision.

It was with unbelievable hypocrisy that both Attorney General Sessions and the White House Press Secretary said today that the decision was about upholding the rule of law. If this White House had such reverence for the rule of law, the President would not have fired Jim Comey or attacked the Federal judiciary for ruling against the travel ban or pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio for no reason other than he was a political ally.

Congress now has an ability and an obligation to act. Democrats will do everything we can to prevent President Trump's terribly wrong order from becoming reality.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as the Senate wraps up its work this week, I have been in multiple discussions with my friend the majority leader about clearing nominations with bipartisan support, and we have made significant progress. Now that we have moved past the terrible process used on healthcare, I hope we can get back to our normal way of legislating and clearing noncontroversial nominees. The two are tied together. They can't avoid regular order when they want to and say that Democrats should use regular order whenever they want us to.

Now that healthcare is done, I think we can tie the two together--the normal way of legislating, clearing noncontroversial nominees as we move forward in September. Of course, controversial nominees will still require the proper vetting, but I am committed to help move noncontroversial, bipartisan nominees forward.

I hope the fever is breaking. There is a real desire in this body to move past the acrimony of the healthcare debate and get to a place where we can work together to advance legislation that helps the American people. I am hopeful that the discussions between the Republican leader and me will produce a package of nominees we can confirm today.

Tax Reform

Mr. President, the Republican leader has said that the next big issue this body will take up is taxes. Democrats were excluded from even participating in healthcare discussions from the very first day of Congress, a process that ultimately ended in failure. So we have made the first overture this time to show our Republican friends we are serious about a bipartisan process on tax reform. We sent them a letter outlining three very basic principles. This is a guideline for our Republican colleagues to come work with us. These are very simple principles that I think the vast majority of Americans would support. Let me say what they are.

First, the Republican leader has said that he would pursue reconciliation again, a process that purposefully excludes Democrats almost again on the first day we begin to talk about tax reform. The majority leader brought down the curtain on bipartisan tax reform before a discussion between our two parties could even begin. He says that Democrats don't want to have a bipartisan discussion. Of course we do. We have said this over and over again until we are blue in the face, but I guess the majority leader somehow didn't like the three principles we laid out, and I would like him to specifically answer what it was.

We know he probably agrees, so which of these three principles does the majority leader disagree with? Tell us. Which of the three? We know he probably agrees with the third. Surely he can't think that a blunt budget tool that excludes 48 Members of the Senate is a good way to write legislation. He has said so many times himself. I quoted him yesterday.

He warned the Senate about becoming ``an assembly line for one party's partisan legislative agenda.'' Those are Senator McConnell's words. The Senate should not become ``an assembly line for one party's partisan legislative agenda.'' That is what he did on healthcare. Is he doing it again on tax reform? I hope not.

Well, we know he probably agrees with the second principle: no increase to the debt and deficit. We know he agrees because he has said so before. The Republican leader and Members of his party have spent decades assailing the debt and deficit. As recently as May 16, the Republican leader told

Bloomberg TV that tax reform will have to be revenue-neutral, so that one doesn't seem to be it. Again, I would like to hear what he has to say explicitly so that we can work together.

It leaves us with the first principle: no tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Here again, I understand why the majority leader and my Republican friends don't want to come out and say that this is the reason they have decided to pursue a tax bill on their own, but it almost certainly is.

Tax cuts for the wealthy are extremely unpopular with the American people--and for good reason. The top 1 percent of this country takes 20 percent of our income, a great percentage of its wealth. The wealthy are doing well. God bless them. Their incomes are going up at a faster rate than those of anybody else, but when we are talking about our Tax Code and rewriting it, we shouldn't be focused on giving the 1 percent another tax break while millions of working families struggle to afford the cost of college, prescription drugs, food, and healthcare.

I am afraid the majority is in the same boat as they were with healthcare. They don't want to say that their real reason for changing healthcare is wanting to slash Medicaid. A good number of courageous Members on the other side said: We won't do that. But that was the core of the Senate bill. They knew it was unpopular with the American people, so they didn't talk about it. They entered into a process that hid it from the American people.

