Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, our Constitution starts out with three beautiful words: ``We the people.'' This was the whole mission statement for the development of our form of government--not a government that would deliver benefits by and for the privileged, not a government that would deliver decisions for the rich and the powerful, but for the people of the United States, for the best policy for the population of the United States, so that its citizens everywhere, of every stripe and every corner of the Nation, could have a foundation to thrive. But in 2017, the leadership of this body dedicated itself to a different mission. They dedicated themselves to the mission of government of, by, and for the powerful and the privileged.

I think it is worth reviewing some of those items that we have gone through in the course of this past year. Let's start by looking at the attack on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. My colleagues on the Republican side spent a whole year attacking this organization, which was set up to make sure that financial transactions are fair--a fair, square deal for ordinary Americans. We had seen all kinds of predatory practices in consumer loans. We had seen all kinds of predatory practices in auto loans. We certainly had seen them in home mortgages. In fact, the exploding interest rate mortgages and the triple option mortgages that were designed to deceive and bankrupt ordinary Americans turned the dream of homeownership into a nightmare.

Fortunately, in 2010 this body said: No more. We are going to set up an organization that can identify predatory practices as they develop and prevent them from being implemented.

It makes a lot of sense. It is very similar to an organization we have in the government that says: That appliance is dangerous and should never be sold; that toy is dangerous and should never be sold. In this case, it is this: That loan is predatory, deceptive and should never be marketed.

This assault on CFPB went on throughout the year, purely encapsulating government for the powerful, the rich, and the predatory over ordinary people. This has culminated at the end of the year in which President Trump has appointed an Acting Director to the CFPB who hates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and wants to dismantle it from the inside. In fact, that Director has called the organization a ``sick, sad joke.''

Just yesterday, he threw out the payday loan rule. Payday loans have interest rates of 300, 400, 500 percent interest. People have them, initially, and borrow $1,000. In a year, they owe $5,000. In another year, they owe $25,000. In another year, they owe $125,000. It is a vortex of debt that pulls families into bankruptcy, squeezes them for as long as it can, and then throws them out bankrupt. Many States have said this is outrageous. Many religious traditions have said this is unacceptable. People have seen the carnage it does in a society that has high-interest loans. These are not just high-interest loans of 25, 35, or 45 percent. No, it is 300 percent, 400 percent, or 500 percent.

Yesterday the Director of the organization set up to protect against predatory loans restored full power to allow these predatory loans to occur. That symbolizes the whole year of leadership in this body supporting the powerful and the privileged instead of the people of the United States of America.

Just a little while ago we had a vote in the body--a 50-50 vote that was broken by the Vice President, 51-50--that really does symbolize the powerful over the people. This is a case where there was a rule adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that said you have to have fairness in adjudicating consumer issues. Let's say, for example, a telephone company puts charges on your bill that you didn't authorize. Let's say, for example, a cable company proceeds to charge you a higher price than the contract called for and you want to dispute this, but currently if you seek to dispute it, you can't do so in a fair setting. Instead, it is a rigged system set up for the company and against the people, in which the company chooses the judge, in which the company pays the judge, and in which the company promises future business to the judge.

Who here in this Chamber really thinks they can get a fair decision when one party to a dispute chooses a judge, pays the judge, and promises the judge future business? That is the fair arbitration rule that was undone by this body choosing to weigh in during 2017 once again on the side of the powerful against ordinary people, choosing the system rigged against middle-class and ordinary Americans.

Let's turn to yet another decision for the powerful in 2017 over the people--net neutrality. People value the fairness of the internet. You decide you have an idea, and you want to set up a company. Maybe you want to offer a website that provides services to people who need home repairs. You know you are going to be competing against big, powerful actors who have other websites. But you decide: I have a different idea, a different innovation, and a different way of doing this would be better. Right now, until recently, you had the same ability to get the same speed on your pages, or your website, loading as the big player did so you could compete. But the Republican majority, team Trump, says: No, we want

to weigh in for the powerful over ordinary people. We want to give the powerful the ability to have those web pages put up on the computer screen really, really fast and stop the challengers--the little guy, the ordinary person who wants to compete--from being able to have the same speed so that the customer can only decide: Well, I better go to the established big player.

What could more symbolize the powerful over the people than the FCC, with the support of this administration--this Trump team for the powerful--choosing to wipe out net neutrality? I think we will have that issue revisited in 2018 when we have a Congressional Review Act that already 50 Senators in this body--49 Democrats, 1 Republican--have said they are ready to sponsor for the overturn of this act against ordinary people. At least 50 out of 100 are saying that on this issue they want to stand up for ordinary people against this 2017 reign of terror by the powerful and privileged over ordinary people. It is at least 50, but we are going to need 51. Isn't there one more Senator who will stand up for ordinary people?

Then, we have the Congressional Review Act attack on Planned Parenthood. This was a case where the administration and this Republican leadership and this Republican-led body said: We want to enable jurisdictions to divert funds away from a women's health organization, Planned Parenthood. They centered their argument around diminishing the number of abortions. Here is the fact. Family planning decreases abortions. So it has the contrary impact than what was stated by those who made that argument.

Here is another fact: 97 percent of the work of those organizations is about general women's health/reproductive services, not abortion--97 percent. This takes away screenings for all kinds of cancers, for all kinds of women's healthcare. Here we have the privileged and the powerful choosing to weigh in against the health of ordinary women across the United States. The list just goes on and on.

Let's turn to big, powerful mining companies brought to bear against ordinary people. This is simply the case of a rule which said that when you create a big mess with mountaintop removal mining, you have to fix it so that it doesn't contaminate the stream. This was a rule in which the people weighed in and said they wanted clean streams for the fish, where the ordinary people of America weighed in and said they wanted clean streams for fishing, where the ordinary people weighed in and said they wanted clean streams for their water supplies--but no. This body saw fit to weigh in for the rich and powerful, taking away those streams for the fish and the opportunity for fishing, taking away those clean streams for water in favor of the rich and powerful over the interests of the people of the United States.

This ``rich and powerful over the people'' has extended abroad, even beyond our borders. Equatorial Guinea, a country of Sub-Saharan Africa, has a massive wealth of oil. President Obiang of that country has been in power since 1979. That country has a per capita income of around--I believe it is $20,000, but most of the nation lives on less than $2 a day. Why is that? Why do ordinary people live on so little when the country has so much wealth? It is because the international oil companies have made their royalty payments to the leader of the country rather than to the treasury of the country.

Congress came along and said: Do you know what? We need transparency of these international transactions so that ordinary people overseas are not ripped off through these hidden transactions of paying off leaders who live extraordinary lives of luxury while their people suffer.

When I talk about suffering, who here can live on $2 a day? Who here can do that? It is a life-and-death issue, as 20 percent of the children in Equatorial Guinea--a country with this vast wealth--die before the age of 5 while the President and his Vice President own yachts worth $250 million. They have a $200 million mansion in Paris, and they have a $10 million car collection while people are dying because in 2017 this Chamber chose to support the powerful over the ordinary people of the world.

We see this in another environmental issue--the issue of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We have protected that decade after decade--a last great natural treasure, sacred Tribal land that is home to polar bears and brown bears and lynx and moose and Arctic foxes and seals. In fact, it is the calving ground where a herd of 160,000 porcupine caribou go to give birth. Yet we decided that Tribal land was not as important as the decision for the rich and powerful oil companies to be able to destroy that pristine area.

Let's turn, really, to what was one of the biggest issues of the powerful over the people in 2017, one in which this body facilitated the theft of a Supreme Court seat in order to maintain the Citizens United ruling that allows billionaires to flood our campaigns with cash in order to control this body--one of the most evident sources of corruption in the history of this country.

Finally, we had an opening for the Supreme Court in 2016, an opening that might have redressed this ``we the powerful'' decision over ``we the people.'' This body came forward, and the leadership said: We are not going to allow a debate on President Obama's nominee. We are not going to allow a vote.

They justified it because it was an election year. Yet, if you look through history, there is nothing in our history that supports that. Fifteen times before, we had openings on the Supreme Court during election years. Fifteen times before, we had debated. Fifteen times before, we had voted. Then again, it was dressed up as, maybe this is protecting the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution doesn't absolve us of our advice and consent responsibilities in the fourth year of a Presidency or in the eighth year of a Presidency.

