Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking Senator Nelson, the senior Senator from our State, for once again raising this on the floor. I am glad to be able to follow him and to make many of the same points about the importance of acting on this.

The Presiding Officer is from a State that has been impacted by storms. He knows that long after the cameras leave and long after the stories have been written, real people's lives have been disrupted, sometimes permanently, certainly in ways that we don't think about. We have come to think about hurricane damage as roofs being ripped off of buildings and trees in the road, and once those are picked up, everything is back to normal. What we don't recognize is that underneath all of that is the long-term damage done to a small business that went 2 weeks without any sort of income, so they closed.

There is the impact we see in the Florida Keys, where there are a lot of people, for example, who have used their retirement savings to buy a small property that they rent out in the Florida Keys. It is very common. They buy a small townhouse, they rent it out in the winter for people to stay there, and then they use it in the summer for their family.

Well, guess what. This winter they are probably not getting a lot of visitors. In some cases--I know of one in particular--there is all this debris from the storm that is sitting in the canal. It is not very attractive for a visitor to come to the Keys and stay in a townhouse where they can't even go out into the ocean because the canals and the waterways that take them out have refrigerators floating in them and have all kind of debris in them. By the way, there is still debris there from previous storms, almost 15 years--10 years ago.

What does that mean? That means the owner of the unit doesn't have the rent they were using to pay the mortgage. She might be a teacher or he might be a firefighter, and now they are not getting the income they were counting on to make the mortgage, so they potentially could fall behind and could lose this rental property that they had invested in for their family. These are not rich people. These are people who had an investment for the future and had a good business model until the storm came. That is not measured anywhere, but that is real harm.

The small businesses have been harmed. The Florida Keys, in particular, is a place that has had lot of small businesses that have been there for a long time. Some of these places have gone months without clients. If that person doesn't come and rent out that unit I just described, that means that person isn't using the fuel from the local gas station, isn't eating at the local restaurants, and isn't contributing to the local economy.

To top it off, it is so expensive. Imagine if you are a worker at one of these buildings making $15 an hour. It is so expensive. They already had a housing problem, and this has made it worse. So it would be a mistake to say that the hurricane damage is over, and the effort to address it ends the minute the trees are removed from the road and the roofs are tarped and repaired. It goes on for a while.

In the case of this particular storm, Florida was also impacted by the impact that Maria had on Puerto Rico. As

Senator Nelson just outlined, up to 300,000 American citizens--I say that because there are still a lot of people wondering, why are we giving aid to Puerto Rico? Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, and its residents are U.S. citizens. There are 300,000 U.S. citizens from Puerto Rico who have moved to Florida. They enrich our State, but our schools weren't counting on the kids, so they have to scramble to deal with that.

Our housing stock--I met with a group of people on Friday. We still have people living in hotels who have been there for 3 or 4 months. Even if they wanted to go out and find an apartment, there is nothing available. There are all sorts of challenges. We have heard stories, for example, that they have to pay a $75 application fee for each one of the housing units they apply for, even if they are turned down. Just figure that out. If someone applies to just three or four of them, that is a lot of money out of pocket for someone who has already lost everything in the storm. Florida is facing that as well.

I am disappointed. If someone had told me that we would get to the last week of January without taking up disaster relief, I would have been surprised because we had a chance to actually address this at the end of last year. The House sent over a bill that didn't go far enough. The Senate had ideas about how to make it better, and then for reasons involving leverage and using it as a tool to get people to vote for CRs--short-term spending at the end--it has been held up. That is unfortunate because these problems are only getting worse, not better, as time goes on.

Senator Nelson talked about the citrus industry. One of our signature crops, if not our signature crop, was already being challenged by citrus greening, which is a terrible disease. Senator Nelson and I went to some of those groves together, and there are growers who basically were already hurting. They have lost everything for this year. There is no money coming in. The fruit is gone. Once that fruit touches the ground and that ground is wet, you can't sell it. The trees are damaged. It is not as though we can just buy a new tree at Walmart, and in 1 year it produces. It has to put it in the ground, and it takes 5 years before it will start to produce. They are hurting, and they are wondering, should I replant? Is this a good business for me to be in?

