Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the Children's Health Insurance Program and Community Health Centers, but I do want to take a moment to respond to my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator on the Republican side.

I can speak for myself and others, I know, on this side who very much want to see tax reform, very much want to close loopholes that take jobs overseas and support small businesses, but what is in front of us and what was voted on was a bill that, when fully implemented, would raise taxes on something like 87 million middle-class Americans. That doesn't make any sense at all.

All of the rosy estimates on economic growth were not backed up in legislative language. As to the $4,000 wage increase that had been talked about as a minimum for people across the country to receive based on economic growth, I suggested we write that into law; that if, in fact, folks don't get their $4,000, the tax breaks would stop--and folks aren't willing to do that.

I want to make sure folks in Michigan get their $4,000 wage increase, and we don't get another bunch of promises with trickle-down economics, where everything goes to the top 1 percent, and folks in Michigan are still waiting for it to trickle down.

Mr. President, first, I want to express strong support for Senator King's motion and for the argument that he is making about the debt. I couldn't agree more.

I also rise to speak on my motion to instruct, which I will be offering in just a few moments, to direct the conference committee for this bill to add a provision that would return the corporate tax rate to its current levels if wages do not increase by at least $4,000. That is the promise that has been made over and over to working men and women--that these cuts that are being made and changes that are being made will result in at least $4,000 in increased wages, in people's pockets. I think they have the right to know that the majority means that when they say it and to make sure that that is written into the final bill.

The reason for this motion is very clear. As I indicated, Republicans have promised American families an increase in incomes of $4,000, $7,000, even $9,000. I think that is great, and I would strongly support that. There is no evidence that this approach will do that, and, so far, there has not been a willingness to put language in to guarantee that that is what will happen for middle-class working men and women.

President Trump has called this bill, in his words, a ``great, big, beautiful Christmas present'' for the American people. I would argue that, in reality, at this point, it is a great, big, beautiful Christmas present for the wealthiest 1 percent. As for middle-class families, not so much--it is more like a lump of coal.

It keeps a loophole that let's corporations write off their expenses when they ship jobs overseas, but if you move from one end of the country to Michigan for a great new job, you cannot write off your moving expenses. Big businesses can keep deducting their State and local taxes, but, sorry, middle-class families: You can only deduct a small portion of your State and local taxes. When they talk about making it simpler and closing loopholes, none of that is in this bill. In fact, oil companies will enjoy a brand new $4 billion offshore tax loophole. Meanwhile, 87 million American households that earn less than $200,000 a year will get a tax increase. I will say that again: 87 million American households that earn less than $200,000 will get a tax increase. Health insurance premiums would go up 10 percent and keep going up, while 13 million fewer people will have health insurance coverage. If that is what is considered a great big beautiful Christmas present, I would imagine Michigan families would say: No, I will keep the gift receipt and take it back to the store.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said: ``On the personal side, middle-income families are getting cuts and rich people are getting very little cuts.''

Unfortunately, when added all up, he was very tricky. He said on the personal tax side, but when adding it all up together, all of these proposals together mean that folks like Secretary Mnuchin and others in the Cabinet in their income brackets will be the real winners.

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney is making promises too. He said: ``The White House, the President, is not going to sign a bill that raises taxes on the middle class, period.''

I assume, then, that means he will not sign this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute more.

Thank you.

The White House also promised the average American family would get a $4,000 raise in the tax plan. That is why I am here. What I am saying to the folks in Michigan is, the proof is in your paycheck.

That is what this motion is all about. If my Republican colleagues are serious about putting more money in the pockets of the middle class, which I want to do, I urge them to support this motion. We need to make sure that if folks are going to be promised at least $4,000 more in their wages, they get it.

This motion would say, these new tax cuts only go forward if people get their $4,000. The proof is in their paycheck. That is what this motion is about, and if my colleagues really believe what they are saying and what the President has said, they will support this motion to make sure that guarantee is there for middle-class families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. President, I am making a motion to instruct the conferees with language at the desk to put in place a guarantee that middle-class families will receive the raises my Republican colleagues are promising them. In other words, for people watching all of this, the proof is in your paycheck.

This motion would direct the conference committee for this bill to add a provision that would return the corporate tax rate to its current rate if wages do not increase by at least $4,000. The President has said they will. Our Republican colleagues--we saw posters all last week saying at least $4,000; in fact, we have heard as much as $9,000.

This is important for families because corporate profits are already at record highs and wages are at record lows. If people are really going to get $4,000 more in their pocket in wage increases, colleagues across the aisle should be willing to vote for this guarantee. The proof is in their paycheck.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I am coming to the floor again to focus on the fact that the clock is ticking for families in Michigan and across the country--men and women, children, older people, younger people who use the community health centers, as well as those who have their children covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program. The Federal funding for those programs stopped September 30--67 days ago. We have had votes. We have had bills. We have had nominations come before us. There have been divisiveness and controversy. It would be wonderful if we could stop for 1 day and do something that has bipartisan support.

The fact is that CHIP covers 9 million children, and 100,000 of those are in Michigan. We passed a bill out of the Finance Committee in September. I want to laud our chairman, Senator Hatch, and our ranking member, Senator Wyden. It was a bipartisan bill. There was only one ``no'' vote. We reported it out. I assumed we would want to get this done before September 30, when the funding ran out.