The consummation of that theft was completed when this body voted to confirm the nomination of Neil Gorsuch last April--basically, an incredible act of irresponsibility, a failure to honor our advice and consent responsibility, an act which denigrated the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and certainly diminished the reputation of the Senate in honoring our pledge to honor the Constitution, including the constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent--all in order to keep billionaires' money in campaigns throughout this country. If that is not the powerful over the people in 2017, what is?

That is not the end of it. In 2017, the Republican leadership of this body brought us five different efforts to wipe out healthcare for 20 to 30 million people. Now, I didn't hear the Senators who were supporting this say they wanted to give up healthcare for themselves--oh, no. They wanted to keep that, but they were very comfortable in advocating for a bill to wipe out healthcare for 20 to 30 million Americans. There you have it--the powerful against the people.

Then we have the tax heist--the most recent of the powerful over the people. Add up the provisions for the wealthy. Now, remember, this tax bill was advertised as a middle-class tax cut for the middle class, but what did we have? We had the provision to eliminate the dynasty loophole, which allows the richest Americans to pass on their dynasties to the next generation without their ever paying capital gains, at a cost of $83 billion. We had a change in the tax brackets for the wealthiest Americans in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We had the eliminating of the alternative minimum tax--$40 billion or so--for the wealthiest Americans. We had the reducing of corporate taxes, the benefits of which largely go to the big stockholders--the richest Americans. We had the sweetheart rate for passthrough corporations that bolstered the value of that, helping out the richest Americans.

If you add it up, one after another after another of the provisions, all told, probably about $2 trillion has been given to the richest Americans by the so-called middle-class tax cuts--not $2 trillion for the middle class, not $2 trillion for the struggling bottom third of America's families, not $2 trillion for helping to diminish the size of our classrooms in K-12 and to improve teacher training, not $2 trillion dedicated to wiping out the high cost of college, not $2 trillion dedicated to

healthcare and our clinics, not $2 trillion dedicated to infrastructure, creating jobs, and building a better economy for the future. No. This is $2 trillion to the richest Americans to increase wealth inequality, to increase income inequality.

How much is $2 trillion? Can you even get your hands around that number? Divide it by the number of Americans--men, women, and children. That is $6,000 for every man, woman, and child in America that this body, under this Republican leadership, decided to give to the wealthiest Americans rather than to make available for the foundation for our families--education, healthcare, good jobs, improved infrastructure.

That kind of wraps up 10 items from throughout 2017. This body constantly ignored the mission of our Constitution--our ``we the people'' mission--and chose instead to be the government of, by, and for the powerful.

How about we have a new year's resolution for 2018 in which we decide to actually honor the Constitution, the vision of the Constitution, and address the needs of America and the foundation under which families may thrive, that of good jobs, education, and healthcare in 2018. Then we would be doing our job, and then we would be honoring our Constitution.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, here we are at the start of a new year. Last year, the Republican majority decided to dedicate the year to government by and for the powerful and the privileged, but how about this year, 2018? We pay attention to our Constitution, which starts with that vision of government, not for the powerful, not for the rich, not for the privileged, not for the well connected, not for the wealthy but for the people of the United States. It is a vision where power is distributed, and power comes up from each individual citizen to create policies for their general welfare.

Last year, we saw this complete dedication to trying to wipe out healthcare for 20 million to 30 million Americans in order to provide tax benefits for the richest. How big were those tax benefits? Well, if you add up the provisions that are dedicated to the powerful corporations and those benefits for the wealthiest 10 percent, and most of that goes to the wealthiest 1 percent, those provisions stack up to over $2 trillion--$2 trillion.

It is very hard to get your hands around $2 trillion. Those are not numbers we use in ordinary conversation. Let's take that down to the amount of money per man, woman, and child--per citizen in America. Well, that is about $6,000--$6,000 taken from the community funds for every man, woman, and child in America to deliver to the wealthiest Americans. That was government by the Republican majority in 2017. It was not ``We the People'' but we the powerful and we the privileged.

How about we have a new year's resolution that pays attention to the vision of our Constitution, to that vision of government of, by, and for the people?

Ben Franklin once wrote in his ``Poor Richard's Almanac'':

Be at war with your vices,

At peace with your neighbors,

And let every New Year find you a better man.

Every new year is a chance to recreate and reenvision where we are headed. Certainly, it is a big vice to use this Chamber, in contravention of our Constitution, to pursue policies for the powerful and privileged rather than for the people. So let's set that vice aside and have a bipartisan year, dedicated to making a foundation for families to thrive and jobs and education and healthcare and a healthier planet.

Right now, we should have an immediate new year's checklist of things to get done, and that checklist starts with the budget. We have just 9 days until funding runs out for the Federal Government, and we all know from experience what that means--parks shut down, medical research stops, passports don't get processed, and businesses can't check in on their I-9 applications for employees. That is the type of conduct that happens in banana republics--basically, in countries that don't have a competent system of government. It should not happen in the United States of America.

We are deep into the financial year, which started on October 1. October passed. November passed. December passed. We are well into January and still the majority leadership of this body is unable to put together a process that addresses just key, fundamental issues. Why is that? Because they were so distracted by delivering trillions of dollars to the richest of Americans and trying to destroy healthcare for millions of Americans that they didn't tend to the fundamentals that need to be tended to. Let's take care of those things now.

The Children's Health Insurance Program. Here we are. It expired on September 30 of last year. Nine million children across America depend on this insurance. This insurance was crafted in a bipartisan manner. It was forged in an agreement between Senator Hatch, a Republican, and Senator Kennedy, a Democrat, who had very different visions of America but who could agree that families who didn't qualify for Medicaid and weren't affluent enough to buy insurance for their children could still have insurance for their children. These are the working poor of America, the struggling workers of America.

It was forged in a bipartisan manner, but this year my Republican colleagues decided to make these children a bargaining chip for their effort to get more for the privileged and the powerful. That has to end.

When children do not have insurance, they don't get that dental benefit to take care of those cavities. They don't get that medical exam. They don't get those inoculations, those vaccinations. They don't get treatment when they are injured because their parents can't afford to take them to the doctor. They don't get treatment when they are sick for the same reason. Let's take care of children's healthcare.

This is not a partisan issue. It was forged in a bipartisan manner, and it should be so today.

What also expired on September 30 of last year was the legislation authorizing support for our community health clinics. Community health clinics are the front door to healthcare for millions of Americans. It is that friendly place in your rural community, in your urban neighborhood, where you can go through the front door and get assistance.

Talking about millions of Americans who go through those front doors, there are more than 1,400 clinics across the country. These are popular in rural areas. They are popular in urban areas. They are popular in red States. They are popular in blue States. There is nothing partisan about it, but the leadership of this body has no interest, has seen no urgency in reauthorizing the ability for those health centers to stay open.

In Oregon we saw, as a result of the Affordable Care Act, 30 more health clinics established. We saw a lot more resources go into both mental illness and into drug abuse during a period in which the opioid crisis joined the meth crisis and afflicted both rural and urban areas. Lots of folks come to this floor and say: We have to take on opioids. It is not just on the left-hand side of the aisle, but it is also on the right-hand side of the aisle. People base virtually their entire campaigns on taking on opioids. Yet the Republican leadership says this isn't important. Let me tell you, this is important, and we need to get it done.

Then let's turn to the Dream Act. Dreamers are those children raised in our communities, now 16 through their midtwenties. They are productive members of our communities. They have gone through our high schools or are in high school now. They are in college. They are working. They are contributing. They know no other country than ours.

Across both sides of the aisle we hear folks say: We want to take care of them and establish a structure for this, a legal structure for the Dreamers.

The President yesterday hosted a bipartisan conversation at the White House to say: Let's get this done. He expressed his support. In fact, everyone in the room expressed support for getting this done.

Each one of these--the budget, the children's healthcare, the health centers, the Dream Act--are bipartisan efforts. These are things that should have been addressed long ago if my Republican colleagues instead weren't so

obsessed with decimating healthcare for millions of Americans and ripping off the National Treasury to deliver benefits to the wealthiest Americans.