Some of these families have been in citrus for three or four or five generations, and this could be the end, not just the end for them but the end of Florida citrus. We helped them in the tax bill with the ability to immediately expense replanting, but that will not be enough. That is why this package has to include USDA resources to help replace these lost trees and rehabilitate the groves that were flooded. This is critical and essential to our food supply.

The Army Corps of Engineers plays a huge role in the State of Florida. For example, there is the Herbert Hoover Dike, which is a dike on Lake Okeechobee that would prevent a catastrophic flooding event, should the lake levels rise too high. We have people living just south of it, and what happened, almost a century ago, is that people died because of flooding there. So this dike was built. It has been found to be and rated among the most vulnerable water infrastructure projects in the Nation, and we are lucky that it wasn't breached in the storm, but it could have been, had the rainfall been located at the right place at the right time. It has been the priority of our delegation for a long time to expedite the construction of rehabilitation to strengthen that dike. This is a good opportunity to do that because there will be other storms. Because the project was delayed when the storm hit, this is a chance to finish that role.

Other parts that are critical to Florida's economy are beach renourishment and intracoastal navigation projects. These are hugely important and not just what makes Florida an attractive place to live; it is the reason people visit. Some of these beaches were severely eroded. Particularly in Northeast Florida, there is no beach, and the water is coming up to the edge of the property lines. If there is no beach, the hotels and the condominiums that rent out on that beach do not have visitors. People will not go there unless there is sand on the beach, and the erosion that happens in a storm like this needs to be fixed.

Of course, we have all been engaged, and I hope all are committed to our Everglades restoration projects. The Everglades are some of the most unique environments on the planet. They happen to be in the United States and happen to be in our home State. In these Everglades restoration projects, we want to continue to make progress toward our goal of saving them.

By the way, the Everglades are a source of water for over 8 million Floridians. So I hope the disaster funding also addresses all the work that was destroyed and the damage that happened to a lot of the restoration projects that were in place.

I will not go deep into education because Senator Nelson has already addressed that, but suffice it to say we had thousands of students who were displaced, and we add to that thousands of people from Puerto Rico whom the school districts welcome but weren't counting on. Now we have to accommodate classroom space. In many cases, for these children, although everyone in Puerto Rico learns English and Spanish, their primary language is Spanish, so we have to get instructors who are able to bring them to proficiency in English. That is a challenge. All of that is falling on the State of Florida as well. While Florida welcomes our fellow Americans from Puerto Rico who are seeking refuge, the costs need to be accounted for.

We had hospitals that were damaged from the storms, and the repairs to some of these continue to rise. In some cases, these hospital repairs resulted in the closure of the hospital for more than a year.

There is a hospital in the Keys that is going to be completely rebuilt. If you have ever been to the Florida Keys, the distances are bad, and there is a hospital that is going to have to be completely rebuilt.

In addition to all of that, we have our healthcare providers in Florida who provided charitable care, not just to Floridians after the storm but to displaced Americans from Puerto Rico and from the U.S. Virgin Islands. They need to be reimbursed for doing that. They didn't sit back and say: We are not going to do it unless you send us a check. They did it, and there were real expenses. Then they were also hit by the storm, and they are dealing with those new expenses.

By the way, one of the things I hope we will do is expedite hiring authority for medical personnel in HHS because, for years, we have failed to maintain adequate levels of personnel willing to give a couple of weeks of their time to aid in a time of disaster. Our medical teams are depleted, and at this rate we will already have a staffing shortage by the next hurricane season, which is just a few months away.

NOAA, another Federal agency--the disaster bill needs to fund the continued removal of the things I have already discussed: marine debris, lost lobster traps, capsized vessels. There is an environmental component to it, and there is an economic component to it. If our canal is full of refrigerators, debris, things that need to be removed, the water cannot be navigated. The value of all that property is wiped out, and also what is wiped out is the desire of people to come and visit. Beyond increasing--or as we call it around here ``plussing up''-- critical FEMA accounts like the Disaster Relief Fund, we should also include language in the bill to protect counties, cities, towns, and individual homeowners who received FEMA disaster assistance from the uncertainty about when the Federal Government may come back in a few years and claw back that support. In essence, they can come back in a few years and say: We gave you too much money; give it back to us.