Instead, here we wait, 67 days later. There are 9 million children at risk because of this inaction--100,000 children in Michigan.

The truth is that today, thanks to CHIP and thanks to a variety of healthcare efforts across the country, 97 percent of the children in our country have access to a doctor. In Michigan, it is actually higher; it is 97 percent of our children. So if a child has juvenile diabetes, if they have a cancer or asthma or just fall out of a tree and break their arm or have bronchitis or the flu, whatever it is that is happening to children, parents have the peace of mind under the MIChild Program to know that they can take their child to a doctor whom they have a relationship with and who knows their children, instead of going to the emergency room.

We also know that emergency rooms are the most expensive way to provide care. They are necessary. They are important for emergencies but not for the daily routines of life, when someone could be seeing a doctor. It costs more; uncompensated care costs more, and when someone uses the emergency room when they could be seeing a doctor, then everyone else pays for that with their insurance rates going up.

So MIChild in Michigan and the Children's Health Insurance Program across the country work. They save money. They save lives. In fact, as soon as January, in Michigan, families are going to start to get notices that the funding will go away, that the medical care will go away. It is not a great way to start the new year: Merry Christmas. Happy New Year. Your child is not going to be able to go see their doctor anymore. We don't have to have that happen because we have strong bipartisan support for this.

It is the same thing with community health centers. Twenty-five million people are able to see a doctor or a nurse and get the care they need through a community health center in their community. There are 300,000 veterans who are able to see a doctor through a community health center, and there are 7.5 million children as well.

In Michigan, our health centers are all over the State. We have some 260 different clinics around Michigan that serve 681,000 people and, again, almost 13,000 veterans. Starting in January, they are going to begin to lose funding at different times--some in February, some in March, some in April--because of local funding streams. But starting in January, in Michigan, health centers are not going to have the funding they need. The majority of their funding--70 percent of their funding-- comes through the program that expired September 30, and we know that this also doesn't have to happen.

My friend Senator Roy Blunt and I have put in legislation. We have a letter signed by 70 Members--not 7--70 Members of this body, over two- thirds of this body signing a letter supporting the continuation of community health centers. Yet we can't get that brought up either.

We thought the original plan was to bring up CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and include community health centers with it, and get that done before September 30. The clock is ticking every single day, and it has not been done. Folks may be trying to hold it hostage politically for some reason or trying to work on some deal at the end of the year. In the meantime, families are worrying, men and women are worrying, and veterans are worrying about what is going to happen, whether or not they are going to continue to get their healthcare.

Let me go back to where I started. Today is 67 days, and tomorrow it will be 68 days since the funding for two healthcare programs that have had broad bipartisan support over the years and broad bipartisan support today--67 days since that funding has stopped.

I would like to close with a story from a gentleman named Darin, whose life was changed by one of Michigan's community health centers. He shared his story with me.

Darin was an unemployed truckdriver when he moved to Jackson, MI, 4 years ago. He hadn't seen a doctor for a decade, and, in his words, he was ``a complete mess.'' He had diabetes, congestive heart failure, and he had no energy. He needed an oxygen tank to walk. He started seeing Dr. Roy at the Center for Family Health, which is a great health clinic in Jackson. He told her he didn't want to just be stable; he wanted to get better. So they went to work so that he could get back on his feet and get back to work.

Darin got his diabetes under control. He improved his lung function, got rid of the oxygen tank, and quit his pain pills. Darin said:

I went from being . . . hardly able to move to where I feel

like I can do almost anything. Dr. Roy saw me at my lowest,

and she has seen me improve so much that she celebrates with

me. Dr. Roy kicked me in the seat of the pants, and I will

always thank her for it.

Darin got his kick in the seat of the pants, and, Mr. President, with all due respect, I believe Members of this body could use one too.

There are 25 million people who count on community health centers for their care--their children's care, the care of their moms and dads. There are 9 million children who are covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program. They have been waiting and worrying for long enough; 67 days is long enough. I am hopeful that there will be a sense of urgency from colleagues to get this done.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay special tribute to my friend, Virgil Bernero, who will be ending his service as mayor of Lansing, MI, at the end of this year.

This is a special opportunity for me to recognize Virg's outstanding service to the people of Lansing. I have represented Lansing throughout my years in public service, so I have had the opportunity to work closely with Virg.

Virg and I share something in common: We both began our public service careers as an Ingham County commissioner, State representative, and State senator. He was first elected mayor of Lansing in 2005. He has served with a unique passion and energy for public service. He is devoted to his family and has worked on behalf of families he has represented with the same devotion and commitment.

While mayor, Virg led Lansing through the recession and, despite facing major budget shortfalls, was able to maintain 12 consecutive balanced budgets and produce a budget surplus during each of the last 3 years.

He led efforts to attract new business investments in the city, including a $182 million repurposing of a former electric powerplant into the headquarters of a major national insurance company. He worked to foster regional cooperation and economic development efforts and led the creation of the Lansing Economic Area Partnership, the Lansing area's first regional economic development public-private partnership.

During the automotive crisis, Virg organized Michigan mayors and led a passionate and aggressive defense of the American auto industry, which is one of Lansing and mid-Michigan's backbone industries. He founded and led the Manufacturing Alliance of Communities, a national coalition of mayors that worked to secure Federal support for our automobile industry. Since that time, General Motors has invested more than $1 billion in their Lansing facilities and recently moved production of the Chevrolet Camaro from Canada to the Lansing Grand River assembly plant.