Let's get this done for our Dreamers. More than 100 a day are losing their status, which means they can no longer legally work in our country. It matters. It is urgent. It is productive for our communities. It is bipartisan. Let's get it done.

How about disaster relief? We certainly saw a powerful punch against our States from the raging forest fires in the West to the hurricanes in the South and Southeast. Hurricanes have hit Texas and Florida and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands--massive destruction. Fires have scourged States from Montana to Idaho, to Washington, to Oregon, to California. Those fires burned well into the winter months of November and December.

These afflictions hit Democrats and Republicans, red States and blue States. Why don't we get this done? These are basic, bipartisan, let's- get-it-done agendas. Let's get it done now.

Let's make sure, when we are addressing the impact of those storms in the South and those hurricanes--Harvey, Irma, and Maria--we simultaneously recognize the destructive impact forest fires have had that have been scourging the West. They have destroyed a lot of the infrastructure in the forest that needs to be replaced. They have affected a lot of communities that need economic help recovering.

Certainly, it made us recognize that we have millions of acres of forests that can become much more fire resilient if they are thinned, if we get rid of the fuel buildup on the floor of the forests. When they become more resilient, they stop the forest fires.

Thinning is a win-win. It produces a steady supply of sawlogs for the mill and stops forest fires when they are raging. There was a forest fire headed right for Sisters, OR, and it hit an area that had been thinned. Guess what. It stopped. The trees were farther apart. The fuels were removed from the floor of the forest.

Now we have created a real fire hazard with our clear-cut strategy of years past--the forestry grows very close together, often replanted. Trees are all the same height. It is very easy for the fire to get into the canopy, and once in the canopy, every tree is touching the next tree. It rages on, and there is no break.

But a natural forest is very different. We can more effectively replicate the fire-resistant nature of a natural forest by thinning these overgrown, second-growth forests. We can then create that supply of saw logs, keep our mills open, keep our people working, and strengthen our economies in rural America. We can do it by funding this reduction, these thinning programs in acreage that has already gone through the environmental process. In Oregon, we have 1.6 million acres already approved for thinning, if we can pass the funds to get it done.

So let's take this on in 2018. Let's dedicate 2018 to that vision in our Constitution of ``we the people.'' Let's stop passing legislation targeted specifically to help out the richest at the expense of everyone else in America. Let's turn over a new leaf from campaigns and policies and legislation by and for the privileged and the powerful to honor the vision of our Constitution, the vision of our Nation, a Nation of laws which distributes power that produces policies by and for the people of the United States of America, for making families stronger, for building those foundations of jobs and healthcare and education and a healthy planet.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, 100 days is a significant period of time--significant, particularly, because it involves the health of our children, which has been neglected over the last 3 months plus. How is it that this Chamber managed to go more than 3 months and not get in place a permanent expansion or a 5-year expansion of healthcare for our Nation's children?

Well, I can tell you why. It is because my colleagues on the majority side of the aisle here in this Chamber had a different bill that they were immersed in and that was a healthcare bill that would be better termed a health destruction bill because it would have wiped out healthcare for somewhere between 20 and 30 million Americans, and eventually version No. 5 of that bill died here in the Senate.

Then my colleagues across the aisle said: Well, we have another beautiful idea. We are going to do a tax bill that will deliver trillions of dollars to the richest Americans. Well, our Constitution was crafted around the vision of government of, by, and for the people, but my colleagues across the aisle like a different version of governance. They like governance by and for the powerful and the privileged.

So here they have this tax bill, and this tax bill has provisions like eliminating the dynasty loophole so wealthy families can pass their dynasty inheritances from one generation to the next without ever paying capital gains. They had a provision that they wanted to change the tax brackets for the wealthiest Americans. They wanted to have corporations, which have paid a smaller and smaller and smaller share of the costs of the infrastructure and the healthcare and the education of America, to pay even less. They had a provision where passthrough corporations would get a sweetheart rate. If you add up these provisions, they total over $3 trillion. Now, not all of it goes to the wealthiest 1 percent, but most of it does, and most of it goes to the wealthiest 10 percent.

Let's just take and only count two-thirds of that $2 trillion. Now, let's think about that number. That is a number that we really can't imagine. How many grains of sand are on this beach? You just can't get your hands around that kind of money--$2 trillion to the richest Americans. So let's divide it by the number of American men, women, and children in our country, and what do you end up with? You end up with the fact that that bill that

my colleagues across the aisle were so insistent on passing delivers the equivalent of $6,000 for every man, woman, and child in America to the very richest Americans.

This bill was not about delivering benefits to the richest Americans. This bill was not about delivering benefits to the privileged. This bill was not about making the powerful more powerful. This bill was about children, and so it got set aside, one day after another after another, and we are at 100 days and counting.

Now, who are these children? These are the children of families who are the working America. They don't qualify for Medicaid--in Oregon that is the Oregon Health Plan--because they are doing a little bit better than that, but not well enough to afford regular insurance in America. These are the children of the working poor.

Now, not so long ago, we had a Presidential campaign, and President Trump campaigned on helping working families. But where was President Trump? President Trump was all immersed in the same tax bill for the privileged and the powerful, and he didn't say anything about trying to make this happen for our children of working families.

This bill, by the way, began 21 years ago. This program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, was forged in bipartisanship. This bill was the product of Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Orrin Hatch, working together to say that we shouldn't allow children of low-income families to go without healthcare. Why is that? Well, because they knew it profoundly affects the quality of life of that child. We want to invest in those children. We want them to be successful. We want them to have strong futures. We don't want them to go without doctor's visits when they are sick. We don't want them to go without vaccinations and contract terrible illnesses. We don't want them to go without dental care and have their teeth destroyed even before they reach adulthood. No, we are going to take care of those children.

This bill was forged in bipartisanship back when both sides of the aisle seemed to care about the vision of government of, by, and for the people, but that vision has been disappearing. There is probably no better symbol of that than this session and the leadership of this body being obsessed with benefits for the best off while ignoring this bill for our children.

Now, it hasn't been completely ignored. The Finance Committee has acted. There is a bill called the KIDS Act, or the Keep Kids' Insurance Dependable and Secure Act. Once again, Senator Hatch was right in the middle of this, partnering with Senator Wyden from Oregon. Again, it is bipartisanship at the committee level. They passed it out, and they passed it out unanimously, but we don't see the KIDS Act getting passed here on the floor of the Senate.

So let's change course. Let's try to remember that this Nation was founded on the vision of distributed power among the citizens so that it will continue to make decisions by and for the people, not by and for the best off in our society. Let's try to reclaim that vision, and let's start by passing this bipartisan bill, forged in bipartisanship and passed out of the Finance Committee in bipartisanship. Let's get it to the floor, and let's pass it now. Let's not let this 100 days become 105 or 110 or 130. Let's get it passed now.

Now, in the continuing resolution there was a little short patch that said: Well, we are going to make sure the States that are running out of money right now for a couple of months will not go under. This is not the type of bill that we should have for a few weeks or a couple months. Quite frankly, I heard lots of folks on this floor saying that they were so excited about this tax rip-off to give money to the powerful because the powerful need predictability, they need stability, and they need to know what the tax rules are a long time into the future. Well, struggling families would like to have some stability, not have their children be a bargaining chip in some broader vision of securing even more benefits for the powerful at the expense of working Americans.

Let's put aside that vision of using our kids as a bargaining chip and pass this bill and get it to the President's desk.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, back in 2007 and 2008, a group of us who had never run for Congress or for the Senate jumped into campaigns against incumbent Members of this body, hoping to fight for a vision of government of, by, and for the people. Al Franken was one of those individuals taking on an incumbent, Republican Norm Coleman, and as I heard Senator Franken on the campaign trail, I heard what we heard today in his speech: a willingness to fight for that vision so embodied in our Constitution of government that would provide a foundation for families to thrive, that would lift everyone up; not a government of, by, and for the privileged; not a government of, by, and for the powerful.