If someone did something wrong, I am not talking about that. I am talking about a good faith estimate that both sides agreed on, and they delivered the money, and then 4 years later they show up and say: Hey, we have looked at it again, and in hindsight we gave you $1,000 more in the case of an individual or $50,000 or $100,000 more in the case of a city or a county, and now they have to scramble to pay this back.

So I will continue to work to make sure that FEMA has the resources it needs to assist for recovery victims for

both short-term and long-term recovery but without this threat of clawback, and there are ways to do that which will allow us to be fiscally responsible.

I have already talked about the housing issue in Monroe County in Southwest Florida. Monroe County is in the Florida Keys, and that is why it is critical that FEMA has the resources to utilize programs such as direct relief assistance, which will enable the Federal Government to lease a property that would not generally be available to the public, such as corporate lodging, to house survivors, to house people, as opposed to just giving them a voucher and saying: Go find a hotel.

Here is what happens. They get a hotel in South Dade in Homestead, and the big rates come in February, and everyone gets kicked out in February because those rooms were booked a year ago at those rates, and they have nowhere to go. It is disruptive. If we were able to lease out an entire long-term corporate housing or lodging facility, these people would have some certainty to go about their lives while their homes and their lives are rebuilt. Programs such as Direct Lease assistance provide the type of flexibility that Florida and, quite frankly, the whole country needs. We are going to continue to advocate for the program so we can provide roofs over the heads of displaced Floridians and Puerto Ricans.

Infrastructure damage throughout Florida is also substantial. In particular, I was able to go down to the Everglades to Flamingo. It is a place we have gone often. It is one of the places we leave from to go fishing with my children. The facilities there were already in bad shape, to be frank. It looked like something out of one of those 1960s black-and-white movies they show in schools.

This place was badly hurt. Again, this is Federal property. That is a national park that belongs to the American people, under the custody of the Federal Government, and it was wiped out and hurt and destroyed. We need to help rebuild it. By the way, that includes airports, NASA--the Kennedy Space Center--which also suffered damages.

I have a couple more points, then I will close.

Housing and Urban Development. On December 14, I introduced the Disaster Assistance Simplification Act. That prohibits HUD from penalizing victims of natural disasters who apply but then turn down an SBA disaster loan. So if you apply for an SBA disaster loan, HUD will come back and take away your assistance or render you ineligible for HUD assistance not because you received the HUD loan but because you applied for it. That should be taken out.

I have worked with colleagues to ensure that this language is included in the upcoming supplemental because I don't understand how we can allow unsynchronized and burdensome disaster assistance programs to make recovery more difficult for someone impacted by a storm. You just went through a storm. Your business was destroyed. Your home was destroyed. Your family had to move to another county or another city. On top of that, you have to agonize over what the Federal Government may or may not give you. If they gave it to you, you have to agonize over when they may come back and take it away. We can't further victimize victims by penalizing victims who do not take assistance. Our laws are discouraging people from applying for SBA disaster loans.

Again, on that particular point, I am not talking about people who are double-dipping. I am talking about people who applied for HUD and SBA. Just the act of applying for that loan means you can't get the HUD assistance. That is ridiculous.

I will close with Puerto Rico. It doesn't get enough attention, in my mind. We read about the situation every day. Now the articles are saying: Can you believe they still don't have electricity in Puerto Rico? There are a lot of problems that need to be addressed. Puerto Rico had a lot of problems before the storm.

At end of the day, here is the bottom line. Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory. It is the responsibility of the United States. These are American citizens. They are children. They are residents. They wear the uniform of this country. If you go to Arlington Cemetery, not far from here, you will see their names after paying the ultimate sacrifice. They contribute to every area of our lives, whether they choose to live on the mainland or on the island. Perhaps because it isn't always in the headlines, a lot of people just don't understand its status, its importance, and our relationship and obligations.

We have been involved from the very beginning, not just because of the impact it has had on Florida but because, on a personal level, I have so many friends and people I care about who live there. If you live in Florida, you know people who have people they love who live there.

Right after the storm, I sent three members of my staff, who spent over a week at their emergency operations center, just trying to act as a conduit to facilitate between Federal efforts and the efforts of Puerto Rico's government, but the work that remains is extraordinary.

