Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to make a simple request of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. When it comes to the tax legislation that Republican colleagues are rushing through Congress, please stop, slow down, and let's start over together.

We need real tax reform with clear policy goals that will make our Nation more competitive, not a partisan attempt to pass something-- anything--that can get 51 Republican votes in the Senate. Our shared policy goals should be making the Tax Code fairer, simpler, and fiscally responsible. If we can achieve these goals, that would be real tax reform.

If we worked together, we could take long overdue steps and build a tax code that lets working families in Michigan and across the country keep more of their hard-earned money, levels the playing field for our small businesses, and keeps good jobs here at home in the United States. Fairer, simpler, responsible--those are three key points making a tax code that works. If we don't start over, I am afraid the current tax legislation will fail on all three accounts.

First, this tax legislation is not fair. It dramatically moves toward benefiting the wealthiest people in this Nation, with only a little sliver of the benefits going to working-class families.

The Republican tax bill was clearly written to cut rates for CEOs and large corporations and treats the middle class like an afterthought. I would argue that working Americans who are struggling with stagnant wages--while the cost of prescription drugs, college, and housing continue to rise--need tax cuts that are built around them.

Instead, we are looking at a Republican tax plan that repeals the alternative minimum tax--a fail-safe designed specifically to make sure that wealthy Americans cannot deduct their way to paying nothing in taxes. From what little we have seen of President Trump's tax returns, we know that the AMT--the alternative minimum tax--is the only reason he paid income taxes at all. The Republican bill will eliminate the AMT, and President Trump and folks like him will receive a huge windfall and may not have to pay any taxes at all--zero.

Wall Street loves this bill, too, because hedge funds will continue to be taxed at lower rates than small businesses in our local communities. This means many hedge fund managers making millions of dollars will have a lower tax rate than an office assistant working at their firm. Simply put, this proposal fails on the test of making the Tax Code fairer.

I also believe this effort fails on the test of making the code simpler. For small business owners back in Michigan, they want to spend their time doing what they know best, which is running their business, not spending days or weeks trying to figure out the taxes they owe. But, as many of my colleagues in the Finance Committee have pointed out throughout this week, the provisions for a small business passthrough serve only to make a complicated tax code even more complicated--yes, even more complicated.

Expert analysis says that the passthrough provisions will require years of rulemakings and thousands of pages of additional rules and regulations. As a small business owner, unless your hobby is studying the Internal Revenue Code, this bill is going to make your life a whole lot more difficult.

Finally, on the last test, the test of whether or not this bill is responsible, this proposal fails miserably. Writing responsible tax legislation means making hard choices--closing loopholes and balancing out the pros and cons of any action.

Congress has the responsibility to take seriously the threat of a growing national debt, and we have to think about this when changing our Tax Code. But instead of working to reduce our debt, which we are passing on to our children and grandchildren, this proposal actually adds more than $1 trillion to our deficit. And it would be even more expensive, but in a haphazard attempt to limit the cost, the majority has put forward a bill where hundreds of millions of dollars of provisions that middle-class families could use to reduce their taxes expire at random times over the next few years.

When you add it all up and factor in the additional interest costs to carry this new debt, you have a proposal that adds over $2 trillion to the Federal debt, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It is wildly irresponsible to pile on this debt to finance a tax break for the wealthiest people in this country, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Tax reform can be bipartisan. The goal of tax reform must be fairer, simpler, and responsible. This isn't just idealism or wishful thinking. We have seen it happen before. When Ronald Reagan worked with Congress to pass tax reform in 1986, the bill received 97 votes in the U.S. Senate--yes, 97 votes. That is the sort of bipartisan approach we need, and we need to start working on that now.

Michiganders--and all Americans--deserve a tax code that is fairer, simpler, and more responsible, not more multinational corporate giveaways and more debt.

I will not stop fighting for hard-working American families and small businesses who deserve to see more take-home pay, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join me.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, next to our people, the Great Lakes are unquestionably Michigan's greatest resource. They are more than an economic engine. They are more than a source of drinking water for 40 million people. They are more than a destination for tourists, boaters, and anglers from across the globe. While the Great Lakes are certainly all of those things, in Michigan, they are also a way of life. They are, quite simply, home. You cannot sit on the edge of one of our massive inland seas without feeling a sense of awe and gratitude.