I am grateful for Virg's friendship and congratulate him on his years of extraordinary service. I wish him and his family all the best as he begins this new chapter in his life.

Mr. President, my friend from South Carolina said the proof is in the pudding. I would suggest the proof is in your paycheck. That is what I suggest.

We had a chance yesterday with my amendment to absolutely guarantee that my friends on the other side of the aisle believe what they are saying; that people are going to get a minimum of $4,000 in increased wages. I offered an amendment to simply say that in a couple years from now--2 years from now, 2020, we can make it 2021 or 2025, just pick a day when folks are going to get $4,000 in their wages, and we will put that in an amendment and pass it.

The truth is, there is no guarantee in this bill. If my friends on the other side of the aisle believed that there would be $4,000 more in wages in middle-class families' pockets with this supply-side trickle- down economics tax cut, they would have voted for my amendment yesterday, which simply says that if there is a $4,000 increase in wages, the tax cut continues. If it doesn't, if they don't have $4,000 more in people's pockets, then the tax giveaway stops because all it means is it is adding to the national debt.

I am all for anything that puts money in people's pockets. I have sponsored and voted for tax cuts for small businesses, manufacturers, farmers, and families over the years in public service and here in the Senate, and I want to do that; close tax loopholes that are taking jobs overseas, not increase new ones, which, by the way, this bill does, a new $4 billion tax loophole for oil companies--not closing tax loopholes. If folks really believe this, if they really believe the numbers, let's lock it down. The proof is in your paycheck. That is what families in Michigan are saying. They want to know it is in their paycheck. They want to know it is a guarantee. You know what, they are very skeptical. Because the truth is, in the past, supply-side economics/trickle-down economics has not worked. You say that it is going to trickle down. People in Michigan are still waiting. They are still waiting to catch it. It is not trickling down. We do have examples. What are the facts?

With the tax cut in 1986, 10 years after that, the wages of working people in this country were flat. They did not go up. That is a fact.

With President Bill Clinton in his effort to balance the budget in 1997, I was pleased. I had only been in the House for 6 months and went in and had the opportunity to balance the budget, which we did for the first time in 30 years.

What happened during that process? Actually, taxes on wealthy people were raised a little bit to give a middle-class tax cut and invest in education, which I know our distinguished Presiding Officer cares deeply about, and innovation. What happened? There were 22 million jobs that were created.

Then we went into 2001, 2002 with President George W. Bush, and there was a big tax cut in 2001, a supply-side/trickle-down tax cut. We were told that it was going to put money in people's pockets. It didn't. It created debt. In 2003, we had another supply-side tax cut that was going to put money in people's pockets. It didn't. It created a huge debt. We had wars that weren't paid for. Then it went into the biggest recession that we have seen outside of the Great Depression with the financial crisis, and 8 million people lost their jobs. People lost the equity in their homes and their pension values. It was terrible.

President Obama came in in 2009 and had to try to begin to dig out of the hole. That is a fact. He began to dig out of that hole and put things back together for folks. It was a big hole, and a lot of families are still feeling that hole. I know that is true in Michigan.

So part of me may feel a little skeptical when I am hearing: Have I got a deal for you. Let's try supply-side economics one more time, and this time it really is going to create jobs and really is going to put money in your pockets.

There is no proof of that. There is no proof that this grows the economy to be able to cover the costs of the tax giveaways whether you look at supply-side economics, whether you look at new dynamic scoring--the new ways of scoring on things--to make it look better. That didn't even show up. What I

would say is that the proof is in your paychecks, for the people who are watching.

There is a lot going back and forth, and it is very confusing because we hear one thing from one side, and we hear the exact opposite from the other. I understand how confusing this is, but I would just ask this:

Why weren't my friends willing to support my amendment that would say that if folks really get the $4,000 minimum amount being promised in increased wages, then this goes on, and if they don't, then the tax giveaway stops? Why didn't they support that?

Yes.

Absolutely. We asked that question, as you know, and he indicated that that was not the case. I continue to hear it over and over again. We have heard it from the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury. We have heard it from folks on the floor. Just today, we have seen it in charts on the floor. That is great. If that could really happen, I would support that. It has never happened, and my colleagues will not support guaranteeing that it will happen.

This is about putting up or shutting up, in my opinion. That is what we would say in Michigan. It is about whether we are going to guarantee folks that this time around, it is not just a sales job, that it is actually going to end up in their pockets.

I see my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, who offered this amendment in committee. I was pleased to join him in committee, and he knows, in Pennsylvania, like I do, that we have gone through some rough and tumble times, and we still have folks who are working too hard at not just one job but two jobs, trying to hold it together, having not seen the pay raises they deserve and have worked for. They want to know that this time around is not going to be voodoo economics and that it is actually going to increase their paychecks.

Yes.

Right.

I hope you are a speed reader.

Before turning this to my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, I do want to mention just one thing that I understand is in there. There may be things that I am supportive of in there. We don't know. We are trying to figure it out.

One thing that I don't understand, with all of the talk about supporting workers and middle-class workers, is that there is a provision in the bill that reads ``prohibit cash or gift cards as employee achievement awards.'' So if somebody works very hard and is getting some kind of achievement award, does that mean he would not be allowed to get a bonus? I mean, I don't know why in the world we would be going after people's employee achievement awards. That doesn't sound like help for the middle class to me.