I talk about the people who are still displaced. We have seen the story of people losing their housing vouchers who were staying in a hotel. People say: We just heard from the government in Puerto Rico that your home is habitable so you are done. Check out tomorrow afternoon. They have nowhere to go. If they have family, maybe, but if they don't, where do they go that night? It is a problem. We have seen that happen in Connecticut and fear it could happen in other places.

On the disaster relief, we think recovering is not just about putting up light posts. We think it is about helping the economy grow, about attracting business and investment back, and about helping people who want to stay to be able to stay.

We have a number of provisions we hope will be included. One is a temporary payroll tax deduction so whatever it is you get paid, you get to keep more of it. It would be temporary for a year, but at least it is a way of giving people a raise without being a burden on businesses.

We would also like to see a temporary expansion of the child tax credit. Because of a quirk in the law, people who file taxes from Puerto Rico are not eligible for it at its full value the way someone on the mainland would be. Again, all they have to do is move to Florida, and they can do it.

These are U.S. citizens. If they can fight in our Armed Forces, if they pledge allegiance to our flag, if they are citizens of our Nation, why should they not be entitled to the same tax versions there that they would be if they were living on the mainland?

We also need to deal with, as Senator Nelson talked about, the Medicaid cliff. Because of the healthcare law that passed a number of years ago, the funding mechanism that was created places them in a position where soon they will run out of money in their Medicaid Program. Ultimately, what will happen is, people who need these services will move to Florida or some other State, and then they will sign up for Medicaid in the States and get what they couldn't get in Puerto Rico. It will actually cost more. If money is what you are worried about, it will cost more in the long run not to do it than to do it.

I also think we need to increase funding for energy grid technical assistance from the Department of Energy. On that note, I would say, we are getting reports that they are being forced to rebuild using the exact same equipment that was there before the storm. Some of this equipment is so old, it isn't even manufactured anymore. They don't make it anymore. They had to retrofit and make things up.

If we are going to rebuild or help rebuild the grid in Puerto Rico, shouldn't they be able to put in something that is modern as opposed to rebuilding the old stuff? That makes no sense. It will actually make the system more resilient.

A lot of these proposals may meet with resistance, but they all make sense. We can justify every single one of them. I hope we will pursue them. I worked very closely with Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez on these efforts. I am grateful for her strong advocacy and the support of so many of my colleagues on behalf of our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico.

I close by asking our colleagues this. I know we have the policy work this week. The Democrats and Republicans

are doing their thing. I know we have funding issues a week from this Friday that we have to address. I know immigration is an important issue that we need to confront, but do not forget about disaster relief. We have to get it done for the people out west in California, the people in Texas, the people of Florida, the people of Puerto Rico, and for our fellow Americans who were hurt by the hurricanes this season and the fires of 2017.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record an article that was published in yesterday's Pensacola News Journal, ``Meet the Santa Rosa Teacher of the Year.'' I commend Ms. Erin Cosky for her dedication to Florida's students, and wish her well in the State's Teacher of the Year selection process.

The material follows:

[From the Pensacola News Journal USA Today Network, Jan. 24, 2018]

Meet the Santa Rosa Teacher of the Year

Florida.--Gulf Breeze High School science teacher Erin

Cosky has been selected as the Santa Rosa County School

District's Teacher of the Year.

The news was announced during a surprise visit to Cosky's

classroom Wednesday morning.

Cosky teaches earth and space science and advanced

placement environmental science at the school. She is Santa

Rosa's nominee for the Florida Department of Education's

Teacher of the Year 2019.

The Florida Teacher of the Year will be selected in May and

will serve as Florida's nominee for National Teacher of the

Year, which will be announced in January 2019. Cosky, other

nominees for the award and all Santa Rosa County educators

will be honored at Santa Rosa's Golden Apple Celebration on

March 2.

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record an article that was published in the Orlando Sentinel, ``Seminole Announces Three Teacher-of-the-Year Finalists.'' I commend Ms. Samantha Neff, Ms. Leesa Lavender, and Ms. Julie DelRusso for their dedication to Florida's students and wish them well in the State's Teacher of the Year Selection process.

