Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes on two subjects. I don't have prepared remarks so I am going to speak from the heart.

Let me talk first about the CHIP program. One of my favorite people in the U.S. Senate is my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, and he just spoke very eloquently about a program called the Children's Health Insurance Program, which is part of our Medicaid Program. It provides health insurance for the children of America who are too poor to be sick.

That bill will pass. The Children's Health Insurance Program will be renewed. I want to look the American people in the eye right now and tell them: Do not worry. Do not worry.

This is an extraordinarily able program that has served the people of this country and our country well, and I don't want anybody to be unnecessarily frightened at Christmas. If you are a mom or a dad or a child or concerned citizen out there today and you hear that CHIP is in danger, with all the respect I can muster, I want to say it is not. Don't believe it. The CHIP program will be renewed.

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss the historic rehabilitation tax credit. The historic rehabilitation tax credit is a vital component of pro-growth tax reform and a shot in the arm for communities across the country. For instance, in my State of Louisiana, the credit has encouraged 782 restoration projects since 2002. This amounts to more than $2.2 billion in investment into cities and towns across the State. Many of these private investment dollars are flowing into small and rural communities with populations less than 25,000 people.

I am pleased that the Finance Committee restored the historic rehabilitation tax credit to the 20-percent level and ensured a smooth transition for approved and underway projects by grandfathering them in under the prior law and regulations.

For purposes of the historic rehabilitation tax credit's transition rule, ``taxpayer'' refers to the person who undertakes the rehabilitation of a building. In the case where a person makes an election under section 48(d), the term ``taxpayer'' means the lessor, since the lessor is the person who undertook the rehabilitation. It is intended that the historic rehabilitation tax credits be available during the transition period only to the extent such credits would have been available under the prior law and regulations.

Mr. President, it does not take a genius to see that something is stalling the American economy. The economy has been better lately, I think, frankly, in anticipation of the Congress's passing these tax cuts. The fact remains that 2016 was the 11th straight year that our economy--the greatest economy in the history of the world and the strongest economy in the history of the world, even when it has the flu--failed to achieve 3 percent annual growth, which has been our average every year since 1960.

Something is wrong. The experts I have talked about tried everything. They tried monetary policy, changing interest rates. They tried deficit spending. Do you remember President Obama's stimulus program? The Federal Reserve has tried quantitative easing out the wazoo. The experts have tried everything except what they should have done first; that is, to let the American people keep more of the money they earn, because they can spend that money they earn better than the government can.

We have two groups of policymakers in Washington, DC. I am sorry, but this is what it has come down to. I am not talking about liberals or conservatives. I am not talking about Republicans and Democrats. The two groups I am talking about are as follows. We have one group of policymakers in Washington who believe in more freedom, and we have another group of policymakers in Washington who believe in more free stuff.

I am not criticizing policymakers for wanting to help people who are less fortunate than us. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. taxpayers at the State and the local levels spend $1 trillion a year helping people less fortunate than us. That money didn't just fall from heaven. We thank heaven for it, but it came out of people's pockets. We spend $1 trillion a year in our country helping people who are less fortunate than us. In our country, if you are homeless, we house you. If you are hungry, we feed you. If you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your doctor. I am very proud of that. I am not criticizing. In fact, I join my colleagues in wanting to help people who are less fortunate than us. The fact of the matter is, it takes money, and that money is generated by the American taxpayer. The American taxpayer is not generating very much because the American taxpayer is not making very much.

Let me talk to you about the middle class.

I can talk about the business side of this bill, and this is going to help every business in America. It is going to help C corps, LLCs, Sub S corps, family farms, and single proprietorships. It is going to help large businesswomen and businessmen, and it is going to help small businesswomen and businessmen.

But I want to talk about the personal income tax side. This bill will give a tax cut to just about every American. Our opponents can probably find one or two people under certain circumstances who aren't going to get a tax cut, but the fact remains, if you look at the numbers of the joint committee on the budget, if you make between $20,000 and $30,000 a year on average, you are going to get a 10-percent tax cut. If you make between $50,000 and $70,000 a year, you are going to get right around a 7-percent tax cut. If you make $1 million or more a year, you are going to get roughly a 5-percent tax cut. As for the middle class, we can debate what the middle class is, but I consider the middle class to be somewhere between $30,000 and $100,000 a year. You can pick your own definition. They are the ones that I am concerned about the most-- not exclusively, but the most. Let me tell you what this bill is about in terms of the middle class: this, the wallet--their wallet--because the middle class is angry in this country, and they ought to be angry.

Every day, they say: Kennedy, I get up every day. I go to work. I obey the law. I pay my taxes. I try to do the right thing by my children. I try to teach my kids morals. I try to save for retirement. But I am getting fed up.