Next to me is a photo of the Straits of Mackinac, a 5-mile stretch of water where Lake Michigan meets Lake Huron and where Michigan's Upper and Lower Peninsulas are connected by the Mackinac Bridge.

Unfortunately, today I cannot look out at these straits without feeling a grave concern. The Straits of Mackinac are home to powerful currents. Water, at times, flows through at a volume greater than 10 times that of Niagara Falls. The currents are also unpredictable, as they can flow in any direction and can change not only by the season or even by the day, but they can actually change by the hour.

The straits are also home to twin underwater oil pipelines that are operated by Enbridge, known as Line 5, that are now 64 years old and getting older by the day. A recent study by the University of Michigan found that the Straits of Mackinac are the absolute worst possible place for an oilspill anywhere in the entire Great Lakes Basin.

Without question, there is no way that this pipeline would have been built today, but it is there, and we need the toughest protections and strictest accountability possible. To put these in place, I worked to pass bipartisan legislation to designate the Great Lakes as an unusually sensitive area, which requires the highest possible operating standards under Federal law.

Rigorous Federal oversight is critical, but pipeline owners and operators must do their part as well by being transparent and forthcoming.

While Enbridge assured us repeatedly that Line 5 is ``as good as new,'' we found out in August that there are bandaid-sized gaps where protective coatings had worn completely away and exposed the bare metal underneath to the harsh underwater environment in the straits. Last month, we learned of six additional locations with damage to the protective coatings, leaving areas as big as 1 square foot of exposed bare metal at each location. Then, on October 27, 2017, just 2 weeks ago, Enbridge disclosed that its pipeline integrity department knew of the damage that it had caused to the pipeline while conducting maintenance in 2014--3 years ago.

I share the concerns that have been expressed by thousands of Michiganders who dread the worst case oilspill scenario, and I share their frustration and their anger at being misled. It is unacceptable that damage to a pipeline running through the Great Lakes could go unreported for 3 weeks, let alone 3 years.

Simply put, Enbridge does not deserve our trust, and we deserve some answers. This is why, earlier this week, I called on the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to exercise its oversight role and conduct a thorough investigation--examine any potential safety or reporting violations--and assure all Michiganders of the safety and integrity of Line 5, if at all possible. I also joined Senator Stabenow in demanding answers from Enbridge's CEO to three very critical questions:

One, what are you doing to fix your broken reporting procedures?

Two, is there any other unreported damage to Line 5?

Three, how can we be certain that regulators are being fully informed by your company?

We need these answers, and we must get them.

I will never stop fighting to hold pipeline operators accountable and to keep our Great Lakes safe and clean. The Great Lakes are home, and I will do everything that I can to protect them for generations to come.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff, Sarah Anderson, for today's session.

Mr. President, there are a number of matters where we disagree in the U.S. Senate, and they range from deeply held foundational beliefs to the smallest details of legislative language. Despite these disagreements, I believe there is a lot we can all agree on.

I hope I speak for every Member of Congress in saying that in this great Nation of ours, hard work should always be rewarded. If you play by the rules and do the right thing, you should have an opportunity to earn a good life for yourself and for your family. Our mothers, fathers, and others before us have worked hard to ensure that we have a fair shot at the American dream. Unfortunately, it feels like the fabric of the American dream has started to fray for far too many families. Even more troubling, we are seeing nominees from this administration who seem committed to actively unraveling the support and the protections that help workers get ahead.

Today we are considering the nomination of Peter Robb to be general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Robb would be responsible for ensuring safe working conditions and fair compensation for American workers. He would be tasked with protecting the treasured right of workers to engage in good-faith negotiations with their employers.

However, a brief look at Mr. Robb's career reveals a clear track record of working to undermine our Nation's workers and middle class on behalf of corporate executives. To Mr. Robb's credit, he is not trying to hide his record or run away from his record. All you have to do is visit his firm's website, and you will see the experiences he is proud to display. I believe it is a preview of how he will approach his position at the National Labor Relations Board. His self-proclaimed accomplishments include: advising large corporations on mergers, acquisitions, and plant closings; securing labor injunctions; and bringing suits against labor organizations.