The material follows:

[From the Orlando Sentinel, Jan. 24, 2018]

Seminole Announces Three Teacher-of-the-Year Finalists

(By Leslie Postal)

A math coach, a civics teacher and a high school instructor

who works with students with disabilities were tapped

Wednesday as finalists for Seminole County's teacher-of-the-

year honors.

The winner will be announced March 15 and will then be in

the running for Florida's top teacher award.

Seminole's three finalists are:

Samantha Neff, a math coach at Idyllwilde Elementary

School, who has been an elementary school teacher in the

district for 17 years and also teaches at the University of

Central Florida.

Leesa Lavender, a seventh-grade civics teacher at Markham

Woods Middle School, who has taught middle school social

studies since 2007.

Julie DelRusso, who works with 9th-to-12th-grade students

through the district's Exceptional Student Support Services

Department. She's been a teacher with the district for 25

years.

The district will announce the winner at the teacher-of-

the-year ceremony at the Hilton Orlando/Altamonte

Springs.

Mr. President, it might surprise some people here that while what we are dealing with here is important, we are not the center of the universe. All across this country, as I was reminded this morning when calling home and speaking with friends and family and my wife and my children, life goes on.

Most Americans, I think, are aware that there is an issue going on here in Washington, DC, with regard to funding the government. But I doubt very few of them are sitting in front of the CNN countdown clock, where I guess now we are on the ticker because we are into the shutdown, living it--some sort of reality drama. It doesn't mean it is not important, but it is a reality that life goes on. People aren't following this every single day and aren't checking their phones on a 15-minute basis to find out how this thing is going to be fixed.

I think a lot of people are a little bit confused about what is happening here. If you are just listening to it off the top, in between things or maybe on the radio, maybe some people have the perception that this is all about a disagreement regarding the budget and/or a disagreement solely about an issue that is of critical importance, and we need to deal with it right away. That is just not accurate. I will get to that in a moment. But it is still hard for people to understand how this happens.

When I explain to people where we are and how we got here, it doesn't make sense to a lot of people. I want to begin by saying, the Bible says that there is nothing new under the Sun. It is one of the things that came into my mind early this morning.

I had occasion a few weeks ago, around the New Year, to spend some time with my family at the wonderful national park facilities, which I hope are open today, in Philadelphia and in the halls where our Constitution, the very document that designed our system of government, that each of us appeals to, that each of us has sworn allegiance to, was debated. That debate was a contentious one. It began on the 23rd of May and ended on the 17th of September of the year 1787. It was actually contentious from the start. In fact, the New York delegation stayed only a few days, and the delegation from Rhode Island straight- out boycotted it.

What is ironic, by the way, is one of the most contentious issues in that Constitutional Convention was the creation of the Senate. The creation of this body was a heated discussion. We don't know a lot about the details of that discussion because they had closed the windows, even though it was hot. They didn't go around talking about it. There weren't 24-hour news cycles and Twitter, but we know it was contentious. We know that in the end, this Constitution that we all swear allegiance to and that for over two centuries has helped create an exceptional system of government was approved by 39 of the 55 delegates.

There were people who voted against the Constitution. The one thing that was clear is that none of them got everything they wanted. At that time, by the end of that convention--in fact, Monday, September 17, 1787, was the last day of that convention, and one of the delegates was someone named Benjamin Franklin. We all know who that is. He was internationally well known. He wanted to give a short speech to that convention before signing it. He was actually too weak to do the speech himself, so he had someone else deliver the speech. Based on the notes that Madison took, here is what we know, generally, he said. It begins with a line that says:

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution

which I do not at present approve.

He goes on to say:

I agree to this Constitution with all of its faults.

He says:

I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may

be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble

a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom,

you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices,

their passions, their errors of opinion, their local

interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can

a perfect production be expected?

So right from the very beginning in the history of this Nation, we have acknowledged that in order to make progress, it is virtually impossible for everybody in that process to get everything they want. Our job is to move things forward--and I don't want to read the whole thing--but suffice it to

say, Franklin's point is maybe he was wrong. He is not perfect. Even though many of us tend to believe we are the only people who are right on this issue, at that stage in his life, he had learned enough to understand he was not the holder of all wisdom; that he had changed his mind on issues when he came upon new information. He also understood that when you bring a group of people together and ask them to come to agreement on something, unless they are clones of one another or unless they all come from the same thought process, you are going to have disagreement, but in order to reach a conclusion, everyone is going to have to get something they need even though no one is going to get everything they want. That was from the very beginning from our very Founders, and it was hard then.