It takes a lot of guts to throw yourself into the political world, but because he did and because he won that campaign, we were able to advance a number of policies.

I shared with Al the experience not only of running against an incumbent Republican but not having results on election night. However, I only had to wait 2 days; I didn't have to wait the many months that he did to come and be part of this body.

Because he came, we were able to pass the Affordable Care Act. My home State of Oregon went from 15 percent uninsured to 5 percent uninsured. Hundreds of thousands of people gained access to healthcare through the expansion of Medicaid and through the healthcare exchange made affordable by the tax credits provided by that bill. In that bill, we were able to provide free preventive healthcare practices. We all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and we embodied that in the healthcare bill. In that bill, we fought for folks to be able to stay on their parents' policies until age 26. In that bill, we fought to say that if someone had a preexisting condition, they wouldn't have to pay any more than anyone else would, creating healthcare opportunities for millions of people who thought they would never have a chance to have an insurance policy again.

Al Franken threw himself into public life, and he made that happen not just for the folks back home in Minnesota but for people across this entire Nation.

Another such battle was the Dodd-Frank battle, and again I doubt we would have been able to win that battle without his coming to share in that effort. I think about the fact that we had seen so many millions of families devastated by predatory mortgages with exploding interest rates--interest rates that, upon presentation, started at 3 percent or 4 percent but 2 years later would jump to 9 or 10 percent, and a family would end up in foreclosure. The fact is we had Wall Street writing securities based on those mortgages, which then disintegrated in 2007, 2008 and caused people not to just lose their homes but to also lose their jobs, to lose their retirement, and to be incredibly devastated and see their whole lifetime's work to become financially stable evaporate, destroyed, exploded. That CFPB portion, or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau portion, has given us ongoing efforts to take on predatory mortgages and that enables financial instruments to be a foundation for families to thrive and to have home ownership be the dream of home ownership and not the nightmare of home ownership. This, again, is an example of a bill passed because Al Franken threw himself into that battle, and there are many more on this list.

I was particularly appreciative of his support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Senator Kennedy, as he was in declining health, had asked me to take on and carry the torch for that bill, which was a huge honor to me as an incoming freshman. I felt he was on my shoulder every day saying: Why haven't you gotten it done yet? In 2013, we finally got it on the floor. I had been pushing hard for leadership to get it on the floor, and we got it on the floor. I thought: What if we lose this bill fighting for equality and to end discrimination in employment? But because Al was here helping in that fight, we won that bill. We did not win it in the House because the House didn't put it on the floor of the House. So it is unfinished business--fighting for equality of opportunity, that vision in our Constitution.

As we heard today, as we heard Al in his campaign in 2008, as we heard Al on the floor today, and we have heard of this fight for a country of, by, and for the people, I know that we are going to hear his voice in that fight for many years to come.

I thank Senator Franken for being willing to put himself in the public world, for being willing to fight here on the floor of the Senate for bill after bill after bill that made life better for Americans and for the many battles he will be in in the years to come. Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUNT addressed the Chair.

Yes.

Mr. President, one thing is for sure, this is not the people's business. This is the business of the powerful and privileged. Well, this is really a bank heist. How big is this bank heist? Well, it is about $3 trillion being delivered to the very richest Americans. Let's add it up. Changing the tax brackets for those who earn more than $200,000, $673 billion; changing the individual alternative minimum tax which only affects the very wealthy, $637 billion; changing the estate tax, $83 billion; changing the corporate tax rate, most of which goes to the advantage of the wealthiest Americans, $1.35 trillion; changing the corporate AMT, $40 billion; and the passthrough legislation that favors the wealthiest LLCs, $414 billion. Add it all up, and it is well over $3 trillion. There it is--$3 trillion. It is $3 trillion for the very richest Americans.

Is that the middle-class tax cut? Think about how much this is per person here in the United States of America. About $8,000 per person in America is being taxed so they can give $3 trillion to the very richest Americans. Is that a fair, square deal?

What if we were to spend $3 trillion on the middle class? What if we were to do that? What if we were to invest a trillion dollars of it in infrastructure? It creates a lot of jobs today, and it creates the foundation for a lot of jobs tomorrow and the year after.

What if we were to spend a trillion dollars on healthcare? We could go a long way in terms of greatly amplifying the success and quality of the work from our community health clinics--making sure, basically, that healthcare is a fundamental, affordable right for every American. We can do a lot on healthcare with a trillion dollars.

What could we do, I ask my Republican friends, with $1 trillion in education? How about spending $500 billion to strengthen our K-12 system and another $500 billion to strengthen and to make college affordable for every single American?

This $3 trillion this bill gives to the richest Americans is the biggest bank heist not just in American history but in the history of the world, happening here tonight and brought to us by the powerful and the privileged.

This is absolutely unacceptable. While the rich gloat over all the gold they are piling up--3 trillion dollars' worth--middle-class Americans get coal in their stocking. This tax scam so favors the wealthy that 83 percent of the benefits goes to the richest 1 percent. Is that the middle-class bill? I don't think so.

This bill sends jobs overseas, hurting middle-class Americans.

This bill increases our national deficit and our national debt, making it much harder to have programs that provide a foundation for families to thrive.

This bill destroys healthcare for 13 million Americans. Analyst after analyst says it will also raise insurance premiums for everyone else who buys healthcare. Wow, talk about clobbering the middle class by destroying healthcare for 13 million people and raising the premiums on healthcare for everyone else buying insurance.

So over here, we have the pile of gold--$3 trillion for the richest Americans--and over here, we have the loss of jobs shipped overseas. We have the increased price of healthcare. We have 13 million American people losing their healthcare.

Then we have the second phase of the Republican plan, which was announced by the Speaker of the House last week. This week we pass $3 trillion for the wealthiest Americans, but what do we do after that? We go after Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. That is the plan we heard from the Speaker of the House.

This is a diabolical bill. This is an abomination in a government of, by, and for the people.

How does it come to pass that we even have this bill under consideration? I will tell you how. It is a cycle of campaign corruption. Megabillionaires fund the campaigns for the Senate and then have people come in here to pass this bank heist for the billionaires. That is the cycle--Citizens United allowing unlimited funds invested by third-party campaigns. Corruption in campaigns produced this tax scam, this bank heist, this abomination against the people of the United States of America.

Now, Oregon has about 1 percent of the population in the United States. So what would be their share if we would, instead, invest that $3 trillion in infrastructure, healthcare, and education? For Oregon, that would be $30 billion. That is 30,000 $1 million grants to invest in infrastructure that is needed all over our State, to invest in more teachers all over our State, and to invest in lower cost tuition so every child can go to a public university without debt.

But that is not what we have tonight--no. My friend across the aisle says that we are going to wave the magic wand and we are going to give all this money--all of this gold, all this $3 trillion--to the richest Americans, and jobs are going to automatically appear. But it has been analyzed by the experts. They say this barely increases the growth of the economy--just a smidgeon, almost immeasurable.

Then, there are these countereffects. You have the challenge that this bill will create a lot of money for companies that are going to buy machines to replace people who work--accelerating the automation in America that destroys jobs. This bill is going to send jobs overseas, destroying the foundation for success for millions of American families. This money is going to be used for stock buybacks and dividends, enhancing the wealth of the already wealthy. That is why the experts say this is not going to create a phenomenal growth in our economy, a phenomenal number of jobs.

I would like to see us fight for middle-class Americans, fight for infrastructure and jobs, fight for healthcare, and fight for education. These are the foundations for thriving families, but that is not what we have tonight, and that is why anyone who believes in government of, by, and for the people should defeat this bill.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for being such a champion on this issue, and many others, where it is a question of whether we have government of and by the powerful or government by and for the people of the United States of America. We have seen issue after issue after issue this year on healthcare, on taxes, and now on net neutrality, and I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his advocacy.

Mr. President, last night we had an election. I have heard many of my colleagues on the Republican side say that elections have consequences. Now, however, we see that they are attempting to deliberately slow down the opportunity for the newly elected Senator from Alabama to come here and serve in the U.S. Senate. They took quite a different view when the question was a special election in Massachusetts, when a Republican Senator was elected to take the seat once held by Ted Kennedy. The Democrats concurred and the President of the United States, President Obama, concurred that he should be seated; that nothing should be jammed through in a fashion that tried to bypass the weight and opinion of the people of the State of Massachusetts in who would represent them. But this Chamber seems ready, under this majority leadership, to absolutely try to trample the people of Alabama, who said where they stand last night. This Chamber wants to deny them that voice here on the floor of the Senate.