They tell me: Kennedy, I look around, and I see a rigged economy. I see too many undeserving people at the top getting bailouts, cutting corners, and making deals. I see too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts. I am in the middle, and I get stuck with the bill. I can't pay it anymore, Kennedy. My health insurance has gone up, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and my kids' tuition has gone up. My taxes have gone up. I will tell you what has not gone up--my income.

These are the American people, the middle class. They are busy earning a living. They may not read Aristotle every day, but they are smart and they get it. They know the median household income today is basically the same as it was in 1999, and for that, every policy maker responsible for that fact in Washington, DC, and elsewhere ought to hide their heads in a bag.

This bill is going to fix that, and that is why it is so incredibly important that we pass it. Yes, it is important for our business community. Yes, it is important for the large corporations. Yes, it is important to repatriate those trillions of dollars. But at the end of the day, it is important primarily for ordinary people, you and me--the people

who get up every day and go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, and made this country great. They have hurt long enough.

Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Colorado. We call him a silver-tongued devil because he is so eloquent.

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

Mr. President, this Saturday is Veterans Day, a day when we honor the brave women and brave men who have served in the defense of this great Nation. We need to take a moment to reflect on the freedoms that we enjoy every day--and sometimes take for granted--as American citizens, and we need to take that moment to thank those who have devoted their lives to serve and protect the greatest Nation in human history, the United States of America.

Mr. President, as you know, our country is home to over 20 million veterans, and I have the privilege of representing more than 250,000 veterans in my State of Louisiana. Today, I would like to talk about two of those veterans from my State who are illustrative of the extraordinary service that all of the veterans in Louisiana have offered their country.

The two gentlemen I would like to talk about, the two brave Americans, are Ira Schilling and Earl Louis Messmer.

Ira Schilling is from Shreveport. He enlisted in the U.S. Marines Corps in October of 1941, at the age of 16. He was 16 years old. After completing his training, Ira was assigned as a rifleman to L Company, 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, 2nd Marine Division, and he took part in combat operations on Guadalcanal during the final weeks of that bloody campaign.

Ira was discharged from Active Duty in October 1945. In 1948, Mr. Schilling tried to reenlist in the U.S. Marines Corps. He was married at the time. The Marines Corps turned down his request. Undaunted, Mr. Schilling just went over and enlisted in the U.S. Navy, and he spent another 2 years on Active Duty in defense of this country. Ira is now 92 years young, and he lives in Haughton, LA, and he is a Civil Air Patrol wing chaplain.

Mr. Earl Louis Messmer was born in New Orleans, in the southern part of my State, in 1923. He is very proud--and we are all proud of him-- for serving in the Battle of Peleliu from September 15 to November 15, 1944.

That battle was a fight to capture an airstrip in the Western Pacific Ocean. The United States won. We prevailed due to the bravery of the Army's 81st Infantry Division, of which Earl was a member.

Upon his return from World War II, in 1945, Mr. Messmer went to Tulane University.

Earl has 2 daughters, 5 grandchildren, and 10 great grandchildren,

all of whom are enjoying the freedom of this country for which he fought so gallantly.

Earl has resided in Metairie, LA, since 1942.

It is imperative, in my judgment, that this Veterans Day--and every day--we honor the service and sacrifices made by our women and our men in uniform. That is why I have introduced a bill. It is the 75th Anniversary of the End of World War II Commemorative Coin Act. I say to the Presiding Officer, I hope you will vote for it. This bill would authorize a commemorative coin to mark the milestone anniversary and the historic sacrifices of what has been aptly termed ``the Greatest Generation,'' and this bill will cost the American taxpayer zero dollars.

Thanks to the selflessness and bravery of 16 million American military personnel--brave men and women, brave men like Ira and Earl, of whom I just spoke, many of whom have lost their lives in this global conflict in World War II--liberty and democracy ultimately prevailed against the rawest, ugliest form of tyranny. The least we can do, it seems to me, for those who fought for our freedom, is to ensure that institutions like the National World War II Museum in New Orleans are able to continue their mission to educate future generations about our country's role in World War II and to support the families of our veterans.

I would like to urge all of my colleagues to please join with me, as I know they will, in thanking the millions of veterans who have fought and served our country, and I hope we can all pray together for the safety of our brave women and men in uniform who are still serving today.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, as in legislative session, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 85, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, as the Senate irons out the details of our comprehensive tax reform plan to get the American economy back on track, I want to draw attention today to what I believe is one of the greatest obstacles in our path as we pursue 3-percent annual growth. That obstacle I am referring to is our aging national infrastructure: our roads, our bridges, our airports, our water systems, our sewage systems, and our waterways that desperately need dredging, especially in my State.