I now yield to my friend from Pennsylvania and thank him for his leadership.

Mr. President, thank you very much. I feel like we should be talking about the deficit, which is of concern to us and wish it were of more concern to----

Mr. President, yes, I do. I absolutely do.

Motion to Commit

Mr. President, I call up my motion to commit, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, this would put in place a guarantee that middle-class families would receive the benefits they are being promised in this bill. I am offering this motion to

commit with the support of Senators Casey, Van Hollen, Udall, Cardin, Booker, Wyden, Menendez, Harris, and Brown.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, there is no question we need tax reform. We need tax reform that creates jobs, incentivizes companies to bring back jobs from overseas, protects our farmers, helps small businesses, and puts more money in the pocket of middle-class families in Michigan and across the country. That is what we need, and that is what I would vote for and I know other colleagues on our side would vote for, but that is not what this bill does. That is not what this Republican bill does.

We know our friends across the aisle are in a hurry to pass this legislation as quickly as possible before the American people discover what a bad deal it is. Unfortunately, for Republicans, we keep uncovering new ways that this tax legislation is a huge giveaway for the wealthiest 1 percent. Now we know, from the latest scoring, it blows a huge hole in our Nation's debt, expanding our Nation's debt.

Here are just a few ways this legislation hurts middle-class families. It keeps a loophole that lets corporations write off their expenses, their moving expenses, when they move jobs overseas. However, a family moving across the country to Michigan for a new job could no longer deduct their moving expenses. Big businesses could keep on deducting their State and local taxes, but middle-class families, sorry, no State and local tax deduction for you. Oil companies would enjoy a brandnew $4 billion offshore tax loophole. Merry Christmas. Meanwhile, 87 million American households who earn less than $200,000 a year get a tax increase. Let me repeat that. Eighty-seven million American households who earn less than $200,000 a year will get a tax increase under the bill in front of us, and health insurance premiums will go up by 10 percent, and continue to go up, while 13 million fewer people would have healthcare coverage.

President Trump has called this bill, in his words, a ``great, big, beautiful Christmas present'' for the American people. Well, I certainly hope the American people remember to keep the gift certificate. This bill is a disaster for the middle class and a disaster for our future.

President Trump isn't the only person who has made big promises about this legislation. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, one of the bill's biggest salesmen, has said: ``On the personal tax side, middle-income people are getting cuts and rich people are getting very little cuts.'' I would like to highlight his first words ``on the personal tax side''--very sneaky language. Once all the proposals that actually help the wealthy are taken into account, all of them, it is clear that those in Secretary Mnuchin's personal income category are the real winners.

White House budget director Mick Mulvaney is making promises too. He said, ``The White House, the President, is not going to sign a bill that raises taxes on the middle class, period.'' I would assume, based on that statement, he wouldn't sign this bill. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that 87 million middle-class and working families will see their taxes go up.

Perhaps the biggest promise of them all came directly from the White House. ``The average American family would get a $4,000 raise under the President's tax cut plan.''

Republicans have promised hard-working, middle-class families in Michigan and across the country that by giving the top 1 percent and large corporations a huge tax giveaway--you know the trickle-down economic approach--that magically they will receive $4,000, $7,000, even $9,000 in extra income. By giving this big supply-side tax cut, magically, families will receive $4,000, $7,000, or even $9,000 in their income.

Well, the proof is in their paychecks. That is what is going to happen for the American people. They are going to take a look at their paychecks to find out whether this is true, and that is why I am offering a motion that will ensure that the benefits of these tax cuts go to the middle class and that the promises being made to the families in Michigan and across the country will be kept. This motion would send the bill back to the Finance Committee with instructions to include a trigger to return the corporate rate to its current level if the average household wage doesn't go up at least $4,000 in the next 2 years. That seems only fair to me. People are being told over and over again they are going to get money directly in their pocket. The President said a minimum of $4,000. Well, the proof is in your paycheck. That is what the American people are going to be looking at.

This motion simply makes sure the American people get the raise the Trump administration is promising them. If my Republican colleagues are serious about putting more money in the pockets of the middle class, I urge you to support this motion.

You know Michigan families could certainly use an extra $4,000 in their paycheck. What they don't need are broken promises--the kind of promises they have heard before too many times. Just think back to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Colleagues from across the aisle came to the floor and said the 2003 Bush tax cuts would ``allow us to grow our way out of our current economic doldrums.'' What did we get? Massive debt. And the Bush tax cuts ``will aid the people and businesses who make up our economic machine and get it moving down the tracks at full speed again.'' We got massive debt, and wages did not go up. The train derailed, growth was anemic, and middle-class families saw very little lasting benefit. If this approach worked, if trickle- down economics worked, I would be supporting this. There is no evidence that this has ever worked.

A new analysis of the tax bill is even more skewed to the top than the Bush tax cuts. Economist Bruce Bartlett served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Last month, when asked if tax cuts pay for themselves through greater economic growth, Mr. Bartlett said:

That's a lie. It's always been a lie. . . . There's not one

iota of evidence that will support this argument.

In fact, he added that wages actually fell--actually fell--for 10 years after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was enacted.