When someone tells you who they are, believe them. While I certainly believe that every American and corporation is entitled to vigorous representation by their lawyers, I also believe Senators must evaluate every nominee's full body of work. Let's be clear about how Mr. Robb has chosen to spend his professional life: helping management close plants and cut jobs, suing unions, delaying workers' rights to collectively bargain, and defending companies that violate workplace safety and fair pay laws.

At a time when corporate profits and executive compensation have skyrocketed and worker wages are stagnant, I have no confidence in Mr. Robb's ability to be a neutral arbiter between labor and management, let alone advocate for the safety and the well-being of America's working men and women. Our Nation's workers deserve a nominee who will protect their right to negotiate for fair pay and safe working conditions, not someone who has spent his entire career litigating against workers. I will be voting against Mr. Robb's confirmation, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in proud support of America's workers--the men and women who build our cars and our homes, who move American-made products across oceans, lakes, and highways, who teach our children every school day, who take care of our families when they get sick, and who keep us safe in our communities. I have seen firsthand the importance of unions, both in my home State, where I grew up, and across the country.

This is deeply personal for me. My father Herb was a public school teacher and an active member of the Michigan Education Association. My father-in-law Raul was a proud member--and continues to be a proud member--of the United Auto Workers.

My mother Madeleine found economic opportunity as a nurse's aide. As part of providing the best care possible to patients, she fought for a better workplace for her colleagues, and then she went on to help organize her workplace. She later served as a union steward with the

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the distinguished service of SPC5 James McCloughan, who was recently awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroic actions as a combat medic during the Vietnam war. From May 13 to 15, 1969, then-PFC McCloughan repeatedly put himself in the line of fire to extract and treat his fellow soldiers.

Specialist 5 McCloughan was born in South Haven, MI, in 1946 and spent his childhood in Bangor, MI. He became a four-sport varsity athlete at Bangor High School and would go on to play football, baseball, and to wrestle at Olivet College. Three months after accepting a teaching and coaching position with South Haven Public Schools, McCloughan was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1968.

McCloughan's superiors took notice of his knowledge of sports medicine, and he was assigned to Fort Sam Houston, TX, to report for advanced training as a medical specialist. Upon his completion of training, McCloughan was assigned as a combat medic with Company C, 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 196th Light Infantry Brigade, American Division, and was deployed to Vietnam.

On the morning of May 13, 1969, two American helicopters were shot down near Tam KY, and one crashed 100 meters from McCloughan and Charlie Company. A squad was sent to rescue the downed crew and found a wounded soldier too injured to move. McCloughan ran 100 meters through an open field, dodging crossfire between Charlie Company and the NVA, reached the wounded soldier, and carried him back to the company and successfully saved his fellow soldier from being captured or killed.

Later that same day, McCloughan displayed another act of heroism in the midst of an American airstrike against nearby NVA targets. While in a trench, he saw two U.S. soldiers huddled together without weapons in the midst of an ambush. McCloughan dropped his weapon and rushed into the ambush to check on his comrades. While inspecting them for wounds, he was hit with shrapnel when a rocket-propelled grenade exploded nearby. McCloughan pulled the two soldiers back to the trench and would go back into the ambush zone four more times to extract wounded comrades. Wounded and bleeding himself, McCloughan refused to evacuate and remained on the battlefield to treat the wounded and prepare them for extraction.

The next day, Charlie Company engaged NVA forces near Nui Yon Hill. Similar to the day before, McCloughan again went into the crossfire zone numerous times to treat and extract wounded soldiers. He was wounded again by RPG shrapnel and small arms fire. McCloughan again showed his heroism when he volunteered to hold a blinking light in the open while bullets and RPGs hit around him so his company could be resupplied.

McCloughan continued to fight throughout the night and into the morning, knocking out the RPG position and treating numerous soldiers. He kept two critically wounded soldiers alive during the night and is credited with saving the lives of 10 members of Charlie Company in the 48-hour timespan.