Back a few years ago, in June of 2013, there was a House election in Missouri, and a Republican was elected to that empty seat. Jason Kander, the Democratic secretary of state in Missouri, said that he should absolutely be seated in Missouri's Eighth District. Jason Smith, the candidate chosen by Missouri, was seated in the House of Representatives, I believe within 18 hours--within 18 hours--so the people of Missouri could have fair representation. So Democratic Senators and a Democratic President and a Democratic secretary of state in a Southern State said to honor the people of the United States. I call upon the majority leader to defend the people of Alabama and seat their Senator and do it under the same 18-hour standard.

We are here today to talk about another example of the powerful versus the people. We have seen time and time again, over the course of the last few months, the President of the United States standing up for the powerful and trying to crush the people of the United States, trying to rip healthcare from 30 million Americans in order to give special benefits to the richest Americans. We have seen the President of the United States sign in the Oval Office a measure that would enable a powerful company, when in a dispute with a consumer, to choose the judge, to pay the judge, to promise a judge future business. What kind of fairness is that for an ordinary American up against a powerful company, where the powerful company gets to choose a judge? Yet my Republican colleagues voted overwhelmingly to crush the opportunity of an ordinary citizen versus a powerful company in a consumer dispute.

Then we have the tax bill. The tax bill says that if you earn less than $30,000, you get a tax increase, and if you are in the middle class, 87 million of you will get an increase in your taxes. And by the way, we are going to give several trillion dollars to the very richest Americans and the most powerful corporations. It is another example of a bank heist on the National Treasury--our Treasury--to deliver benefits to the best off, to the richest in America.

Oregon is about 1 percent of the national population. If you take 1 percent of $1 trillion, that is $10 billion. I can tell my colleagues what we can do for families in Oregon with $10 billion. We can invest in needed infrastructure to have a stronger economy and put a lot of people to work with living-wage jobs. We can add teachers to our public school classrooms so that our classrooms offer better opportunity for our children to learn and to thrive. We can make college more affordable. We can improve our community health clinics to make sure healthcare is available to all, which is so critical to quality of life. But no. My Republican colleagues say: Let's give this money to the richest Americans. Let's raid the National Treasury and enrich the best off among us.

That is because we have a fundamental cycle of corruption in campaigns that is enabling such a bizarrely inappropriate bill to ever get heard on the floor of the Senate. I say ``bizarrely inappropriate'' because our government wasn't founded to mimic the powerful kingdoms of Europe that govern by and for the richest. We had a vision of government of, by, and for the people.

Now we have this issue of net neutrality, and once again President Trump and the Republicans are weighing in to crush ordinary people in favor of powerful corporations. The internet has become essential to all of us in our daily lives. We consult it to find out where to go to a restaurant or what movies are playing. We check the internet to find out what the sports scores are and what is the latest news. We order our airline tickets. We do so many things on the internet during the course of our everyday lives. Yet here is President Trump saying: We want to take that level playing field of fairness for consumers across America and let some powerful companies decide who gets to provide information, which websites to allow to have information and which ones we are going to slow down, whom we are going to put in the fast lane and whom we are going to put in the slow lane.

The internet is so critical to the freedom of information. This is really an assault on freedom of information. It was James Madison who said that ``the advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.'' Yet my colleagues and President Trump want to give powerful companies the ability to control what information is shared in America.

Think of a highway. We have a highway and everyone gets to use it, and you can be in the slow lane if you choose because you want to save fuel, or you can get in the fast lane and pass somebody who is going more slowly. We don't have someone saying: Hey, we are only going to allow the richest Americans to drive in the fast lane. We are only going to allow the most powerful corporations to be in the fast lane. For the rest of you, you get to go to the slow lane. I don't care if there is a truck going 25 miles per hour, you are going to be stuck behind it unless you pay me a whole lot of money to get out of that lane.

The internet for the rich and powerful is wrong, and we have to stop it. If the Federal Communications Commission doesn't get the message this Thursday, we need to overturn their rule here on the floor of the Senate.

I get a chart each day showing me the calls from yesterday. Here I have a bar saying how many people called about net neutrality and which side of the issue they weighed in on. So 544 people called in favor of net neutrality, and according to this chart, zero people called in favor of powerful corporations instead controlling the internet. I have since been informed we did get 1 call, so let's make it 544 to 1 instead of 544 to zero. Have you ever seen an issue where you have that kind of ratio of ordinary people weighing in and saying: Don't let the powerful take over our internet. People want a level playing field for consumers, a level playing field for distributing knowledge, a level playing field for entrepreneurs so that the new startups can compete with the Googles and the Amazons of our country.

I ask you, if you had a choice between two websites last night to follow the election in Alabama and one was in the fast lane and could replenish its numbers instantly and one was going so slow that the numbers were going to take 5 minutes to get posted, which site would you have gone to? Of course you would have gone to the site that can update quickly. That is the point.

We shouldn't allow powerful companies to extort Americans over the information flowing through the internet. It is not fair to American citizens. It is not fair to American entrepreneurs. It is not fair to the distribution of knowledge. We must defeat it.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Alisha Bi, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Scott La Rochelle, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

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

Mr. President, I am rising to engage in the conversation about getting the Dream Act passed. I thank my good friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, for his passion and for his unrelenting commitment to protecting our American Dreamers. He has been on this floor day after day, month after month, advocating that we have to address this situation in which individuals came to the United States as small children; they have grown up here, they speak English, and they have been totally immersed in making our community stronger, our States stronger, our Nation stronger. We need to make sure

that we treat them fairly, with respect, and that we ensure that we are able to benefit from their presence here, just as they benefit from being here in the United States. There are 800,000 Dreamers across our country. I know they all very much appreciate his leadership.

The young men and women who came out of the shadows to be part of the DACA Program--Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--were made a promise that they would be all right if they did so; that their information would not be used then to deport them. So they took a gamble that the United States would stand by the commitment it was making to them, and now they are wondering what happened because their futures are dangling by a thread. The program has been abandoned by the President, and if it is not replaced by legislation done right here in this room, they basically will be subject to being deported to places where they don't speak the language, they don't understand the culture--they are unfamiliar with it--and they don't have any network. They are really kind of stateless individuals who are in a very tough condition.

One person like this from Salem, OR, is Diana Banda Palacios. In 1993, Diana, who is shown here in this picture I have in the Chamber, came to this country from Mexico as a 3-year-old toddler. She has lived her entire life since then, here in America.

Growing up in America, Diana dreamed of becoming a first responder, so much so that during her high school years, she volunteered for Red Cross and for her community emergency response team, but that dream was thrown into doubt during her senior year when she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. She has fought that cancer, and she has beat that cancer. She graduated from high school more determined than ever to pursue her vision of how she could contribute to the community, and she has contributed. She enrolled and put herself through the firefighting and paramedic program at her local community college, and now she has made a career for herself as an emergency medical technician, an EMT. Every day, she is working literally to save lives, and we are threatening to kick her out of the country--the only country she has ever known.

Diana said a few years back when the DACA Program was first being discussed:

America is my home. This is the place I love, where

everyone and everything I know is. I know nothing outside the

United States. Whatever punishment I must pay I am willing to

do. All I ask is for a chance. Better yet I beg for a chance

to prove that I am not a criminal, that I have much to offer

this beautiful place.

That is, in her words, her vision, her desire to be able to fully participate in our society.