The Bush tax cuts didn't benefit middle-income families in the long term. The Reagan tax cuts didn't benefit middle-income families in the long term. What they did was cause the deficit to explode. That is a fact. We all know what happened next. Republican colleagues pointed to the huge deficits. President Bush said that now we need to privatize Social Security, cut Medicare because, oh, my gosh, we have big deficits. Thankfully, Democrats put an end to that plan. Well, another distinguished Republican President once said: ``There you go again,'' and that is true.

The recently passed Republican budget resolution makes it clear that their next step after this is to cut Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, their budget already allows almost $1.5 trillion to be cut from these programs. But don't take my word for it. Take their word for it. Earlier this month, Speaker Paul Ryan made the Republican plan very clear. He said: The next thing we are doing is going to entitlements-- Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, after the numbers that just came out and the fact that even with dynamic scoring--what many would call ``voodoo scoring''--it doesn't solve the problem on deficits. So it means cutting Medicare and Medicaid may be suggested even sooner.

You have huge tax giveaways to the wealthy 1 percent, which causes the deficit to explode and causes them to cut crucial programs like Medicare and Medicaid. That is the scenario that is in front of us.

I hope people will remember this. This is only step one. When folks come back and say: Oh, my gosh, there is a huge deficit; we have to cut Medicare and Medicaid, they will remember this debate and this time.

Middle-class families see their taxes go up. They see their healthcare costs go up, and they see Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid cut. This is worse than a one-two punch. It is a one-two-three punch, and middle-class families will feel every blow.

Michigan families deserve better than this. American families deserve better than this. American families deserve real tax reform that creates jobs and incentivizes companies to bring

jobs back to America by closing loopholes, not creating new ones; that protects our farmers, helps our small businesses, and puts more money in their pocket. That is what I support.

They deserve to be told the truth about the end goal of this Republican tax plan. If Republicans mean it when they say middle-class families will get at least $4,000 more in wages, well then, everybody should be voting for my motion to commit because American working men and women know the proof is in their paycheck. The proof is in your paycheck. The proof is in your paycheck. That is what every single man and woman working today is going to look at--their paycheck.

All I am saying is that, if you are going to tell them there is $4,000 more, then we are going to measure that in the next 2 years. If there is, that is terrific, and if there isn't, this tax scheme should stop.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a few minutes, we are going to be voting on a motion of mine that actually dovetails with what the distinguished Senator from Florida was talking about in terms of hard- working people who have been told there will be a minimum of $4,000 put into their wages based on what is being done in the Senate with the Republican tax proposal. We have no evidence of that. In fact, we have no economic scoring that shows that. We have no evidence in the past that has ever been done with supply-side economics. If that is true, at least $4,000 in people's wages is great. I think that is wonderful. We want to guarantee that. We want to make sure the proof is in somebody's paycheck.

I am very pleased to have Senators Casey, Van Hollen, Udall, Cardin, Booker, Wyden, Menendez, Harris, and Brown joining me in a very simple approach that I would hope everybody would support. If you are confident that what is being done here in this supply-side tax cut is going to end up with $4,000 in the pockets of middle-class families, then let's make sure it is true. Let's make sure that happens.

We are going to measure this in 2 years. If it doesn't happen in the next 2 years, then the tax cuts stop. Why? Because all they are doing is blowing a hole in the budget. All they are doing is creating more deficits and not putting money in people's pockets.

I hope everyone will join me. I agree, we have hard-working folks who have

seen their wages flat for years. They have seen not only their wages flat but their pensions attacked, and they find themselves in a situation where, yes, they are working, but the wages are down or maybe it is two jobs now instead of one in order to be able to keep the same wage, but they feel like they are treading water and not getting ahead. Folks are talking a lot about that, about wanting to help middle-class families. Great. I have a lot of folks in Michigan who would love to have $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 more in their wages. I would love to support something that does that.

Let me go back and say, it didn't happen under the Bush tax cuts, even under Reagan tax cuts. Wages were flat for the next 10 years. It certainly didn't happen in Kansas with what they did, doing the same kind of supply-side economics. If this could actually work, sign me up. I think people deserve to make sure that promise will be kept.

I would urge that we vote to make sure the proof is in the people's paychecks, and that is what this motion is.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

How many years do you think it will take before folks get their $4,000--2021, 2022?

Mr. President, if I could just have 15 seconds, the people in Michigan want to know when they are going to get their $4,000. That is all.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I wish to remember and pay tribute to Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who turned her lifelong passion for justice into a highly successful legal career, breaking down barriers for women and people of color and inspiring me and so many others in our State.

When Anna Katherine Johnston was born in 1932 in Washington, DC, women had very few options. African-American women had even fewer. However, Anna's parents, Hazel Bramlette Johnston--a business teacher-- and Virginius Douglass Johnston--a Howard University trustee--deeply believed in the power of education and in their smart, hard-working daughter. When she was in 10th grade, they pulled her from the segregated DC school system and enrolled her in the prestigious Northfield School for Girls in Massachusetts, from which she graduated in 1950.

Her own early experiences with segregation and witnessing how the law could be used as a tool to further equality led her to the legal profession. It wasn't a common career path for women in those days. In fact, when she graduated from Yale Law School in 1957, there were only four other women in her class. About 5,500 women were practicing lawyers in the United States in 1960.

Anna got her chance to join those ranks when J. Ernest Wilkins, the first African-American man appointed as an Assistant Secretary of Labor, hired her as a staff lawyer in the Office of the Solicitor. In 1960, Anna married Congressman Charles Diggs, Jr., and moved to Detroit, where she had two children and a career, including as an assistant Wayne County prosecutor.