Upon returning home, McCloughan would resume his job as a teacher and coach at South Haven High School. He taught sociology and psychology and coached football, baseball, and wrestling until his retirement in 2008.

SPC5 James McCloughan is an American hero who consistently put his life on the line to save the lives of his fellow Americans. He has always inspired others, whether by his actions on the battlefield or for his students in the classroom. I urge my colleagues to join me today in congratulating and thanking Specialist 5 McCloughan for his continued dedication and service to our Nation.

Mr. President today, I wish to recognize a crusader and legal titan, the Honorable Damon J. Keith of Detroit, MI, for his legendary 50-year career as a Federal judge.

Judge Keith's career in public service began during World War II, when he served in a segregated military where he faced discrimination as he served his Nation. The injustice he experienced led him to dedicate his life to equality for all Americans.

Judge Keith received his law degree from the prestigious Howard University. His professor and mentor was none other than the Honorable Thurgood Marshall, who argued the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education and the first African-American Justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Just like his mentor, Judge Keith would go on to make groundbreaking rulings.

While African-American citizens in the South suffered through the institutionalized practices of segregation, Michigan was not immune from racial discrimination. After his 1970 decision in Davis v. School District of Pontiac, allowing busing to help integrate schools, Judge Keith faced threats of violence from the Ku Klux Klan. Despite threats placed against his own life, Judge Keith stood firm. Judge Keith continued his fight for civil rights in 1971 when he found that the city of Hamtramck practiced discriminatory community development which largely displaced African American residents. He ordered the city to replace the homes that were demolished. After the civil unrest in Detroit in 1967, actions were taken to improve racial inequality in the city. African-Americans accounted for one-third of Detroit's population but were underrepresented in its government and police force. Judge Keith ruled to uphold the city of Detroit's affirmative action plan and its good faith effort to promote diversity in its police force.

Judge Keith heard cases that presented new questions and challenged long-held interpretations of the Constitution. In the 1971 landmark case, United States v. United States District Court, widely known as the Keith Case, the Supreme Court upheld Judge Keith's ruling that the Nixon administration could not wiretap citizens without a court order, even in cases involving domestic terrorism. This ruling protected Fourth Amendment rights for all Americans and enforced the boundaries of warrantless surveillance, paving the way for the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, of 1978, which provides judicial and congressional oversight of the government's foreign intelligence surveillance activities.

After the tragedy of the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent war on terror, we once again faced circumstances that tested the balance between the power of the government and fundamental civil liberties. Judge Keith found himself ruling against another administration in the 2002 case, Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy directed that hearings regarding immigration and deportation cases, deemed to be of interest to the investigation of the September 11, 2001, attacks, be closed to the public. When this case came before Judge Keith, he affirmed that the directive was unconstitutional and that deportations should not be shrouded in secrecy, famously proclaiming that, ``Democracies die behind closed doors.''

It is my pleasure to recognize the Honorable Damon J. Keith for his incredible half century on the bench and as one of the most influential jurists in American history. Judge Keith has a heart of gold and a will of steel, showing great courage in the face of danger and injustice. In his relentless pursuit of equality and justice, he has garnered many honors and admirers. In his life, Judge Keith not only witnessed some of the most critical moments in this Nation's history, but he has also contributed immensely to making America a better and more fair place. I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking the Honorable Damon J. Keith for safeguarding the bedrock of our society the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. President, today I wish to observe the 50th anniversary of Detroit's tumultuous summer of 1967, widely known as the 1967 Detroit Riot or the 12th Street Riots. The events of 1967 made a tremendous impact on the city and coincided with multiple incidents that took place across the country during that historic summer.

On Sunday July 23, 1967, patrons of an after-hours club were celebrating servicemembers coming home from Vietnam, above the Economy Printing Company on Clairmont Avenue and 12th Street. At 3:30 a.m., police officers raided the club, which was within a mostly African- American business district with an active nightlife, arresting 85 people.

While the police arrested each person inside of the establishment, a crowd formed on the outside. Those who were gathered began reacting to the escalating discord between those who lived in the neighborhood and the police department. As time elapsed, a rise of arson and looting began to erupt. By 8 a.m., the number grew to an estimated 3,000 people who assembled in protest. As the Detroit police force struggled to contain the crowd, Mayor Jerome Cavanagh and Governor George Romney agreed to deploy the Michigan National Guard that afternoon; paratroopers joined 2 days later.