If our tax plan is going to be pro-growth, then we need to take advantage of this once-in-a-generation chance to use Federal revenues to invest meaningfully in our economy. Allow me to explain what I mean by that. Federal investment in our roads, our bridges, our railways, and our waterways would be a shot in the arm for the American economy. It would pay dividends for decades. Companies need good roads and bridges and shipping channels to transport their products and to ensure that they aren't sitting in traffic for hours--sometimes it seems like days--which eats away at profits and raises costs for our people. But for too long, Washington's spending priorities have been to grow the Federal bureaucracy instead of growing our capacity for economic expansion and development through infrastructure upgrades. We know the result. Our Department of Transportation now estimates that we have a backlog of construction and repairs that would cost $926 billion to clear. It would cost nearly a trillion dollars, and that is just the backlog.

I have a simple solution that I would respectfully suggest to get us back on track. According to the Congressional Research Service, $2.6 trillion in corporate profits made by American companies are parked overseas, and some outside estimates say $4 or $5 trillion. This money is overseas, and it will not be brought back to America as long as our antiquated corporate tax system is going to charge those American companies 35 percent in tax just to bring them back.

Congress is already discussing repatriation as a part of the move to a territorial tax system, which would use a competitive tax rate to encourage companies to bring their dollars back to the United States and keep them here and invest them here in American products and American businesses and American employees.

When tax reform passes--and it will--and we get a one-time surge in tax revenue as a result of this $3 to $5 trillion being brought back to the United States, we are going to get only one chance to spend that money wisely. Instead of blowing those repatriated dollars on an already bloated Federal bureaucracy, we ought to invest that money solely and exclusively in desperately needed infrastructure upgrades. Even a one-time target investment in clearing the industrial backlog will create jobs and stimulate the economy for decades.

Let's face it, too many of American roads today are axle-breaking insults to the 21st century. They are holding our economy back.

Let me be clear. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into infrastructure if we just make good use of those repatriated dollars. For example, just in my State of Louisiana, this could mean building a new bridge through Lake Charles. It could mean widening the interstate in Baton Rouge. It could mean closing the gaps in I-49 between Lafayette and Shreveport and New Orleans. We have neglected our highways and bridges for far too long, and this is our chance to use tax reform to catch up, to boost our international competitiveness, to lower costs for consumers, and to put our economy back on track to 3 percent-plus growth, which the American people expect and deserve.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about Social Security and, specifically, about the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset. Now, I know that sounds real technical, but, basically, here is the problem.

We have a lot of Americans who have paid into Social Security who are now getting screwed by Social Security. They are not getting their money back. All of us want to do everything we can to maintain the stability and sanctity of the Social Security system, and I think all of us believe that we all ought to get the Social Security payments that we are entitled to. That is all this issue is about. Let me explain.

For many middle-class Americans, receiving Social Security at retirement is sort of like a welcoming light at the end of the tunnel. They have worked hard, they have retired, and now they are entitled to some of the money back that they paid into the Social Security system. I am talking, of course, about the hard-working women and the hard- working men who have seen a chunk of their monthly earnings go into the Social Security system throughout their entire careers--10, 15, 20, and sometimes 30 and 40 years. These same Americans have not seen a pay raise or an increase in their median household income for a long time. The median household income in America today, as the Presiding Officer knows, is pretty much the same as it was in 1999.

I guess whom I am talking about are ordinary people. You can call it the middle class, if you would like, or working families. They were the ones who were hit the hardest by the great recession of 2008. They have been struggling throughout their lives to participate in the great wealth of this Nation. They are entitled to participate in the great wealth of this Nation, and they should not have to keep on struggling to get money for retirement from the Social Security system when they have already paid into the Social Security system.

The principle behind Social Security is pretty simple. Throughout your working life, you pay some money and your employer pays some money. When you are done working, or when you retire, according to a formula, you get your money back through a Social Security check. It is simple in theory. You put money in, and when you hit the retirement age, you get some of it back, except that for 1.7 million Americans, that is not the case. That is not how the system works for them. That includes about 38,000 hard-working folks in my home State of Louisiana, but there are a lot more in other States as well. I am talking about millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters, and a lot of other folks who earn modest pensions in service to their communities who face little or no access to Social Security.

Here is what I am talking about. I am talking about a teacher who paid into the Social Security system. I am talking about teachers or firefighters or policemen who paid into their own retirement systems. So they are rocking along. They are, basically, paying into two retirement systems--Social Security and the private retirement system. They are doing the right thing in getting up every day, going to work, obeying the law, and trying to save money for retirement. It is deferred gratification. They are ready to retire, but because they were prudent enough to invest in a private retirement system, they do not get their Social Security check even though they have already paid into it. Additionally, a worker can pass away before reaching retirement age not even knowing that his spouse and children will not have full access to his Social Security survivors' benefits. That is just not right.