In 1964, her passion for justice led her to Mississippi, where she represented civil rights workers who were jailed for helping register African-American voters. She arrived the same day civil rights activists James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner disappeared, and she became a target of hatred herself when an angry mob yelled racial slurs at her and three other activists as they were leaving the Neshoba County courthouse after trying to question the sheriff.

Over the years, Anna worked both in private practice and in public service, as an assistant U.S. attorney and managing her husband's congressional office. When she and her husband later divorced, she helped to elect Coleman Young as Detroit's first Black mayor and worked to integrate city government during his administration.

In 1976, Anna married S. Martin Taylor and worked on Jimmy Carter's Presidential campaign. Three years later, President Garter appointed her to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. She was the first Black woman Federal judge to serve in our State and the first Black Woman chief judge for that circuit. She retired in 2011.

She once said that ``black judges have an important role, especially in staying close to their communities,'' and Judge Taylor did just that. She was deeply involved in community organizations including the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan. She was an adjunct labor law professor at Wayne State University, vice president of the Yale Law School Association, and served on the joint steering committee of the gender and racial ethnic fairness task forces for the Sixth Circuit, positions that allowed her to help open the same doors that others had opened for her.

In a biography, Judge Taylor once wrote that her legal career was ``a thousand times more exciting, more intellectually challenging, and more enriching'' than she had ever imagined while at Yale Law. That didn't mean it was easy; breaking barriers never is. Yet she did it. Judge Taylor's life and career will long serve as an example of just how far you can go with hard work, persistence, and a passionate dedication to your ideals.

I think that young girl in a segregated DC classroom would be really proud. I know that many people in Michigan certainly are.

Thank you.

Mr. President. I actually am going to speak for a moment about something other than the tax provisions, but I have to say, with my friend from Missouri on the floor--and I do mean my friend from Missouri--that we may not agree on the tax provisions, but we do agree on what I am going to be talking about today, which is community health centers and children's health insurance. I am hopeful that, as the Senator was speaking about new market tax credits--which I support strongly--and historic preservations, they don't get hurt in this process at all. I know there is work to do on this to make sure it doesn't happen, but I appreciate working very closely with my colleague and friend from Missouri on what I want to talk about today.

I rise today to draw attention to the way the Senate majority is failing children and families in Michigan and all across the country. It now has been 60 days--nearly 2 months--since Republicans let funding expire for the Children's Health Insurance Program and community health centers--60 days. It doesn't have to be this way because we have bipartisan support to be able to continue the funding for both of these programs.

We also can't say that we haven't had time. During these 60 days, Republican leadership has found time for us to work on plenty of other issues. They passed their budget. They have taken 75 floor votes. Republicans introduced their tax plan, which is now before us, and we are spending time this week on that. And, by the way, they rewrote their tax plan in a way that would cause 13 million people to lose their health insurance. The Senate has considered 24 nominees, but Republicans haven't taken any action to ensure that the 9 million children who have health insurance from the Children's Health Insurance Program can continue to get medical care, even though we have bipartisan support.

In the middle of all of the division going on right now on the floor, we could bring something to the floor that would have bipartisan support and do the right thing for families and for children and make sure that we are taking away the anxiety that families are feeling now across the country about what is going to happen. There are 9 million children right now at risk because of inaction.

CHIP provides children from low- and moderate-income working families with affordable healthcare. These are families who are working. They don't qualify for other kinds of help. These are working families who sometimes have one job, sometimes two jobs, or part-time jobs, and they trying to hold it together. They want to be able to take their child to the doctor. They want the peace of mind that comes from knowing that if their child gets hurt or if they get sick, they can take them to a doctor.

In addition, the Senate majority hasn't taken any action on another very important community healthcare program to ensure that 25 million people who count on community health centers will continue to have a place to go when they get hurt, when they get sick, to take their child, and to take their parents.

Included among those 25 million patients are 300,000 of our veterans--300,000 veterans--and 7.5 million children that rely on health centers in our communities.

I have often said that healthcare is personal not political. There is nothing more personal than waking up in the middle of the night because your child is crying and they are sick. There is nothing more personal than worrying about whether you are going to be able to get them the care they need. There is nothing more personal than wanting to know that you have a healthcare provider in your community who can help you or a family member manage your chronic conditions--high blood pressure, diabetes, and other things--so that you don't find yourself getting sicker and sicker and sicker.

Healthcare is personal not political, and each one of these 9 million children and 25 million Americans are being personally let down by this inaction.

As I indicated before, it doesn't have to be this way. We can take action today. We have bipartisan support right now, and bipartisan cosponsorship right now. We could stop the divisive debate and take a moment to do something really important for families and children before the holiday season. Right now we can ensure that families and children know that the Children's Health Insurance Program will continue in the new year and that they are going to be able to go to their community health center and get the care they need for themselves and their families.

I was really proud of the fact that Senator Hatch, our distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Wyden, our distinguished ranking member, and all of us on the Committee came together to put together a bipartisan Children's Health Insurance Program extension for 5 years. It came out of Committee with only one Senator voting no.