Imagine now, in the 21st century, with 50 States and several territories, extraordinary diversity in terms of ideology, opinion, geography, background, and all of it covered by 24-hour news, which basically covers American politics like entertainment, and Twitter feeds on both sides that are constantly driving narratives. Imagine if they had Twitter and 24-hour news during the Constitutional Convention? A, we would know a lot more about what they were saying to and about each other and, B, we may never have had a Constitution, simply because of exacerbating those tensions.

I am not here to say we should not have Twitter and 24-hour news, but I am telling you these were factors that were always difficult. Self- government was always hard. Imagine today, with these additional factors of diversity and the way politics is covered, practiced, and discussed. I say that because there is a growing temptation from American politics that largely comes from the base of both parties but often is fed through media narratives, but the goal is to achieve total victory.

Total victory is what you want to achieve in a sporting event. You want to win and beat your opponent by as many points as possible, but in a constitutional republic, total victory is nearly impossible, especially in a country like America. It is impossible--impossible--for a President, for any party, or for a faction on any issue to get 100 percent of what they want all the time.

Instinctively, despite the fact that they don't work here every day, despite the fact that they don't sit glued in front of the television all day watching politics, most Americans understand this. They know this because it is a reality of life, and they know it instinctively because that is the way our system was designed. That is the way self- government was supposed to function. It is hard. Self-government has never been easy, and it has only gotten harder.

So when you talk to someone and you explain what has happened, here are the facts. We had a government funding deadline, meaning that if by midnight this morning we had not passed a bill to authorize more spending, we had a sort of mini-shutdown or partial shutdown of the government. There is a provision that was put in law by President Obama that gave status to young people who were brought into this country illegally by their parents, through no fault of their own, and that provision expires on the 5th of March, about 43 days away.

We have a bill before the Senate that funds the government, that keeps it open for 4 weeks--initially. I think now we are down to--with this proposal before the Senate, I think it is going to end on the 9th, so about 3 weeks. There is nothing in that bill that the Democrats are against, but they voted against that bill last night. They are not letting us vote on the other bill today--right now--and intend to vote against it, apparently, when we do vote on it Monday morning, because they want to see their demands met on something that doesn't expire for 43 days.

So this is not about whether you are for or against doing something about DACA. It is not because it is not like the government funding expired last night and DACA expired last night and so you have to do both. This is the government funding expired last night and DACA expires in 43 days. When you explain that to people--why would--how does that work? Why does that make sense? Why would they do this?

In fairness, I listened to the argument of my Democratic colleagues, and one of the arguments they make is they don't trust the Republican Party on the issue of DACA, but more particularly they don't trust the President to deal with it. So they need to force action now. They need to do something, and they need to use government funding as the leverage to force something to happen. Let me say at the outset that it is a legitimate tool in the toolbox of the legislator on a matter of deep principle to not vote on an important bill in order to get leverage for what you want. If there is something you are deeply principled about and you believe we need to do, it is a legitimate tool to say: I know you really need to do this, and I really need to do that, so I am not going to let you do what you need to do unless you let me do what I need to do. I think that is the argument they are making now.

As I pointed out to you earlier, this is not kind of the same because this is a spending bill. In fact, the bill they voted against would expire even before the March 5 deadline. In essence, we would have to have another government funding vote even before we got to March 5, so it is really not a leverage argument.

Even if it were, I would say that in order for self-government to work as I have described already, we have to be judicious and careful about how we use these tools. You can't be using them all the time. You have to reserve them for key moments for a lot of reasons.

The first, frankly, is international implications. We can talk a lot about Russian interference that occurred. The goal of Russian interference above all else is to sow discord and to create conflict and controversy in American politics so Putin can go around the world saying America likes to lecture everyone about democracy, but their democracy is not a real democracy and their leaders are corrupt and their elections are rigged and all kinds of stuff. That is what he wanted to drive.