I think, unfortunately, history is repeating itself. They know how unpopular cutting taxes on the top 1 percent is, but for the special interest, Koch brother wing of their party, that is their No. 1 goal. All they talk about is cutting taxes on the wealthy. So they are stuck. When will my colleagues have the courage to break free from the Koch brothers and special interests?

Don't give breaks to the top 1 percent. Everyone knows they don't need it. It is an old, discredited idea that has lost its steam except among the hard-right, Koch brother wing of the Republican Party. Most Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--don't go for it. So break free.

If our Republican colleagues' whole basis for doing tax reform is cutting taxes on the top 1 percent, we are going to send that message from one end of America to the other, and their ideas will certainly fail, as they did with healthcare.

In a related point, I saw this morning that President Trump has been bragging about the success of the stock market, which, by the way, was already going up. It went up more points under President Obama than under President Trump. It started going up years ago. It is just continuing. Most economists would give President Obama at least as much credit as President Trump. But that is not the point I wish to make.

The stock market is mainly owned by the wealthy. As of 2013, the top 20 percent own 92 percent of all stock shares. So when the stock market is going up, it is helping the 1 percent.

Average Americans are not looking for stocks to go up, not looking for corporate profits to hit record levels, as much as they are looking at how are their paychecks, how are their expenses. That is why we have a better deal for them. We want paychecks for average Americans to go up. We want expenses for average Americans to go down. We want them to have better tools, so they and their kids can make a better living in the 21st century.

The focus of the stock market is on people at the highest end. Many will dispute whether President Trump deserves credit for it, but whether you think so or you don't--I don't, by and large--it is not what the American people are looking for, and it is not a basis for bragging about the economy.

Well, going back to taxes--the American people will rebel against a tax cut for the wealthy, so the Republicans clearly will not talk about it in their plan. They will give a crumb to the middle class and try to hide a massive giveaway to the already fortunate. I can see no other reason why they object to these three very reasonable, very popular principles other than that, and we hope they will not try to sneak it through in the same partisan process.

Immigration

Finally, Mr. President, a word on immigration: Yesterday, I heard the President railing against migrant workers and wrapping his arms around the Cotton-Perdue bill. The bill goes after hard-working people who want to play by the rules, contribute to our economy, and earn citizenship, while doing nothing to address the unscrupulous practices of employers who abuse our visa programs to outsource jobs and displace American workers.

Here is what I would like to focus on. The President has this nice announcement that he is cutting back on immigration, but a month ago he actually increased the number of H-2B visas--a program the President knows well. Why? A lot of those with H-2B visas work in hotels. I don't know how many, but I bet a good number are in Trump Hotels. So when the President actually looks at immigration in his own businesses, he says: We need more immigrants. When asked before, he has said: Well, we couldn't get American workers. But when he comes up with his big immigration plan--I think not appealing to the higher instincts of Americans--he says: Slash it. Those two are complete contradictions. To hold both of those views is to hold hypocritical views.

The President wants to talk about immigration because he thinks the politics are to his advantage, but, in truth, his immigration policy has a stunning hypocrisy at the core of it. The President criticizes and seeks to limit almost every immigration program except the one that benefits his own business.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, first, on the topic of healthcare: I was very happy to hear the statement from Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray yesterday in which they pledged the HELP Committee to the task of restabilizing and strengthening the markets, particularly by guaranteeing the cost-sharing reduction program. As Chairman Alexander said: ``Without the payment of these cost-sharing reductions, Americans will be hurt.'' That is clear. Everyone has said it, even the insurance industry, and yet President Trump continues to treat this critical program as if it is some kind of political hostage. The President treats the critical program as if it is some kind of hostage.

Insurers in three States--North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Iowa--have each released separate rates for 2018: one if the payments are made, and one that is 20 percent higher if they are not. In these three States, premiums will be 20 percent higher if President Trump refuses to carry out the law. Every American will see that increase in their monthly bill and know it is a Trump premium tax.