Until 2005, there was not even a legal requirement for human resources to notify workers that switching careers would affect their eligibility for Social Security or Social Security survivors' benefits. Many of these 1.7 million Americans who are getting screwed tried to do the right thing. They paid into a private retirement system, and they paid into Social Security only to find out later that they can get their money from the private retirement system but that they cannot get their money from Social Security. They are being punished for being prudent. Many of them retire with no idea that that is the law. By then, of course, it is too late.

In June of this year, one in six Americans collected Social Security benefits, and I am happy for every one of them because, to collect, they had to pay in. That is about 61 million Americans. By 2031, when the last of the baby boomers hits retirement age, that number is going to increase to about 75 million Americans. These are going to be our seniors. They are our seniors, and they are our seniors to be. They are battling against the rising costs of housing, healthcare, automobiles, taxes, and fees. Many of them have had their private retirement accounts or home values wrecked by the great recession. Yet these Americans press on.

When we talk about tax reform--and we are going to be talking a lot about tax reform here over the next few weeks--we need to make clear that we are talking about reforms that will help these middle-class Americans. They are the people who get up every day, go to work, obey the law, and try to do the right thing by their kids and teach their kids morals and try to save a little money for retirement.

Let me be blunt. I would like to eliminate the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset in the Social Security office. I think it would be a vital step in ensuring that our middle- class seniors can enjoy continued economic security after their retirements. Not only would it help the economy, but it is the right thing to do.

I sum up. We can provide economic relief immediately to some of those middle-class retirees about whom I have been talking by eliminating the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset of the Social Security system. It will not cost much money. It will have a small effect on the cost of Social Security, at about 0.13 percent--not 13 percent but 0.13 percent. It is a little over one-tenth of 1 percent.

After taking care of this simple fix, which is more than about money--it is about fairness--we can turn our eyes to out-of-control Washington spending to ensure that Social Security remains a reliable source of retirement income for Americans in the long term.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 12 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on the political and security situation in Afghanistan.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Wells Fargo: One Year Later.''

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a Business Meeting on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, beginning at 10:15 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10 a.m. in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``International Tax Reform.''

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Nominations .''

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Every Student Succeeds Act: Unleashing State Innovation'' on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing on the nomination of John M. Mitnick to be General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Administration's Decision to End Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.''-

Committee on Intelligence

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate, on Tuesday, October 3, 2017 from 2 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a Closed Member Roundtable.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Energy is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.-

Mr. President, I wish to change the subject slightly. I will be back on the floor next week to defend my good friend and colleague Senator Cassidy's ideas on the reform of healthcare for America. He received a letter today from our Governor and the Secretary of our Department of Health and Hospitals, which, in my opinion, espouses points of view on healthcare

that are not in the best interests of the people of Louisiana.

Just for a moment, I want to talk about tax reform because that is the other big issue in front of us.

Like the Presiding Officer, I have been in government for a while. I have great respect for professional economists, but it has been my experience that for every economist, there is an equal and opposite economist, and they are both usually wrong.

Economics today is more art than science. That is why I say it doesn't take an expert economist to see that something is wrong with the American economy.

Mr. President, 2016 was the 11th straight year our economy failed to achieve 3 percent annual growth, which has been our average annual growth every year since 1960. I have heard numerous pundits act like returning to 3 percent growth is something special, something extraordinary. No, sir, look at the numbers. It is just average, and I think the American people deserve better than just average growth, but even average growth is optimistic if we keep hamstringing the men and women who create the jobs in this country.

Our 40 percent business tax rate--let me say that again. Our 40 percent business tax rate and our broken Tax Code are chasing our ideas, our jobs, and our investors into the open, waiting arms of foreign countries. Our 40 percent business tax rate and our broken Tax Code are keeping wages and productivity low, they are crippling our small business women and small business men, and they have to go.

When we are talking about tax reform, I think it is very important that we not forget the primary vehicle--not the only vehicle but the primary vehicle for economic growth in America is the middle class, which is what I want to talk about for a moment, tax relief for ordinary people.

My constituents tell me every day: Kennedy, we look around in our economy today, and we see too many undeserving people at the top getting bailouts, we see too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts, and we are in the middle and we get stuck with the bill.

They say: Kennedy, we can't pay it anymore because our health insurance has gone up--thanks to ObamaCare--our kids' tuition has gone up, and our taxes have gone up. I will tell you what hasn't gone up, our wages and our income.

They feel that we in Washington don't listen and we don't care. They feel like they have no voice and no chance, and that anger is understandable.

This bar graph shows U.S. real median household income going all the way back to 1999. We can see where it was in 1999: slightly over $58,000. This is median household income. Of course, it took a dip in 2012 as a result of the recession, but look where we are in 2016. We are practically right where we were in 1999.

The middle class--the ordinary people of America--has made virtually no progress, and they have every right to be angry about that. It has been 16 years since President Bush's tax cuts, since the middle class has gotten a tax break. That is why I wanted to come to the floor today. Somebody has to speak up for the ordinary people of America and for our middle class.