There are nations like China which under our nose are rapidly working to change the world in our time. While we spend all these days arguing with each other about whatever the outrage of the day is--and every day it is something else--China is working underneath us and all around us to rebuild the world in their image and to their advantage and to our detriment. One of the things they tell other countries is, Americans have a country in decline. These people are in total decline. They are abandoning the world and, more importantly, they can't even govern themselves. So we are doing their job for them when we create these sorts of controversies.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have heated debates on tough issues, and that shouldn't mean that from time to time people reserve the right--and I reserve the right--to use leverage to achieve our goals. I have done it before, and I imagine I will do it again, but we have to be careful about it because it does impact the way the world views us. People watch us all over the world. They don't understand, as some of us do, that this stuff happens, and it all works out. They think, literally, some places believe we are crumbling, being ripped apart at the seams, and it encourages people to do things and nations to do things sometimes through miscalculation. That is the first reason you want to be careful.

The second reason you want to be judicious about using these sorts of tools is because, quite frankly, it poisons the process. I would state that the abuse and overuse of these prerogatives of Senators over the last decade has done tremendous damage to the Senate, and it really has impacted our ability to tackle and to solve real problems. I say that as someone who acknowledges the Republicans have done this. Republicans did this kind of stuff. I would argue it was different, but it doesn't matter. Republicans used leverage in situations that people thought we shouldn't have used. Democratic activists now insist that Democrats use the same tool. They did it when they were in the minority, and you need to do it now when you are in the minority.

I would also say we have to be careful because, the truth is, we all have matters of deep principle. I have matters of deep principle that haven't been addressed yet.

I have a matter of deep principle, and as much as I believe we need to do something about DACA, I have a matter of deep principle that I believe is

more urgent and requires attention right away. The people of Florida and the people of Puerto Rico and the people of Texas have a desperate need for disaster relief. Forty percent of the island of Puerto Rico has no electricity. This is a U.S. territory. American citizens are living in third-world conditions.

In the State of Florida, our citrus growers are in critical condition. We may not have a U.S. citrus industry based in Florida if this goes on much longer. We still have people living in hotels and motel rooms in Florida because their homes were destroyed. That is a real need that doesn't have any deadline. They needed it yesterday, and we still haven't addressed it. I suppose if I wanted to use this tool-- and some maybe encouraged me to do that--I could come and say: I am not voting on any funding for the government, and I will shut down the government until we deal with disaster relief. The problem is, all 99 other Senators have a principled position as well. So basically all we do is take hostages all day on every principled issue we have at every opportunity we get. Well, you get the picture, and this is happening more and more.

By the way, I say all this to you, understanding that if we passed a long-term funding bill--let's say the bill before us funded government through October, and I voted for that and disaster relief hasn't happened yet, there is no guarantee we would get disaster relief. What leverage would I have? So we have to be very judicious about how we use it. I ultimately decided not to do it because I believe the government shutdown ends up hurting the people I am trying to help with disaster relief. There are Federal employees in Puerto Rico who got hit by a hurricane a few months ago and now can't go to work on Monday. If they go to work, they are not getting paid, and it is already difficult over there.

There are Federal services in Florida. People are going to call our offices around the country and in Florida on Monday, and even if I have essential staff there to answer the call, there may not be an employee at the Federal agency, where we can pick up the phone and intervene on their behalf. It happens all the time. One of the very common things we face in calls we get is someone has a loved one or relative who was visiting somewhere around the world, maybe in the Western Hemisphere, they were killed in an accident, and they want to bring their body home to be buried. We have to deal with all the paperwork with the Embassy or the consulate and the host country to bring them home. We are not going to be there on Monday to do it because the people we have to call might not even be there to answer the call. In the end, my view of it is, you don't cut off your nose to spite your face, and at this point, you don't shut down the government only to hurt them somewhere else.

At the end of the day, this really is not about leverage. It is not. I say this with the highest respect. We disagree on a lot of issues, but the Democratic leader is someone I know understands legislation and understands politics. I personally do not believe this is about leverage. He has to know this because this is really no different than in December. We passed a short-term spending bill in December. Democratic Members voted for that, and the DACA issue was unresolved at the time.