Insurers from coast to coast have said that uncertainty surrounding the cost-sharing reductions are the No. 1 threat to the stability of our markets. State insurance commissioners--many of them Republican-- are announcing higher rates for next year and directly blaming the President's failure to guarantee these payments, as the insurance commissioner of Idaho did yesterday.

We have enough problems in the world right now without President Trump creating entirely new ones out of political spite and a petty vindictiveness. When you lose politically, you don't take it out on the American people. That is not Presidential; that is just small.

So we would say to the President: Stop holding this critical program as if it is some kind of political hostage, stop the sabotage, make the payments this month so Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray can get to work in a bipartisan way on a longer stabilization package.

Let me salute a large number of my Republican colleagues who agree we have to do cost sharing. They have realized that just sticking with President Trump--particularly when his motivations are not Presidential but are sort of nasty, vindictive--is a bad idea. I salute you because, for the good of America, we have to work together.

Mr. President, now, on taxes, another matter. Yesterday, my friend the majority leader brought down the curtain on bipartisan tax reform before a discussion between our two parties could even start, dismissing the prospect of Democratic

input, promising the Republicans would again use reconciliation to lock us out of the process, repeating the same mistake they did with healthcare.

Leader McConnell's announcement just came a few hours after 45 Members of the Democratic caucus sent him a letter saying we were open to bipartisan discussions on tax reform. We had three simple, straightforward principles. Let me read the Democratic principles on tax reform: First, don't cut taxes for the 1 percent--the top 1 percent. They are doing fine. God bless them.

Second, don't increase the debt and deficit, something many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been talking about for a long time.

Third, negotiate in a fair and open process, not reconciliation but hearings, amendments, the things that have made America great and have brought this Senate the acclaim over the decades it has had.

Now, I would like to know which of these principles the majority leader does not agree with. I would like to know. Is he closing the door on bipartisanship because he so dearly wants to cut taxes on the top 1 percent? The wealthy are doing great right now--God bless them-- but they don't need another tax break while middle-class families and working Americans are struggling just to make ends meet. Many of us on this side of the aisle suspect that to some, that is the No. 1 motivation--not tax reform, not close loopholes, not clean up the system but give that top 1 percent a huge tax break to please so many like the Koch brothers.

Again, I would ask the leader: Are you closing the door on bipartisanship simply because you want to cut taxes on the top 1 percent or maybe the leader is closing the door on bipartisanship because he has a fervent desire to blow up the deficit? That sure doesn't sound like something Republicans have been interested in over the years--they have been spending lots of time, with good reason, deficit scolding and debt scolding--or is my friend from Kentucky, our majority leader, closing the door on bipartisanship because he thinks reconciliation, which means you exclude the Democrats from the get-go, is a good process because he doesn't want to have hearings, because he doesn't want amendments, and maybe it is the same reason on healthcare? Maybe they are ashamed of their proposal. I would like to see somebody on the floor get up and say: We believe in tax cuts--on the Republican side get up on the floor and say: We believe in tax cuts for the top 1 percent. That is why we want to do this.

But, no, they want to hide it, cloak it, give a crumb to the middle class, and say: See, we are helping you.

We all know that what happens after we have a big deficit, they come back and say: Now, let's cut Social Security, now let's cut Medicare because we don't have the money. We don't have the money because they cut taxes on the rich, the very wealthy.

I don't know which of these three principles the majority leader is against, but when he closed the door on Democrats--when we sent him this letter which simply outlined our principles, that is all we wanted to do, give him notice we agree on these three things, at least on our side--which one or all of them made him close the door?

We Democrats hoped we could work together on tax reform, but the majority leader has drawn down the curtain before the play has even begun. Republicans will spend the entire first year of this Congress trying to pass their agenda on reconciliation, a process that deliberately excludes Democrats, excludes hearings, excludes amendments, with no shred of bipartisan input. Just like with healthcare, I believe it will be another dead-end road for Republicans.