I was hoping that it was going to get done right away. Why wouldn't it? It is something that could sail through here. In addition to that, 70 Members of this body, led by Senator Blunt and myself, have signed a letter of support for continuing funding for community health centers. Now, Senator Blunt and I have put in bipartisan legislation with eight other Democrats and 8 other Republicans to extend funding for 5 years.

I know if this came up on the floor, we could get this done today and ease the worries of families that are beginning to get notices across the country that the health insurance for themselves and their children is going to run out.

These programs have long had strong bipartisan support. Why can't we get the action on this that these families and children deserve? Instead, families continue to wait every day--60 days.

I truly thought back in September that this was something that would be enough of a priority that it could get done amidst all the other things that have been brought to the floor of the Senate. But now the clock ticks every day--every day. This is wrong. We need to put these children and these families first.

We might be 60 days late, but there is no reason we can't act today or tomorrow--before the end of the week--to make these children and families a top priority.

Before CHIP, too many hard-working families in Michigan couldn't afford to take their children to the doctor. Today, 100,000 children are covered by MIChild, which is what we call our Children's Health Insurance Program--100,000 children.

With all the efforts to provide affordable healthcare that are going on in Michigan right now--successful efforts--97 percent of the children in Michigan today can now see a doctor--97 percent. They are, at the moment, not having to go to an emergency room and wait hours and hours and hours or have their parents try to figure out

what they can do to help them when they get sick. So 97 percent of our children can now see a doctor, and that is the highest level ever, and we should be proud of that. That is a good thing.

Yet, unless Congress acts soon, MIChild will begin running out of funding as early as January, which is not very far away. Happy New Year. Lose your health insurance.

January will also be a bad month for Michigan's community health centers. Nearly 20,000 people will lose access to healthcare. Some 20,000 people in Michigan who now are able to go to a community health center would see that access to healthcare go away, with thousands more dropped each month.

Last year, Michigan's community health centers treated more than 680,000 patients--680,000 people--including 12,710 of our veterans. They diagnosed coronary artery disease in more than 21,000 people. Nearly 34,000 Michigan residents were diagnosed with asthma and began to get help. Nearly 140,000 people were diagnosed with diabetes and could get help. All of those health conditions can be managed--we know that--if you have access to a doctor, to nurses, and to medications. You can manage those kinds of chronic diseases. However, they can be deadly if they are undiagnosed and untreated.

Just ask William. He didn't have a regular doctor after moving to Jackson, MI, from Chicago, but one morning he knew he needed one. He woke up feeling light-headed. So he went to the Center for Family Health, a great facility. They discovered that William's blood pressure was high--so high, in fact, that he was in danger of having a heart attack or a stroke. It took about a year for William's doctors to find the right combination of medications to control his blood pressure, but they were able to do that. He has been getting his care at the Center for Family Health ever since. They literally saved his life.

Emily from Rochester Hills has her own story about the Children's Health Insurance Program. Emily's dad was laid off from two separate jobs within 3 years at a time when her mom was working a part-time job that didn't provide insurance. That is a very common story for a lot of hard-working folks in Michigan as well as across the country. Thankfully, Emily and her brothers and sisters had health insurance through MIChild. It covered their scoliosis, asthma, a seizure disorder, and typical children's health insurance issues like bronchitis and broken bones. Emily's words are:

The Children's Health Insurance Program was a lifesaver for

my siblings and me. . . . I can't imagine the stress that my

parents dealt with during that time and how we would have

survived so well without the program.

Emily and William know CHIP and community health centers make lifesaving differences for people in Michigan as well as across the country.

We are 60 days late, but there is no time like the present to get this done. We are 60 days late, but we don't have to make it 61. Our children and our families should be put at the top of the list for action, not at the bottom. It is time to make things right for the 9 million children who rely on the Children's Health Insurance Program and the 25 million people who use community health centers.

We shouldn't let one more day go by without acting. We can do this now. There is bipartisan support to get this done, and our children and our families deserve to have this done as quickly as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I first wish to thank my friend, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, for his very important words.

Mr. President, I rise at this point to say a few words about one of President Trump's nominees whom we will be voting on in a few minutes.

The National Labor Relations Board is a crucial tool for protecting working men and women in Michigan and across the country. The right to collectively bargain, the freedom to be able to bargain for fair wages, good benefits, retirement security, safe and fair workplaces--all of these things depend on a National Labor Relations Board that works-- that works for people.

Perhaps no person at the NLRB is more critical to protecting these rights than is the NLRB's General Counsel. When a worker believes that the law has been violated and brings their concern to the National Labor Relations Board, it is the General Counsel who investigates. If the employee is found to have violated the law or the freedoms and rights of working men and women, it is the General Counsel who takes action to make things right.

Unfortunately, while President Trump talks a lot about having our workers' backs--he certainly said that a lot in Michigan--his actions speak much louder than his words. That is certainly true in the case of his choice for General Counsel, Peter Robb.

Mr. Robb was voted out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in October without any Democratic support--and there was a reason for that. The reason is that during his career, he has shown so little support for working men and women across our country.

When Dominion Energy's workers at the Millstone Power Station in Connecticut attempted to use their freedom to organize--one of the freedoms in America is to be able to come together, to be able to organize, to be able to collectively bargain on behalf of yourself and others to make sure you are able to get fair pay and a pension and safe working conditions. But when the people at the Millstone Power Station in Connecticut attempted to do that, Mr. Robb, who represented Dominion, delayed the election for more than 2 years. Not only that, he bragged about it on his law firm's website--making people who wanted to exercise their freedom to collectively bargain and to organize wait for 2 years.