Middle-class families drive our economic engine. We are a consumer economy. Seventy percent of our economy is based on consumers. They buy the goods and services our businesses are selling. They work hard to be able to spend and save and invest. Most middle-class Americans get up every day, go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, try to do the right thing by their kids, and they are falling further and further and further behind. Now, as they are trying to balance a checkbook, nearly one-third of their income is automatically withheld and sent off to Washington, DC. They never even see it. Come April, they may owe even more on their savings and investments. If you don't believe me, look at the numbers. You think America is broke? Between October 2016 and January 2017--just one quarter--the U.S. Treasury set a brandnew tax revenue record of $1 trillion--$1,084,840,000,000. A lot of that money came out of the hides of ordinary people.

I will give you an example. Right now, if you are a middle-class family in Alexandria, LA--right smack dab in the middle of my State-- you have a household income of $59,000. You have two children. You want your children to have a better future than you had. You claim all your exemptions and you take the standard deduction. You are going to be paying the Federal Government about $3,500 a year.

That is not even counting what that middle-class family has to pay in State and local taxes or their payments to Social Security or Medicare. By the time their bills are paid and by the time they put gas in the car, that doesn't leave them much to work with.

I have an idea about how tax reform can target the middle class and bring ordinary people some badly needed relief. Seventy percent of Americans opt to take the standard deduction when filing their taxes-- 70 percent. They do that because it is simple, it is fair, and it requires less documentation than itemizing. In 2014, this option--this standard deduction--saved taxpayers of America about $217 billion. Yet they are still having trouble getting ahead. If Congress were to make one simple change as we enter upon this endeavor that we call tax reform--I call it tax cuts--like doubling the standard deduction across the board for everybody, including but especially the middle class, that would potentially inject about $600 billion back into our economy over 10 years. That is according to a 2014 CRS report. That would be an immediate shot in the arm to the American economy.

That family of four in Alexandria, LA, whom I just talked about would have their Federal tax bill cut to $1,700, freeing up almost $2,000 of their hard-earned income. That is $2,000 toward a new car, a new lawn mower, fixing their home, putting money back into their business, or saving money for their children's college education. It is pretty simple. It is also $2,000 right back into the economy.

As the cost of earning more is reduced, people will want to work harder. I believe people respond to incentives--not just Americans, but that is human nature. That means more productivity and more growth. It is economics 101. Unless you were throwing a frisbee in the quad, you were in an economics 101 class, and you know that if you give people more to spend and they spend it, the economy is going to grow in the process. I believe, Mr. President, as I know you do, that people can spend their own money better than the government can.

The strength of the middle class was the cornerstone of our past economic growth, and I think it will be the key to our future.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: We do need tax reform for businesses. I repeat: We do need tax cuts for businessmen and businesswomen--not just for the large C corporations but also for the passthroughs, the LLCs, the LLPs, the sub S corporations, and the sole proprietorships and family farms.

If tax reform does not include relief for the middle class, if it doesn't include relief for ordinary Americans, then we will lose a historic opportunity. It will be another generation before we will have this opportunity again, and we will never get our economy back on track unless we can close that loop.

We need to liberate the middle class and their power to spend and their power to save and renew their belief in the American dream. A tax reform policy that provides relief to the middle class, such as doubling the standard deduction--that certainly is not the only way to do it, but it would certainly do the trick--will give people the incentive to work and to save and to invest.

Our economic fate is tied to the health of our middle class. I am not saying that other parts of our great Nation, our economy, are not important, but the bedrock is the middle class. The bedrock is small business. And it is high time that we offer ordinary Americans a tax code that believes in them.

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

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

Mr. President, let me say that my heart goes out to the people of America who are, right now, dealing with Hurricanes Harvey and Irma and their aftermaths.

Tribute to Steve Gleason and Donna Britt

Mr. President, ALS, which I think most of us refer to as Lou Gehrig's disease, has hit us hard in Louisiana. It has hit our world hard, but it has hit especially hard in my State.

A number of my colleagues and a number of Americans, I hope, were watching the night the New Orleans Saints returned to the field after our State was devastated by Hurricane Katrina. That night in the Superdome, a young man named Steve Gleason became a legend. I know it was just a football game, but he blocked a punt deep in the territory of the Saints' opponent, the Atlanta Falcons, for a touchdown. It was more than just a touchdown; it was a declaration that Louisiana was going to come back, that our spirit was not broken.

Today, Steve Gleason is battling ALS. The medical term for ALS is ``amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.'' We call it, as I said, Lou Gehrig's disease. It is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that destroys nerve cells in the brain and in the spinal cord. Regrettably, there is no cure. Steve, however, is determined to thrive and help others who have ALS.