I tell my friend the majority leader--I quote his speech in 2014, entitled ``Restoring the Senate.'' I truly believe--I truly believe that Leader McConnell believes in the institution of the Senate, and he has shown examples of that most recently when he said we don't want to change the rules, despite President Trump pushing to do that, but here is what he said in 2014:

When the Senate is allowed to work the way it was designed

to, it arrives at a result acceptable to people all along the

political spectrum. But if it's an assembly line for one

party's partisan legislative agenda, [it creates] instability

and strife rather than good, stable law.

Those are the majority leader's words. Well, if you believe that, my dear friend from Kentucky, then why are you instituting reconciliation, the exclusionary process, before we even begin the debate? And why-- might the American people ask--haven't you learned the lesson of healthcare that that process doesn't work?

The American people want to see us work together. We may not always succeed. It may not be easy. It is hard work, but we ought to try. This assembly line of partisan legislation--no Democratic input, no hearings, no amendments--is not what any of us want to see. It is not what the American people are calling out for, and it will not produce good, stable law.

Again, I would ask the majority leader to reconsider these three principles probably supported by 80 percent of the American people. Why aren't our Republicans supporting them? Why are they running away from them?

Finally, Mr. President, on the issue of trade, according to reports, the Trump administration is preparing an open investigation into China's trade practices, focusing on economic espionage and the theft of intellectual property.

I certainly applaud the sentiment. I have been decrying for years how the Chinese have been taking advantage of us in a way that has sent trillions of dollars of American wealth to China and millions of jobs to China so we should certainly go after them. The problem is, we don't need another investigation to know what China is up to. That is what the President called for: Let's investigate--another investigation.

It is clear what China is up to. By dumping counterfeit and artificially cheap goods into our markets, denying U.S. companies fair access to its markets, and relentlessly stealing and exporting intellectual property of U.S. companies, China, as I said, has robbed the U.S. economy of trillions of dollars and caused the loss of millions of good-paying U.S. jobs.

Estimates by our own government--already made estimates; we don't need a study, President Trump--pin the cost of cyber espionage alone at $400 billion a year to the U.S. economy--$400 billion a year, and 90 percent of it comes from China's Government. This is not a benign process. This is not some rogue company. This is the Chinese Government.

Here is what our four-star general, Keith Alexander, the former Director of the National Security Agency and commander of the U.S. Cyber Command said. He called the loss of industrial information and IP through cyber theft ``the greatest transfer of wealth in history''--the greatest transfer of wealth in history.

That pains me--this country, with its entrepreneurial vigor, with its acceptance of people from all corners of the globe for centuries to go work hard and create good things, China is stealing it. They are not doing it on their own. Every American, when they hear that statement, it should make them cringe. It makes me cringe almost every day.

Those are the facts. So I would say to President Trump: We don't need another study that takes months and months to complete while no action is taken. We need a plan of action now.

Unfortunately, this is what the Trump administration is doing on all issues of trade. They really talked tough on the issue of steel and aluminum dumping. As someone who has aluminum plants in the State up there in Massena--Alcoa--and all along Lake Ontario--what used to be called Alcan is now called Novelis--I know the issue of aluminum dumping. It hurts jobs in my State. The President early on talked tough, tweeted tough on illegal steel dumping, illegal aluminum dumping, but it is 7 months into this administration, and we are still reviewing its effects on our economy.

The administration failed to secure any deal with China in a number of forums, and they continue to delay on action that was promised in June. Tough talk and tweets are cheap, but strong and decisive action on trade is

required. American workers have waited too long for our country to crack down on abusive trade practices that rob our country of millions of good-paying jobs.

Today, I am proud to announce that the Democratic Party will be laying out our new policy on trade, which includes, among other things, an independent trade prosecutor to combat trade cheating, not one of these endless WTO processes that China takes advantage of over and over again; a new American jobs security council that will be able to review and stop foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies if they are likely to have a detrimental effect on U.S. jobs; penalties for Federal contractors that outsource jobs; stronger ``Buy American'' rules; and an outsourcing tax on companies that leave the United States.