Just recently, over Thanksgiving, I led a delegation to Burma. Burma has had horrific circumstances occur because they have a population of Muslims called the Rohingya, and the Rohingya have been in Burma for generations. Many of them came 200 years ago, and they came because they were imported for labor. They have farmed the rice paddies, they have fished in their boats off the coast, but they have never really been accepted by Burma. Burma recognized in their 1982 law 135 minorities, but they didn't recognize the Rohingya because the adjacent Rakhine minority is in kind of a hostile relationship with them. They have always been treated as second-class citizens, so much so that in the middle of Rakhine State, there are about 120,000 people living in camps. They are not allowed to leave the camps. They are not allowed to fully participate in society. They are not given citizenship rights. In northern Rakhine State, in that area, the military went in and burned some 300 villages, engaged in systematic rape, proceeded to shoot people as they fled their villages, and now 600,000 people have gone into Bangladesh.

The reason I raise this is not a parallel situation, but there is, at its core, a similar issue, and that issue is whether a nation thrives by entertaining the situation of having a stateless population. Burma had a stateless population that it did not recognize, did not allow to be fully engaged. They weren't even second-class citizens because they weren't allowed citizenship.

Well, we have now a tremendous population of young folks who have grown up in America. They are culturally American. Many of them had no idea they were born abroad, and they are ready to be full participants if we will let them. Won't we be so much better off to enable them to rise to their full potential, to make their full contribution, to have a full measure of participation in our society?

We have Diana's story, but multiply that times 800,000 people. What a fantastic reservoir of talent, ability, energy, and passion waiting to be fully contributed to being part of the United States of America.

While we delay, these 800,000 young members of our communities are in limbo. They are waiting for us to act. They know they took a gamble by joining the DACA Program, and they now know the Federal Government has all of their information to track them down and deport them. Wouldn't that violate completely the spirit under which we established the DACA Program to begin with? Let's get this DREAM Act done.

Earlier today, I was here on the floor, listening to a conversation from some of my colleagues, and they were saying: Well, let's get it done by March. I would say to my colleagues across the aisle: Let's not wait until March. Let's not wait until February. Let's not wait until January. Let's engage in this conversation now. Let's get it done by the end of the year. These young folks have waited a long time. They have waited too long. So let's address it, and let's maintain in our hearts the spirit that has animated our Nation.

All of us, unless we are 100 percent Native Americans, either came from foreign lands or our parents or our parents' parents, our forefathers and foremothers came from other lands. We know what that is like. It was difficult many times, but our families found their place. Let's enable these young folks, these Dreamers to find their place. It will be far better for them and far, far better for us.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I thank my senior colleague from Oregon for his leadership in this debate on these important tax provisions. There is so much at stake here for the future of our society as we have been debating what we see as one provision after another that is designed to make the richest Americans richer while increasing the taxes on some 87 million middle-class Americans. Then, we get this nice, little list. Republicans have given the lobbyists a list of 30 special interest provisions, circulated it, and said: This is what we are going to put in our managers' amendment for all of you.

My colleague from South Carolina was speaking a moment ago about one that hasn't even been filed--life insurance provisions. What is that? Maybe my colleague would like to come to the floor and explain it and explain why this is being circulated to lobbyists, to the swamp, instead of to the Members of the U.S. Senate. Thirty of these provisions--who knows what all is in this. Isn't there any form of transparency or integrity left in this Chamber in terms of legislative debate? Have the American people had a chance to see this list? It is online now. The few who might be listening in might be able to see these titles, but this is not the way to do business in the U.S. Senate. This is not the way to do the people's business. This is the way to do the swamp's business.

What happened to clearing the swamp? What happened to that? How is it that the richest Americans are making out like bandits rather than the middle class doing well under this bill? Why is that? Why are there billions of dollars going to the richest Americans by eliminating the alternative minimum tax? Why are there hundreds of billions of dollars going in other provisions, including changing the upper limit tax brackets, including the passthroughs for affluent, highly successful LLCs? How about that?

What is this list, and why haven't the American people seen all of the details about it? This type of chicanery is inappropriate. Take and give the list to the Members of the Senate, not to K Street. This close partnership between the Republican majority and K Street, filling them in, doing those special favors, and not even filling in the body here so we can have a conversation about each of these items, this is absolutely a horrific way to do business. This is the way the powerful and the privilege want business to be done. My Republican colleagues are working with them hand in hand instead of working for and by the American people.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon. I would like him to know that I will only take about 5 minutes because I want to make sure my colleagues can speak during this period.

I am rising now to ask the senior Senator from Texas to come and explain his amendment that has been incorporated in the package. This, I believe, earlier was his amendment No. 1715, and we are hearing that 1712 was included as well. This is something that might be characterized as the Wall Street welfare amendment. We are not sure exactly how it works. We are not sure exactly how much it costs. But that is not the point. If you are going to stick something into the underlying bill to benefit very powerful groups like Apollo and Carlisle and Blackstone, you don't just airdrop it in at the last second, this provision for the most powerful. Come to the floor, lay out the details, and defend your amendment and why it should be included in this bill.

Our basic understanding is that it enables publicly traded partnerships to be able to have their funds pass through so there is no corporate tax since they benefit from a lower rate for those passthroughs. But we have only had a few seconds to look at it. What does it really do? What does it really cost? I ask the Senator to come to the floor and explain all of the details. The American people have a right to know what you are sticking in this bill. Explain your Wall Street welfare amendment and why we should support it or not.

We have $4 trillion going to the richest Americans. Four trillion? We keep hearing about a $1.5 trillion deficit. Oh, yes, but there is lot more here, so let's just see what it is.

There is the reduction in the corporate tax rate, which we all know goes to the richest Americans who hold all the stocks. That is $1.3 trillion.

We have repeal of the alternative minimum tax. That is $770 billion.

We have the passthrough for high-end LLCs--not for low-end LLCs but for high-end LLCs--$362 billion.

We have three provisions for multinationals, a deduction for foreign dividends, a deduction for foreign intangibles, and the transfers for intellectual properties, totaling $313 billion.

We have an elimination of the estate tax to benefit the richest 0.2 percent. Out of a total of 1,000 people in America, the richest two-- that is the equivalent. That 0.2 percent would get $83 billion.

Then we have a change in the tax brackets, which added another over $1 trillion there. And probably most of that--we have been trying to get a breakout. We can't even get a breakout of where this will go because it is being rushed through.

If we take those provisions and add them up, it is $4 trillion. I am just taking the big ones off the list of all of the details.

Little public exposure. Why is this being done in a few hours here, just after the Thanksgiving holiday, before Christmas? Because my Republican colleagues are sticking it to the American people, and they don't want you to know.

So, again, an example--out of this list of 30 amendments that are being stuffed in at the last second that no one has had the ability to analyze--30 amendments--let's have the senior Senator from Texas come to the floor and defend his Wall Street welfare amendment that he is sticking in here for the most powerful publicly traded partnerships. That is just one of 30.

So I am calling for transparency. I am calling this process for what it is, and that is using the argument that you are doing something for the middle class in order to cover up these trillions of dollars going to the very richest. Let's see how misplaced this is.

In the next year, 9 million taxpayers together at the bottom would get about 50 cents a day in tax relief--two quarters. That is what you do for the 90 million taxpayers who are most in need in America, two quarters a day. What does this bill do for those who earn more than $1 million? It gives them over $1,000 a week. So $1,000 a week for the rich and mighty; two thin quarters a day for the folks at the bottom.

It even gets worse than that. By the end of the tax period, what are those people earning less than $50,000 doing? They are paying $23 billion into the Federal Treasury, but what are those who are earning more than $1 million doing? They are taking out $5 billion. So the poor are paying in while the rich are taking out. You call this middle-class tax relief? I call this a tax scam.

It is outrageous and unacceptable.

Will my colleague from Pennsylvania yield for a question?

Is this Hillsdale College the same one that was sued for discrimination in the 1980s?

You said you introduced this provision, and so I assumed you probably researched this. Isn't the reason this college has not taken Federal funds is because it was sued for discrimination?

You make the point that your colleagues on the left don't have a fond opinion of this particular college, but my point is, we don't have a fond opinion of discrimination and of giving a tax provision for just one college that happens to be funded by one of the wealthiest families in America because they happen to be a Republican donor. Why would that be a good provision in terms of the United States of America, to subsidize a college that quit taking Federal funds because of discrimination?

Would my colleague provide a list of all the colleges that qualify, because our understanding is that only one--this was written for one to qualify. And that is why this shouldn't be done at the last minute and just stuffed into a tax bill.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1856.