Within the past few weeks, we have also learned that another Louisianan has ALS--well-known Baton Rouge television news anchor Donna Britt. I will tell you, like Steve, Donna is showing true grit in the face of this horrible disease. Most of us would probably curl into a fetal position and cry if we were told we had a progressive neurodegenerative disease that is almost always fatal--but not Steve and certainly not Ms. Donna Britt. Their valor and their courage is inspirational to me and, I think, to all Louisianans. As Donna herself put it, she is going to continue living as a living person and not as a dying person.

There is a famous line in a famous movie in which the main character says: I have a choice here--it is time to get busy living or get busy dying. Donna has chosen to get busy living. She is going to keep going to work, and she is going to keep caring for her family. Donna is educating herself about ALS. She has ordered a state-of-the-art wheelchair with Bluetooth technology, and she is adding words to a voice bank for when she can no longer speak because of this horrible disease. Donna Britt--I am not surprised--is determined to meet every challenge.

Let me say it again. This is pure valor. It is the type of courage in the face of adversity that inspires us all. It is also Donna. I do not know how to put that any other way. That is Donna Britt. Donna is a person who plays the oboe and who has survived breast cancer. She donates books to school libraries, and for charity she sings outside the Walmart during the holidays. She travels the world, and she delivers the news. She is a voice of comfort to all of those in her television media market, and she loves her family. She and her husband Mark Ballard have a son and a daughter. Her daughter Annie is a scientist working in DNA research, and their son Louie is a bright, young student in high school.

Donna has delivered the news in the Baton Rouge metropolitan area for 36 years. She spent her entire career, which is very unusual, at one television station--WAFB in Baton Rouge, which Donna has helped to make a powerhouse in Louisiana media. Donna has done her job so extraordinarily well that she has become a role model for young journalists--all journalists but particularly female journalists. I can tell my colleagues that folks in Baton Rouge feel Donna Britt is a part of their family. They trust her. That is because she is impartial, she is objective, and she is insightful. Since 1981, she has been on the air with the people of the Baton Rouge metropolitan area through storms, through inaugurations, through just about every major news event, good times and bad, that one can imagine. Donna also takes our people into the community and introduces them to interesting people.

A few months ago, Donna realized her health wasn't what it should be. There is no definitive test for ALS, as perhaps my colleagues know. Basically, the doctors have to rule everything else out before determining that one has ALS. As she struggled to figure out why she was losing the use of her fingers and her legs, Donna didn't keep her viewers in the dark. She brought them along for the journey in frank, candid Facebook videos. Along the way, she educated them--ever the journalist--on what it is like to have a degenerative disease.

At a family reunion this summer, Donna all of a sudden could not stand any longer. Now, that is a problem when you stand behind a desk to deliver the news--not for Donna. It was just another challenge to conquer. She promptly ordered a wheelchair that would adapt to her new reality.

Now Donna Britt is working with Louisiana State University to prepare for the day when her respiratory and diaphragm muscles are too weak for her to vocalize what she is thinking. With LSU's help, she is putting words into a voice bank for the future. Once again, it is just another challenge for Donna Britt to conquer.

I am very proud of Steve Gleason, and I am also very proud of Donna Britt. As angry as I am that anyone has to live with this dreadful disease ALS, I am proud they are inspiring an army of ALS sufferers by meeting every challenge and battling to thrive. I am proud that Steve and Donna are inspiring all of us with their valor and their courage.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish I could stand here today and tell you that the Affordable Care Act, or so-called ObamaCare, had worked. I wish I could sit here and tell you today that the American people were better off as a result of the Affordable Care Act, but I can't do that, and it gives me no joy in having to make that statement.

Now, as you know, Mr. President, not a single Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act was passed at President Obama's suggestion by the Democratic Members of the House and the Senate. They had a majority, and in this body the majority rules. I don't want to ascribe to the President or to our Democratic friends any ill motives whatsoever. They wanted what was best for the American people. It wasn't a question of bad motives. It was just a bad idea. It didn't work.

Let me say this another way. I believe that President Obama and our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle in the Senate and in the House of Representatives passed ObamaCare with the best of intentions. But, you know what, Mr. President--I know you also happen to be a physician--150 years ago, doctors used to bleed their patients with the best of intentions, and they stopped doing that. They did it. They didn't have any bad motives in doing it. They did it because they thought it would help the patient. It killed many of them. So they stopped doing it.

You know we were told when the Affordable Care Act, so-called ObamaCare--I don't mean any disrespect in calling it ObamaCare. President Obama himself refers to it as ObamaCare. When the Democrats in the Congress passed ObamaCare, I remember well what we were told because I wanted to believe it. The President said: If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan. I think he meant that at the time. It wasn't true. It turned out not to be true.

The President said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I think that is what he wanted, but you couldn't.

He said the Affordable Care Act would ``cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year.'' It is not even close.