Just over 7,200 arrests were made between July 23 and July 27, 1967. As tensions began to subside, community members and government officials surveyed the aftermath. More than 1,600 buildings were destroyed, and the cost of damage to commercial and residential property totaled an estimated $132 million. Beyond property damage, the community suffered the loss of 43 citizens and hundreds were injured.

Detroit's 1967 unrest was not an isolated event; urban centers across the country were experiencing similar instances of civil disturbance. A day after the conclusion of the unrest in Detroit, President Lyndon B. Johnson sought out to investigate the cause of the phenomenon, establishing the Kerner Commission. The Commission concluded that the riots that took place between 1965 and 1968 were due to racism and frustration at lack of economic opportunity. From these findings, the Commission suggested economic, social, and housing reform to quell tensions.

The events of that summer were seen through countless eyes. Many Detroiters saw the unrest as a rebellion against the systemic oppression that plagued the African-American community, who had no voice or adequate representation in government or in the police force but accounted for one-third of Detroit's population. Various government agencies painted the events as an insurrection, war, or riot. Regardless of how the events were characterized, there is no denial of the real emotional and physical toll the summer had on citizens. The countless stories of people in their homes watching tanks roll down the very streets children once played in or the visual of soldiers with rifles on their backs juxtaposed to mothers walking along the same sidewalk with their babies in strollers, illustrated the surreal nature of the unrest and the response.

I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating an event that affected not only the city of Detroit and the State of Michigan but was a pivotal moment in our Nation's history. Detroit stands as the birthplace of Motown, center of the automotive industry, and the ``Arsenal of Democracy.'' It has been and continues to be a city of innovation and promise. I am proud of its resilience and the grassroots efforts contributing to its resurgence. The 50th anniversary of the civil unrest is a great opportunity to reflect and learn from the events of the past, celebrate progress, and to continue to support community partnerships that influence future success that is inclusive of all neighborhoods.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the bicentennial of the University of Michigan. The university has adopted the motto ``Always Leading, Forever Valiant'' for its bicentennial year--a motto that captures its 200 years at the forefront of American academic excellence.

The genesis of the University of Michigan predates the founding of my home State of Michigan.

On August 26, 1817, Lewis Cass, Governor of the Michigan territory, enacted a charter to create the University of Michigania, aligned with territory judge Augustus Woodward's envisioned System of Universal Science.

In 1852, the university's first president, Henry Philip Tappan, pioneered a model of higher education in which scholars do not settle for existing knowledge but actively pursue new knowledge through rigorous science. This approach solidified the university's enduring legacy as a center for scientific research and discovery.

The university has paved the way for future innovation with many firsts throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was the first university with a chemical laboratory, the first to own and operate a hospital, the first to teach aeronautical engineering, the first public university with dental and pharmacy schools, and the first with a program in human genetics. Perhaps the most game-changing first--it was the first large State university to open its doors to both men and women.

Today, faculty and students continue to reach new firsts by answering important research questions that will affect future generations. Take, for instance, how the university has laid the groundwork for breakthroughs in American mobility.

In 2015, Mcity, a public-private partnership led by the University of Michigan, became the world's first controlled environment designed to test connected and automated vehicle technologies. The 32-acre simulated urban and suburban landscape is designed to support rigorous, repeatable testing of self-driving car technologies before they are tested on public roads and highways. This hub of innovation reflects our State's legacy as the heart of the American auto industry and will help lead our country into the next era of transportation.

A similar nexus between our past and future is true across nearly every discipline that U of M's research touches--engineering, medicine, social sciences, humanities, and more. Students and faculty are developing new cancer treatments, creating energy-efficient batteries, engaging in cutting-edge environmental science to protect the Great Lakes, and building prototypes of engines to take us to Mars. That is just to name a few.

Tied with the University of Michigan's drive to pursue knowledge is its drive to put that knowledge into action for the greater good. At its core, the university's mission is to serve society. This has been demonstrated by its history of activism and civic engagement.