Mr. President, this amendment strikes a tax earmark that singles out one college in America from the university endowment tax set forth in the underlying bill.

To be sure, I don't like the endowment tax in this bill. It diminishes the ability of colleges to provide scholarships to financially challenged students. But if the majority is intent on having an endowment tax, then no college should be exempted.

The argument for the exemption is that this college doesn't take Federal funds. But remember why: They were sued in the 1980s for discriminatory practices, and they wanted to continue those practices. This school, Hillsdale College, does have powerful friends, including our Secretary of Education, but isn't that just the type of insider deal for the wealthy and well connected that we should oppose?

A vote against this amendment is a vote for an earmark for a school with powerful friends and for subsidizing discrimination. A vote for my amendment is a vote to strike down such an earmark, a vote for fair treatment of schools, and a vote against discrimination, and I urge you to vote aye.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we have seen a number of battles here recently that involve the question of, is our country going to make laws by and for the powerful or by and for the people?

We saw a healthcare debate where my colleagues across the aisle wanted to rip healthcare from 20 to 30 million hard-working Americans in order to deliver tax benefits to the very richest among us. Fortunately, we were able to stop that.

We have heard conversation here on the floor about the arbitration fairness regulation, which said that nobody should be forced into an arbitration when the other side gets to hire the judge, gets to promise the judge future business, and gets to determine the outcome of the decision. Yet my colleagues across the aisle voted for the powerful to be able to have this fixed system to cheat the consumers of America.

Then most recently we had this question on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The people of the United States love the fact that we finally have an organization that fights for them in fairness and financial deals so that predatory lending would be brought to a halt. But my colleagues on the other side of this spectrum said: No. Let's support the appointment of someone to run this who wants to tear down that organization so there will no longer be the protection for people.

Time and time again, within just a few weeks, my colleagues across the aisle have said: We are for the powerful to crush the people. Well, we are fighting for the people, and now we are fighting for the people on this horrendous tax legislation.

I have come to the floor to be with my colleague from Minnesota to point out some of the worst provisions of this bill, and I turn to her for her opening comments.

In fact, that is indeed one of the big lumps of coal Americans are getting. One in three American taxpayers utilizes this deduction, as should anyone who pays State and local taxes. How fair is it that on the money people have already paid out in taxes--taxes to one government organization--they get taxed on by the Federal Government? It is double taxation. The Republicans, in this bill, are standing for the unfair double taxation of Americans. It is absolutely wrong, and it is a big deal.

The average deduction in Oregon among those who use the SALT deduction is about $12,000. That is a very significant factor. That means their taxes are going to go up. The Republicans, with this bill, are saying yes to unfair double taxation, and we are saying no.

Mr. President, yet another terrible provision in this bill is the dynasty loophole.

Now, in a bill that the Republicans are saying is targeted at the middle class, why would you give $269 billion to the richest 0.2 percent of Americans? Envision a room with 1,000 people in it, pick out the 2 richest people, and give them $269 billion. That is what this bill does.

Now, this dynasty loophole is a way for the richest Americans to bypass ever paying capital gains, as they pass their wealth from one generation to the next. It is an enormous tax dodge, but if you or I sell a property while we are alive, we have to pay capital gains on it. The rich don't need to sell property over the course of their lives; they can simply hold it to the end of their life and pass it on to the next generation, never paying capital gains, and the next generation gets it marked up to market rate so that can never be recovered.

What we are talking about here is a principle that the early American Founders really detested. They had seen in Europe that very rich families could pass on wealth from one generation to the next and could control power in the country. That was the vision of government by and for the powerful, accentuated by the passage of vast wealth from one generation to the next. The Americans said: No. We want a different form of government, one which empowers decisions to make every family thrive; give them a chance, every family, to succeed.

That is the vision of ``We the People,'' and that is the opposite of this dynasty loophole.

I dare a single Republican to come to this floor and explain how giving $269 billion to the richest 0.2 percent of Americans has anything to do with helping the middle class.

Mr. President, not only do we have the dynasty loophole, we also have a sweetheart deal for very well-off LLCs--the type of LLCs President Trump has. He is rumored to have hundreds. I keep hearing the number 500. We don't actually have a document that tells us how many.

These high-end LLCs already get a big advantage over C corporations because C corporations pay a tax at the corporate level, and then they pay a tax at the individual level when the dividends are received. Here we have it: a sweetheart deal that would create a windfall of $362 billion with almost 90 percent of that going to the richest 1 percent of Americans.

Time after time after time, what we see are not benefits to the middle class; what we see are sweetheart deals for the very rich.

Mr. President, we now go to the rapid round because we have 4 minutes left to cover our remaining topics.

This provision is an attack on renewable energy. What does the Senate bill do? It undermines the integrity of the usefulness of the solar and wind energy credits, and then it proceeds to fail to address expiring credits or the credits that need to be renewed in geothermal and in biomass and in charging infrastructure and in microhydropower. Then the House side makes it worse by proceeding to get rid of the credit for electric vehicles.

What we have here is an effort to hand over the leadership on the next big vision for power in the world to the Chinese. Republicans are trying to help the Chinese take the lead and put America behind. That is not America first, that is America behind, and it is wrong and we oppose it.

Mr. President, the last loophole I will point out is the Trump loophole. We know, from the one tax return we have from President Trump, the only reason he paid taxes was the alternative minimum tax. In fact, he paid $38 million in taxes that year, and we were told he would have only paid about $5 million if it wasn't for the alternative minimum tax. So there we have it, another big provision for the richest of America.

This is not a bill that helps the middle class. It raises the taxes on millions and millions of middle-class Americans, while provision after provision after provision is targeted at the very richest Americans. We need to stop this bill.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I have three motions to commit that I believe the Senate should consider during our debate of H.R. 1, The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

I ask unanimous consent that my motions to commit be printed in the Record.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Merkley moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the

Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to

report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting

any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes

that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) raise the Federal corporate income tax rate to 25

percent to pay for K-12 education through block grants to

States.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Merkley moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the

Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to

report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting

any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes

that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) increase the Federal corporate income tax rate to 25

percent and transfer any increase in Federal revenues

resulting from such increase to the Highway Trust Fund under

section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Merkley moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the

Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to

report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting

any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes

that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) provide for a $3,000 refundable income tax credit for

taxpayers earning less than $100,000 and fully pay for the

cost of such credit by eliminating all or a portion of the

corporate income tax rate cuts and the deduction for pass-

through business income, by reinstating completely the

alternative minimum tax, and by repealing the changes to the

Federal estate tax.

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

Mr. President, our Constitution starts with those three beautiful and powerful words: ``We the People.'' Our Founders envisioned a nation with a form of government that wouldn't result in a government by the powerful and the privileged but instead would really deliver for the American people a form of government that is the foundation for every American to thrive. What a contrast that is to many of the governments of Europe that they had seen function on behalf of the privileged and the powerful.

Well, we have an issue before us that certainly is about government of, by, and for the people. It is the issue of the Children's Health Insurance Program, often referred to as CHIP. This program has been expired for 46 days--46 days--putting children's healthcare at risk throughout our country.

Why isn't this bill on the floor right now? Why isn't it being passed by unanimous consent right now, or at least being debated and amended and passed? We have five States--five States--that are running out of money in this quarter. Oregon, my home State, is one of them. We are going to be out of money next month. We have another 25 States that are going to be running out of money in the first 3 months of 2018, disrupting the continuity of essential services for our little ones.

For 20 years, the Children's Health Insurance Program has ensured that no children fall through the cracks of our healthcare system. It has covered checkups, immunizations, dental visits, and doctors' visits, assisting our struggling and low-income families who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to be able to actually purchase health services or healthcare for their children. Every single State in America--50 States out of 50--has a program. Now, they tend to operate at different levels. Forty-six States cover children up to or above 200 percent of poverty. We have 24 States that cover families up to incomes of 215 percent of poverty. So 24 States go a little further. We have a handful of States that expand coverage up to 300 percent of coverage. In my home State of Oregon, 140,000 children rely on the Children's Health Insurance Program.