President Obama said ObamaCare would ``bend the cost curve for healthcare'' without adding ``one dime

to the deficit.'' None of that was true. I think the President meant it at the time. I think he wanted it at the time. I know I did. I know you did, Mr. President. But it just turned out not to be true.

Now, the simple fact of the matter is--and I think every reasonable person has to conclude--that the Affordable Care Act has not worked for the American people.

Let's talk about the exchanges. As you know, Mr. President, there are two parts of the Affordable Care Act. There are the exchanges through which people go and buy insurance directly from an insurance company, and then there is the Medicaid expansion. I want to talk about the exchanges for a moment.

In 2016, under ObamaCare, we started out with 281 insurance companies offering insurance to the American people. That is a good start. The problem is that now we have 141, and they are dropping like flies. In my State of Louisiana we are down to three. A third of all of the counties in America have only one choice--one insurance company that will still write insurance--and many of our counties have zero, none, nada, zilch. They can't get insurance at all. They have been given a bus ticket, but there is no bus.

As for Louisiana, let me talk just for a moment about my State--our State--Mr. President. In Louisiana, premiums have gone up 123 percent on the exchanges since 2013. That is an average of a $3,600 increase per plan. Nationwide, the average ObamaCare plan now costs 105 percent more than when it started. That is $3,000 per person. What is particularly incredible to me, Mr. President--you know these statistics better than I do--in Louisiana we have 136,000 people who, rather than buying insurance off the exchanges, have chosen to pay the fine. Let me say that again: 136,000 people in my State have looked at the insurance offered to them, with the subsidies, and have said: We would rather pay the fine. Of that 136,000 who said they would pick the fine instead of the insurance, 84 percent of them make $50,000 or less, 48 percent of them, or half, make $25,000 or less. Now, do you know what that tells me? That tells me that 136,000 people in my State, most of whom are too poor to be sick, looked at the Affordable Care Act plan and said: We can't afford it. We would rather pay the fine. We are better off paying the fine. So they are out of pocket the money for the fine, and they still don't have insurance. No reasonable person would call that a success.

Let me give a couple more examples because we talk around here in concepts, and we all know what we are talking about, but average Americans who get up every day and go to work, who obey the law and pay their taxes, who try to do the right things for their kids and try to save money for retirement do not have time to deal in concepts. They are too busy earning a living. They just want to know: What kind of health insurance do I have, and what is it going to cost? So let me give some examples right now from Louisiana. This is brought to you by the Affordable Care Act.

Let's suppose that I am a 60-year-old, nonsmoking male who is living in Baton Rouge, LA. I am making $50,000 a year. According to healthcare.gov--I did not make this up--the cheapest and most basic plan available to me would cost me $689.14 a month, with a $4,500 deductible, for a grand total of $9,000 a year--deductibles, my out-of- pocket, plus my premiums. Now, I am 60 years old. I am living in Baton Rouge, LA, where the cost of living is not that high, and I am making $50,000. The Federal Government has said: We have a great deal for you. Give us $9,000, and then we might be able to give you some healthcare.

For that $9,000, what do I get?

Suppose I say: OK. Here is my $9,000.

I don't know where I am going to find it, as I am only making $50,000 a year, and, of course, the government is taking some of that for taxes, but I find $9,000 a year. Do you know what I get? I get four doctor visits, I get two lab tests, and I get nine prescription drugs and additional medical costs for a grand total of $100. That is not insurance; that is giving somebody a bus ticket without a bus.

All right. Let's suppose that I am a 50-year-old female. I don't smoke. I am living in Lafayette, LA, which is to the west of Baton Rouge. I am making $50,000 over in Lafayette. The most basic plan in Lafayette--once again, I am 50 years old. So I am not 60 now; I am 50 years old, a female, and I don't smoke. The most basic plan, the cheapest plan I could get would cost me $450 a month in premiums, with a $4,800 deductible, for a grand total of $6,550. So I have to go into my pocket for $6,550 before I can get any kind of health insurance. That is not health insurance.

I would remind the Presiding Officer, as he is a physician who has been on the frontlines in caring for people in our charity hospital system in Louisiana--and God bless him for that--that the options I describe are the cheap ones. They are the most affordable ones. That is the best-case scenario.

Nobody wanted this. I know President Obama did not want it to turn out this way. I know our friends on the Democratic side did not. They wanted what was best for America. It was not a bad motive; it was just a bad idea.

What do we need? Everybody has his own opinion of that. That is what we are going to try to convince each other of over the next few days as we vote. I will tell you what I think we need. I think that in the healthcare delivery system, we do not need more government.