The university commemorates one such event that occurred on October 14, 1960. Senator John F. Kennedy, whose former desk is just a few feet in front of me here today, delivered an unplanned speech on the steps of the Michigan Union at 2 a.m. He challenged University of Michigan students to work abroad in developing nations in an effort to promote peace. These remarks laid the blueprint for the U.S. Peace Corps, which was established in 1961.

The University of Michigan continues to have a truly global reach. It provides a world-class education to a diverse student body of 63,000 students on its Ann Arbor, Dearborn, and Flint campuses, educating instate, out-of-state, and international students alike. They are drawn to the university's unfaltering endeavor to expand our

base of knowledge and empower individuals to leave a lasting and positive impact on the world around them.

With more than 572,000 living alumni--including my daughter Madeline, who just graduated this past May--the University of Michigan has one of the largest alumni networks, full of artists, astronauts, business and government leaders, entrepreneurs, and humanitarians, as well as Nobel laureates in economics, medicine, and science.

The University of Michigan's many illustrious alumni include U.S. President Gerald R. Ford, Swedish diplomat and humanitarian Raoul Wallenberg, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Arthur Miller, actor James Earl Jones, civil rights leader Mary Frances Berry, Google cofounder Larry Page, and author and scholar Robin Wright. Many more alumni will follow in these footsteps. They share a drive to make what is affectionately known as the Michigan Difference and, of course, cheer for the Maize and Blue.

I would like to congratulate the University of Michigan on its bicentennial as we look forward to a future driven by Michigan innovation.

With that, I will close with something very simple: ``Go Blue!''

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, later today the majority is going to attempt to pass a budget for 2018. Passing a budget has come to mean all sorts of things in Congress these days. Last year's budget was an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This budget is supposedly all about tax reform. However, a budget, first and foremost,

should be a statement about priorities for the coming year and for the coming decade.

Let's take a moment and examine what this budget says about the majority's priorities. With any budget, I think you need to look at the end result and ask a couple of very simple questions.

First, does this budget help reduce Federal deficits and debt with a responsible, sensible approach? Second, does this budget, ultimately, put us on a sustainable fiscal path?

The answer to these questions is a clear no. Instead, this budget is primarily intended to allow the majority to use an expedited procedure to move tax breaks that would increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say that this lost revenue is offset by spending cuts and promises of new revenues from economic growth far beyond what almost every single mainstream economist predicts.

Let's look at the trillions in cuts that the majority is proposing. Where the budget is specific, it is bad. Medicaid is cut by $1 trillion. Medicare, which provides essential healthcare services to our seniors, is cut by $470 billion. On top of that, the budget includes over $3 trillion in unspecified cuts.

You don't have to be an expert in the Federal budget to know that $3 trillion in unspecified cuts means one of two things. They are either, No. 1, cuts to programs that families and communities rely on, like Head Start, Pell grants, and transportation funding, or, No. 2, they are unspecified because they are simply never going to happen.

That is what we are voting on today. There is nearly $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, and then there are trillions in cuts that are either so unpopular that no one dares name what they are or trillions more in deficits because there is not a plan.

The Federal budget is about choices. You can learn a lot about which choices a budget puts in black and white and which are left deliberately unspecified. When it comes to the majority's tax plan, we know only a few details, but we know enough to see where there will be winners and where there will be losers. The winners will be the wealthiest Americans in our country and global corporations.

We also need to look at what it means for Michigan families and small businesses, but there is a deliberate lack of detail that makes figuring out what the bottom line is for working families impossible. We don't know where the tax brackets will start and where they will stop. We don't know what personal exemptions families will be able to take. We don't know the size and the scope of the child tax credit. We don't know if important incentives for charitable contributions will be kept. The majority is even keeping open the possibility of raising taxes on Americans who are trying to save for their retirement.

This budget should be straightforward. We should reduce the tax burden on middle class families. We should make it simpler for Americans to file and understand their taxes. We should make it easier for them to save for retirement. We should increase take-home pay for Americans that work hard each and every day to make a living.