It is just not acceptable that Members of this body come to this floor to talk about how to do trillions of dollars of tax benefits for the very wealthiest of Americans while we are failing to get a bill on the floor for health insurance for America's poor and struggling children. There is a lot I could say about that tax bill. It is really a bank heist. It is designed to deliver trillions of dollars to the richest 1 percent of Americans, while doing virtually nothing for the middle class and absolutely nothing for the bottom third of Americans. But doesn't there seem to be something wrong in a ``we the People'' democratic republic when we have a bill on the floor that is a bank heist on the Federal Treasury to deliver benefits--trillions of dollars--to the richest Americans and we can't have a debate on this floor on healthcare for the poorest children in America? Well, certainly, I think it is a perversion of the principle of a government that serves the people to put the privileged and powerful ahead in line.

We have seen, certainly, many renditions of this. We have seen a broader bill, a set of bills, including the TrumpCare, zombie healthcare bill that came to this floor. It was going to wipe out healthcare for 22 million Americans. Then it came back in a different form that was kind of the fake insurance form, and it was defeated again. Then it came back as the skinny bill, and it was defeated again. All of these bills wiped out healthcare for millions and millions of America's families.

Well, now we have a tax bill coming to the floor that, once again, has a provision put in it to wipe out healthcare for millions of American families. That is why we call it the zombie bill--the fact that we kill this thing, try to put a stake through its heart, knowing that we are supposed to be here serving the people--not the most privileged, the people. That is what is in our Constitution. That is the vision of this Nation, but apparently it is not the vision for those who control the bills that come to this floor because this bill has been waiting for 46 days to be addressed.

There is a bipartisan bill ready and waiting to be brought to the floor right now. Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden have worked together. They passed this bill out of their committee. It would extend the Children's Health Insurance Program through 2022. We could take up that bill right now and pass it. It had the full support of the committee. The Republicans and the Democrats were on board. So why isn't it here? Why are we disrupting healthcare for America's children?

To my colleagues: Set aside your ambition of ripping off the Federal Government to deliver benefits to the top 1 percent of Americans and pay some attention to America's children. That is our responsibility. That should be our mission. That is the purpose of our Constitution. Let's get it done. Nine million American children are waiting.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, climate disruption is the seminal challenge of our generation. It affects everything from our farms to our forests, to our fisheries. We are seeing huge impacts around the world: disappearing ice in the Arctic, melting permafrost, dying coral, raging fires, more powerful storms. Everywhere you look it is having an impact, and it is certainly an impact we need to pay a great deal of attention to because it is hurting human civilization, and the impacts are just beginning. They are going to become worse over time.

In response, communities across the globe are transforming their energy economies. They are certainly making their energy economies more efficient, from increasing insulation in buildings to improving vehicle mileage, to greater efficiency in appliances and in replacing fossil fuel energy with clean renewable energy.

How much do you know about the changes underway, about the dramatic modifications of our energy economy and the impacts of climate disruption? Let's find out. Welcome to episode 8 of the Senate Climate Disruption Quiz. Here we go.

First question. Researchers predict there will be an ice-free Arctic by the summer of what year?

Will it be the year 2020, 3 years from now; the year 2030, the year 2075, or will it be 2100, the end of the century?

Lock in your answers.

Here is the correct answer. That is B, the year 2030. Researchers say that as early as 2030, the Arctic Ocean could lose all of its ice during the year's warmest months.

We see here a map of what has been happening in the past. The red outlines, in addition to the white, represents where the ice was in 1980. In 1998, less area is covered; in 2012, even less area is covered; and in the last two summers, the Northwest Passage has been free of ice, and that has enabled a ship called the Crystal Serenity to move up and essentially take tourists through the Northwest Passage, where you can see it was ice-covered in 1980. So that is a big change.

If we have an effort to address the improvements made in Paris, then, yes, there would still be ice here in that year of 2030, in an area about the size of India, but you can see it is really shrinking quickly.

OK. On to our second question. Over the next decade, the number of U.S. wind energy technicians is expected to decline by 10 percent; grow by over 100 percent, which is to double; remain about stable; or disappear entirely?

Lock in your answers.

The correct answer is B, grow by over 100 percent. In other words, it will double. These are good jobs. Last year, less

than 100,000 people were employed in some manner by the wind industry, and the median pay was about $51,000 a year--a good middle-class job. We are seeing the jobs grow as the demand for wind energy grows throughout the country. The American Wind Energy Association says that in just the first 3 months of 2017, 2,000 megawatts of wind power were added, which is almost a fourfold increase over what happened in the first 3 months of 2016. So big changes are happening quickly.

Question No. 3. President Trump's administration released a study in November, the National Climate Assessment. Did President's Trump's study attribute the major cause of climate disruption to volcanic activity, or did his study say that the major cause was natural cycle, human activity, or solar activity?

Lock in your answers.

The answer is, on this study from President Trump's team, not volcanic activities, not solar activity, and not a natural cycle. It was, in fact, human activity.

This is a study from the Trump administration. They produced a chart that looked at the temperature increase and measured how much can be attributed to human-caused activity. You can see the chart here, how much was attributed to solar--very little impact--and how much can be attributed to volcanic activity, and that was actually negative. So the Trump administration has produced a huge statement that human activity is causing the increase of the temperature of our planet.

Question No. 4. Why did India shut down New Delhi's schools--that is 4,000 schools--why did they shut down New Delhi's schools for several days in November? Was it, A, lead in the water; B, religious tensions; C, record air pollution; or, D, population explosion?

Lock in your answers.

The correct answer is, in fact, record air pollution. This can be measured, but you can also see it. I will put up a picture of that pollution in New Delhi. Now we can barely see these people from a short distance away riding a motorcycle. The father is clamping his hand over his son's face to help reduce the impact of the air pollution on the children.

This air pollution was considered to be equivalent to smoking 50 cigarettes a day. The doctors are saying kids coming in who should have pink lungs have dark lungs--gray, black lungs. So it is having a huge health impact.

The U.S. Embassy in New Delhi measures the air quality by a category that is known as particulate matter, PM2.5. It refers to miniscule particulate matter of diameters of 2.5 micrometers or less. These are the very tiny particles that can lodge deep in the lungs and cause all kinds of problems in the lungs as they are absorbed into the bloodstream.

The EPA standard--the Environmental Protection Agency standard-- considers anything between 151 and 200 as unhealthy. What they registered on this day was 1,000. It topped the 1,000 mark. You can understand then how dangerous that is. This is from burning fossil fuels causing this pollution and specifically burning coal.

That brings us to our final question, Question No. 5. What percent of American voters support staying in the Paris Agreement? This, of course, is the international agreement in which every country in the world is now involved. Recently, there were two countries that had not signed up, and that was Nicaragua and Syria, but they now have both signed up. President Trump has said he plans to leave. Technically, we are still signed up because he can't leave under the agreement until November 2020. Still, because he said we are planning to leave, it has produced a lot of reaction by American citizens and those for and against.

What percent of American voters support staying in? Is it zero; 15 percent, a little more than one out of eight; or 45 percent, just shy of half; or 70 percent?

Lock in your answers.

Well, the Yale Program on Climate Communication did a poll which was released earlier this year, and the answer is that 70 percent, 7 out of 10 Americans, say stay in. Now this support for the Paris Agreement is more than half for every party, including the unaffiliated or independent voters. It is very high among Democrats, 86 percent; among Independents it is 61 percent; but 51 percent, more than one out of every two Republicans say, yes, stay in. They also took a look at self- identified voters for President Trump, and, there again, more than one out of two, a majority of them, said to stay in.

So there you have it, folks. Episode 8 of the Climate Disruption Quiz, issues ripped from the headlines on the most important issue facing the survival of humankind on this planet.

Carbon dioxide levels are accelerating and running through the roof. The temperature of our planet is accelerating. Our planet has caught a fever, and there is no doctor for the planet. We have to address it. We have to act. We are the first generation to experience the impacts and the last generation that can head off catastrophic consequences.

We are racing with the clock. There is no time to spare. So stay engaged, and in the future, I will bring you episode 9 of the Senate Climate Disruption Quiz.

Thank you.