Mr. Robb also was lead counsel on the case that led to 11,000 air traffic controllers being fired--people, again, who were part of a union and could collectively bargain for safe conditions and good pay and pensions. They were fired and barred from Federal service. It was a watershed case in the history of union suppression, in taking away people's freedoms.

While he worked for a Reagan-appointed NLRB member, longstanding

policies changed to weaken the government's ability to enforce the rights and freedoms of working men and women.

With stagnant wages and rising healthcare costs and worries about pension cuts and workplace discrimination, frankly, I know working men and women in Michigan and across the country have enough to worry about. They shouldn't have to worry that the person who is supposed to have their back is, instead, looking for ways to strip away their freedom to organize on the job.

That is why I will vote no on Peter Robb, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, if I might just take 30 seconds to complete my remarks.

Thank you very much.

Let me just say in conclusion that we can fix this. We don't have to put up one more day on the count chart. Today we can make children and families a priority by passing critical healthcare that has the bipartisan support to get it done, if we have the urgency to do so.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, today I wish to reflect on Veterans Day and the debt of gratitude each of us owes those who are willing to serve our country in our Armed Forces.

Each year I have the honor of attending Veterans Day events across Michigan. At each parade, commemoration, and solemn ceremony, I am struck by the profound patriotism of our veterans, but also their deep humility and lasting dedication to serving others.

One amazing example of this is Jim McCloughan of South Haven. In May of 1969, he was 23 years old and far from home, serving as a medic in Vietnam after being drafted into the Army.

The orders were to attack Nui Yon Hill. However, Private First Class McCloughan and his company were surrounded by more than 2,000 enemy fighters. Over 2 days of battle, Private First Class McCloughan put himself in danger time and again in order to rescue his fallen brothers.

His head and arm were bloodied by shrapnel and small-arms fire; yet he refused to stop. When the battle was over, he had saved the lives of 10 members of his company.

Private First Class McCloughan received the Combat Medical Badge, two Purple Hearts, two Bronze Stars with ``V'' device for valor, and the U.S. Army Valorous Unit Citation, among other awards. He was a hero in every sense of the word. However, he remained focused on only one thing: how he could best serve others. That is just what he did.

Jim McCloughan returned home and taught and coached at South Haven High School until retiring in 2008. That might have been where his story ended had it not been for his one-time platoon leader, LT Randall J. Clark.

Lieutenant Clark never forgot about Private First Class McCloughan's heroism and worked tirelessly to get him the recognition he had earned. In 2016, I passed a bill to make Private First Class McCloughan eligible for our Nation's highest military honor. In July, I was honored to be at the White House as Private First Class McCloughan was finally awarded the Medal of Honor by President Donald Trump.

Jim McCloughan's story is extraordinary, but he is not alone. Across our Nation--and throughout our history--people of common backgrounds and uncommon courage have put their lives on the line in defense of our Nation. Time and again, these brave men and women have come home only to continue serving in our schools, churches, elected offices, and civic organizations.

Veterans like Jim owe us nothing and keep giving us everything. It is our solemn duty to keep our promises to them. Like Lieutenant Clark, we must continue working to provide them all that they have earned, whether it is healthcare, education, the chance at a good job, or the Medal of Honor.

``I'm humbled, very humbled,'' Jim McCloughan said about receiving his award. ``And, of course--as many individuals who are blessed to receive something like this--I'm receiving it for all of my men.''

The spirit of service lives on in Jim McCloughan, in Lieutenant Clark, and in our veterans in Michigan and across this Nation. On this Veterans Day, we remember them, we thank them, and we renew our commitment to serving them.

Thank you.

Mr. President, in recognition of National Forest Products Week, I would like to commend the more than 27,000 men and women who work in the forest products sector in my home State of Michigan.

Taken together, Michigan is home to nearly 200 forest products facilities that run the gamut, from furniture manufacturing to paper mills. With yearly salaries of over $1.4 billion, these facilities represent one of our State's most significant manufacturing sectors.

Paper and forest products play a vital role in our domestic economy and benefit every American as they go about their daily lives. Additionally, wood construction is an innovative form of climate protection because wood oftentimes replaces competing building materials that require sizeable amounts of fossil fuels to produce. Moreover, wood lowers a building's carbon footprint because it continues to hold carbon absorbed during the growth of the tree, keeping that pollution out of the atmosphere for the life expectancy of the building. As we look to reduce carbon emissions and green our building stock, we ought to look at greater use of innovative wood products in commercial structures.

Similarly, paper and packaging products help all Americans to communicate with each other, teach our kids, and learn new things ourselves. These products preserve and deliver our food, medicine, and other manufactured goods. Whether it is a marriage certificate or a young child's finger painting, these paper products capture some of the most important moments in a person's life. For these reasons and others, I am proud to be a cochair of the Senate's Paper and Packaging Caucus.

I urge all of my Senate colleagues to join me in celebrating National Forest Products Week and to consider the variety of ways this sustainable resource benefits us in our lives. Thank you for the opportunity to recognize the forest products industry's dedicated professionals who work and reside in the great State of Michigan.

Madam President, unfortunately, I was unable to attend the rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2266, emergency supplemental appropriations. Had I been able to attend, I would have voted in favor of cloture.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)