Unfortunately, none of these details that are important for middle- class folks were important enough to include in this budget. That is why I will vote against it. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

We cannot add another $1.5 trillion to the deficit. We cannot slash Medicare and Medicaid. This is simply the wrong direction for our country.

So why are we moving forward with this budget at all? Well, on this issue, I think the administration has been clear. Passing this budget is all about passing a so-called tax reform bill. However, passing this budget is not a requirement for passing tax reform. Passing this budget is only a requirement to pass a tax bill with as few votes as possible--without input or buy-in from Members of the minority. This is not the way we should pass real tax reform. If tax reform is going to be successful, it must have broad bipartisan input. I stand ready to work with my colleagues on real tax reform.

Modernizing and streamlining our Tax Code can boost Michigan businesses, raise take-home pay for workers across sectors, and help create the type of 21st century economy we need.

We can make it easier for small businesses, including manufacturers and family farms, to invest in themselves, and we can make the code fair across sectors. We can establish incentives for smart investment in our communities. We can implement strong, enforceable rules to prevent companies from gaming our tax system and moving profits and jobs overseas.

For families, we can meaningfully boost take-home pay. We can expand the child tax credit and earned-income tax credit, and we can work together to find real ways to help alleviate the cost of child care. We can lessen the burden of student debt, and we can help people save for retirement.

Tax reform can help create more good jobs right here at home, fix some of the issues in the code that drive jobs and companies overseas, and put more money in the pockets of working families.

In 1986, Congress passed the most dramatic reform of the Federal Tax Code in modern history. How many votes did this sweeping overhaul of the tax system get? When tax reform ultimately passed the Senate in 1986, it received 97 votes.

If we want to repeat that accomplishment and truly overhaul our code to make it work better for American families and American businesses, that level of bipartisanship should be our goal, not 50 or 51.

I know we can do these things in a truly bipartisan manner if we are just given the chance. Let's work together to pass real tax reform with broad support from both sides of the aisle. The American people deserve nothing less.

I stand ready to work with the majority, and so do my colleagues. I urge the majority to abandon this effort and start over. Make the decision not to add trillions more to the deficit. Make the decision not to cut Medicare and Medicaid for Americans in need. Start over. Let's find a path forward to find real, lasting, bipartisan solutions.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, in many ways, the Children's Health Insurance Program has been an outstanding example of what a bipartisan, democratic process can accomplish. Twenty years ago, President Bill Clinton worked with a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to successfully pass the Children's Health Insurance Program into law. That legislation passed with 85 votes in the Senate--an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote--to recognize the simple fact that all children born in this great country of ours should have healthcare coverage.

The Children's Health Insurance Program, along with our Nation's community health centers, has more often than not seen great bipartisan support. As Members of Congress, we have always come together and understood the importance of these programs, and we have done everything we can to ensure that quality, cost-effective care is available to millions of Americans. Unfortunately, as I stand here today, funding for both the Children's Health Insurance Program and community health centers has expired.

The Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, provides healthcare coverage to over 100,000 children in my home State of Michigan and more than 9 million children nationally. In addition, community health centers serve as the primary medical home to over 600,000 Michiganders and more than 20 million individuals across our country. For people living in rural and underserved areas, their community health center is their doctor's office and often their only choice when it comes to care close to home.

We have already passed the deadline to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program and the Community Health Center Fund. We have passed the time to act. We should not wait any longer to provide certainty to the millions of children and their families who depend on CHIP and to the Americans who will lose access to care if their community health center is closed.

We are already seeing the impact of our inaction in the CHIP program. Several States have begun to warn that they may be forced to end enrollment of new children, cut back services, or end their programs altogether if we do not act soon. Independent experts estimate that at least 10 States could completely run out of funding for their Children's Health Insurance Program before the end of the year, while funding for the remaining States' programs would not be very far behind.

This is not a responsible way to govern. I have heard from physicians in my State, especially in rural communities, who fear that this lack of action will mean great harm to the patients they serve. I have heard from pediatricians who know firsthand what the end of CHIP would mean for Michigan's children. As our country grapples with what we can do to expand mental health treatment and address the expanding opioid epidemic, letting these programs lapse would be a huge step in the wrong direction. This unnecessary uncertainty has already forced some community health centers to contemplate staff hiring freezes and layoffs. It is certainly harming their day-to-day operations. It has made it difficult for them to recruit new doctors, and it has made it harder for their offices to obtain loans to grow their practices and to serve more patients.