I know that some of my friends on the Democratic side think they have the solution, and I respect them for all of the time and care they have put into this. Some of my friends on the Democratic side say they have the solution. Government has failed, they will admit. They do not say it very loudly, but they will privately say: We realize the government has failed with ObamaCare. Our prescription to fix it is more government, so let's go to a single-payer system. Let's have the Federal Government be in charge of everybody's healthcare, and let's let the Federal Government regulate our doctors and our nurses and our hospitals and our health insurance companies and our patients and our lab techs like they were utilities.

I have lived under a system like that. England has a system like that. You can not name me a single G20 country--not one--that has a single-payer system that is working. It is not the answer.

Quickly, because I am running out of time, here is what we need.

I will conclude then, Mr. President. I thank him for his time and attention.

America needs a healthcare delivery system and deserves it like somebody designed the dadgum thing on purpose.

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

Mr. President, Congressman Steve Scalise; Special Agent Crystal Griner; Special Agent David Bailey; Zack Barth, a legislative aide to Congressman Roger Williams; Matt Mika, who works for Tyson Foods--those five individuals were shot today, and I am asking and saying to every American who happens to be listening to the Senate at this time: If you believe in God, please pray for them as I have and as I do. If you don't believe in God, this is America, and that is your right. Send positive thoughts their way.

Like most Americans, I feel awful, I feel sad, and I feel mad.

I have known Steve Scalise a long time, I don't know, 20, 25 years. He is a political friend, but he is also a personal friend. Steve works all the time. He loves his family. He will do anything for his constituents. I know that is what we always say about each other, but it is true with Steve. He loves this place. I have never seen him in a bad mood. I know he must be; he is human. But I don't think I have ever seen Steve in a bad mood. He is positive; he is can-do. Every time I go to a function, Steve is there. I don't think he ever sleeps. He does an extraordinarily good job of representing the First Congressional District of Louisiana, and this is so unfair. I wish I understood why bad things happen to good people.

My thoughts and prayers, as all of our thoughts and prayers should be, are with Jennifer, Steve's lovely wife. Steve and Jennifer have two great kids, Madison and Harrison. I can't imagine what his family is going through right now. I am just so sorry.

We are also praying and hoping for a quick recovery for Matt and for Zack.

I thank Special Agent Griner and Special Agent Bailey. There were 30, 40, 50 Congressmen and Senators out there today. It was an open field. But for the bravery of these two special agents and other members of the Capitol Police, it would have been a turkey shoot: no cover. You have a person--that is as charitable as I can be right now--a person armed with an assault rifle and a handgun. I just want to tell those two agents and all the other law enforcement officials who support them and who keep us safe every day: Thank you so much for doing your job.

We have heard--and I hope it is not true--that this was a political shooting; that this person who decided to commit these despicable acts did it because he didn't like the political persuasion of the people at whom he decided to shoot. I hope that is not true. I hope members of the media come back tonight after the Secret Service investigates and tell us that is not true. Because if it is true, this represents a new low for America.

Reasonable people disagree, and you have the right under our Constitution to disagree. This is America. You can believe what you want. Within reason, you can say what you want. And most of us--I dare say, all of us in Congress--would do anything we could to protect that right.

I guess you have a constitutional right to hate, if you want to. But I don't understand people who hate other people just because they don't agree with them politically. It is not only nonsensical, it is un- American. If the reports are true, it breaks my heart that this is what we have come to. I think many of us have probably seen that attitude. It has not become prevalent in America, but it certainly has become more than just a mere occurrence. I will put it that way.

The internet has been an extraordinary thing for commerce and for the quality of life of all of us, but sometimes I read what people write on Facebook and I read comments. The worst are the ones where people can comment anonymously on newspaper articles. The vitriol, the hatred--I would hate to live with that much hate in my heart.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Steve, Jennifer, Madison, and Harrison, and they are with Special Agent Griner, Special Agent Bailey, Zack Barth, and Matt Mika. My personal thoughts and prayers are with every American today who feels as I do, that this is just a sad, sad day for this great country.

I don't know if there is any good that can come out of this, but if there is, I hope the good that does come out of this is that we will all stop and think about the things that divide us and understand it is OK to disagree. I will say it again: Reasonable people do. But you can disagree with somebody without hate.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to a member of my staff, Patrick Flanigan.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the bipartisan legislation that will reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program. I wish to speak a little bit about flood insurance first before I talk about our much needed legislation.

As most people know--but unfortunately some folks don't know or maybe they forget--if you have homeowners insurance on your home and you have a flood, you are not covered. Homeowners insurance does not cover flooding. In order to be covered for flooding, you have to have a separate policy, and about the only place you can go to get flood insurance is from the Federal program--the National Flood Insurance Program. Now, that is a bit of an overstatement. It is possible to buy flood insurance from a private insurer--and certainly we want to encourage private insurers to participate more in the flood insurance market--but today, for the most part, if you want to carry flood insurance, you have to get it through the Federal program, and that is called the National Flood Insurance Program. It is administered by