On the issue of NAFTA negotiations, we are laying out a set of tough principles that must be a bottom line for any new NAFTA text. I voted against NAFTA in 1994. That was 23 years ago. We have seen how it has hurt us in so many ways. There have been some benefits, but overall the loss of jobs is painful. More jobs and higher wages have to be our guiding principle, and it needs full transparency with workers and the public at the table, not just corporations.

So I hope the administration--and I always said when I heard Donald Trump campaign that my views on trade are probably closer--I am closer to his views than I was to either President Obama's or President Bush's. I hope he will listen to us and work with us. These are good things to do. We can do them quickly. We can save jobs, create good- paying jobs. But I say to the President: We don't need another investigation, another study that languishes for months and maybe even years. We need strong, bold action on trade, and Democrats will offer those strong bold ideas later this morning.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the American people are looking to Congress to turn the page on healthcare and start working on bipartisan improvements to our healthcare system. Stabilizing the individual market is the first thing we should all focus on. The repeated attempts to repeal and replace the healthcare law, as well as the administration's threat to stop making the cost-sharing payments that help keep premiums down and keep markets stable, have injected massive uncertainty into the system.

Insurers hate nothing more than uncertainty. It drives them to jack up the costs of premiums and to pull out of markets. Already, insurers in three States have issued two separate sets of proposed rates for 2018--one if the administration makes the cost-sharing payments and one if it does not. The set of proposed rates if the payments are not made is 20 percent higher in all three States. I don't know the third, but two of them are North Carolina and Pennsylvania, which are very significant States. In Idaho, the State insurance commissioner said that rates on the most popular plans would be 50 percent higher next year because of ``the potential refusal by the Federal Government to fund the cost share reduction mechanism.'' That comes from the State insurance commissioner. I do not know if that is an elected position, but whether it is elected or appointed, my guess is that he is a Republican. They do not elect too many Democrats out there.

The administration is supposed to announce today or sometime this week its decision on whether to make the next set of payments. The ball is in the President's court. He can make the payments as the law requires and needs or he can sabotage our healthcare system and impose a Trump premium tax of 20 percent higher premiums on the American people next year by not extending the cost-sharing program.

Why would he do this? Why would he raise people's rates? His only stated reason is petty, is childish, is un-Presidential. He will get back at people because his hope to repeal and replace was rejected. You do not hurt innocent people when you lose politically. That is not Presidential. That is not, frankly, what an adult does. The ball is in the President's court, as I said, and let's hope he does the right thing.

President Trump has already made it harder for Americans to afford insurance next year by publicly rooting for our Nation's healthcare system to collapse, injecting a baseline of uncertainty into the system. President Trump would make things a whole lot worse by not making the next set of payments--20 percent higher premiums, more bare counties, even more market instability.

The American people need a President who puts their interests first, not someone who plays political games with their healthcare. The American people can ill afford a Trump premium tax this year, and it is completely avoidable. All the President has to do is to make the payments and carry out the law as he is supposed to. Afterward, Congress should move to guarantee these payments permanently or at least for a significant period of time.

This uncertainty caused by the President's threats has been the most destabilizing factor in the individual market. That is not according to Chuck Schumer or any Democrat; it is according to the insurers' largest trade group, AHIP. The President has proved that he cannot be trusted to faithfully execute the procedures that keep our healthcare system on track.

The only good news here is that there are moves by people on both sides of the aisle in this Senate to take some of this uncertainty off the table by guaranteeing these payments in the future.

My good friends, the chairman of the HELP Committee, the senior Senator from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, and the ranking Democratic member, Senator Patty Murray, have an ability to work together on many issues. I know they are meeting almost as we speak--in 5 minutes--to discuss how we can move forward. I spoke to Senator Alexander in the gym, where the Presiding Officer, I want to tell his constituents, was exercising and staying fit, too, and he seemed very eager to try to work together to stabilize the system.