Luckily, this is a problem we know how to solve. I am proud to have cosponsored bipartisan legislation with Senators Hatch and Wyden that would ensure funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program. I also support similarly bipartisan legislation by Senators Blunt and Stabenow to extend funding for our Nation's community health centers.

I welcome the fact that the Senate Finance Committee held a markup yesterday and was able to advance the bipartisan bill to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program. Now the rest of us in Congress need to do our job. Let's bring both of these bills up for a vote because, quite frankly, we cannot afford to wait any longer. Our Nation's children and millions of Americans who use community health centers as their primary medical home cannot afford to wait any longer. Historically, these programs have not been controversial to reauthorize, and they should not be now.

I am urging my colleagues to prioritize the children of our rural and underserved communities who will be hurt if we do not act soon. Let's do what is right for our country's children and families and pass this vital legislation as soon as possible.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the debate over healthcare can be very confusing. Last night, a tweaked third version of this year's third bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act was released. This is after several dozens of votes taken in Congress on this very same issue since 2010.

There is no question--the debate over healthcare has been exhausting. Our Nation's disability advocates, patients, doctors, and anyone with a preexisting condition have spent this past year on high alert, waiting on a razor's edge for the next time they would need to plead with Republicans in Congress not to take away their healthcare.

Healthcare is a very complex subject, but rather than engaging in thoughtful, bipartisan debate, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are rushing to pass something--anything--even if they don't know the details.

What we do know about this bill is that millions of people will lose their healthcare. Why? Because Republicans in Congress are facing a deadline of September 30 to use an arcane, expedited procedure that will let them repeal the Affordable Care Act with a simple majority of the Senate. My Republican colleagues are in such a rush that they don't even want to wait until we get a nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. I believe they don't want to wait because they know the budget analysis will make it very clear that this is a very bad bill.

Although the healthcare debate is often confusing, exhausting, and complex, I think we should focus on just one very simple concept: No one in this great country of ours should ever go bankrupt because they get sick.

Let me repeat that. No one should ever go bankrupt because they get sick.

Every American, no matter what ZIP Code they live in, should be able to have affordable, quality healthcare.

As I stand here today, we don't know what version of the Affordable Care Act repeal we will be voting on later this week, but some things are virtually certain: Michiganders will be forced to pay more for less healthcare; costs for older Americans will increase dramatically; insurance companies will once again be free to discriminate against individuals with preexisting conditions, such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease; and even if policies are available, Michiganders will never be able to afford them.

This last-ditch effort to meet an artificial deadline is not thoughtful, measured or kind; it is messy, rushed, and cruel.

The Affordable Care Act is not perfect, and nobody here is saying that it is, but while we are spending this week debating yet another repeal bill, we are wasting time that should be spent on improving our healthcare system for all Americans. We need to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program, which expires at the end of this week. If it is not reauthorized, it could jeopardize care for over 100,000 children in my State alone. We need to also act quickly to support community health centers, which face the same funding deadline and serve as the primary healthcare home for nearly 700,000 Michiganders. What we need is a truly bipartisan process to improve the Affordable Care Act, while keeping what works in place.

The legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act before us this week will jeopardize care for individuals with preexisting conditions and increase costs for older Americans who are already living on a fixed income. I heard from countless Michigan veterans, small business owners, hard-working parents with children, and many others who will be hurt by the proposals in this Republican bill. My constituents are fearful that they will be forced to choose between going without the care they need or facing potential bankruptcy over the costs.

I will say it again. No one in America should ever go bankrupt because they get sick. Every American should be able to afford quality healthcare, and I will continue fighting to ensure we never go back to the days when families had to face impossible choices.

This bill is simply wrong. It is wrong on policy, it is wrong on process, and it is wrong for millions of Michiganders who are worried about their families' healthcare.

I urge my Republican colleagues to end this misguided repeal fight once and for all so that we can come together on a bipartisan basis and make healthcare work for each and every American.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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