By the way, we had a chance to deal with disaster relief in December too. They sent a disaster relief bill over from the House to the Senate, and the Republican leader chose not to take it up--I believe because he wanted to hold it over for this debate. The more things that are pending, the more leverage you have to pose to them. I mean we were going to put additional things on the House bill and send it back. We knew what those things were, but suffice it to say, everything is unresolved, but I don't think this is purely about leverage.

Here is what I actually think this is about, and I am here to cite some examples why. In December, as I said, before we got ready to leave for the end of the year, there were a lot of activists involved in the DACA issue that were really pounding on the Democrats to shut down the government unless DACA was handled. To their credit, a number of Democratic Senators didn't do so. They voted not to shut down the government, and the end result was they unleashed a fury of assaults, in terms of pressure and protests and sleep-ins and all kinds of things. This really started in October.

I have a number of articles I want to cite. Let's go to October 2, 2017. This is an article that talks about--I will quote from it. I underlined the key provisions. ``Democrats seeking an immigration deal . . . are facing resistance from immigrant activists who are rejecting any compromise that would tighten border security and demanding more extensive legislation to protect . . . immigrants from deportation.''

It goes on to say: ``Despite Democratic leaders' declared commitment to help so-called Dreamers . . . they are catching sustained flak from immigration activists.''

It goes on to say the minority leader in the House, Congresswoman Pelosi, ``faced a vociferous protest from Dreamers a few weeks ago, when activists shouted down her speech and called her a `liar' who helped create a `deportation machine.'''

If you haven't seen the video, she did a press conference in, I believe, San Francisco. As she was there doing this press conference for Dreamers, these other Dream activist people showed up and started screaming at her.

For those of us on my side of the aisle, we view her as one of the more liberal Members in Congress and certainly someone I have identified as a supporter of the Dream Act. Then you have people saying the Dream Act isn't enough, you have to cover other people. So they are under a lot of pressure.

Here is a quote from an immigrant rights activist and a DACA recipient. He said: ``I think Senator Schumer crumbles under pressure just so he can deliver on something.''

These are harsh words from these activists, and this started in October of last year.

Now, let's go to this article of December 19. This article begins by saying:

Dozens of immigration advocates rallied outside Sen. Chuck

Schumer's Manhattan office Tuesday.

In both Spanish and English, speakers at the rally demanded

that the Senate minority leader ask his fellow Democrats to

refrain from supporting any legislation until a clean Dream

Act is passed.

A clean Dream Act means just vote for the Dream Act, nothing else--no border security or, by the way, any legislation; don't vote for anything until that happens. That is the pressure they were under.

The article goes on to say:

As Congress negotiates the budget, protesters called for

Schumer to help shut down the government if a Dream Act isn't

passed by the end of the year, chanting, ``If we don't get

it, shut it down.''

Those are the quotes. This was in December. So this article was December 19; this must have been December 18, and the chant outside his office in Manhattan was ``If we don't get it, shut it down.'' So the calls for a shutdown began as far back as December, not 43 days before the deadline but 60 or 70 days before the deadline.

Finally, the spokeswoman for the minority leader put out a statement for, I believe, the protesters, and, I guess, the press was assembled. She said:

We want to make sure nothing passes until we have the Dream

Act in there.

They were already telegraphing this in December, so this is not something that has happened in the last 2 days or 3 days. This was ongoing and sustained pressure.

There is more. On December 21, there was an article in the Washington Post. The headline is ``In private meeting, Schumer angrily confronted by Hispanic Caucus members as prospects for DACA deal slip again.'' It begins:

Disagreements among Democrats over how to keep fighting to

enact legal protections for immigrant ``dreamers'' boiled

over in the office of Senate Minority Leader Charles E.

Schumer on Thursday as he met with members of the

Congressional Hispanic Caucus in what several participants

described as a tense and heated exchange.

With just a few minutes' notice, they showed up in the

lobby of Schumer's suite across from the Senate floor in

hopes of pressing him to persuade more Senators to vote

against the GOP spending plan that was set to be approved in

the coming hours.

The latest short-term spending plan was set for approval as

Democrats this week backed off a pledge to force a vote this

month over the fate of thousands of undocumented immigrants

brought to this country as children. The decision angered

immigration activists.

Later in the article:

Several people who attended the meeting, granted anonymity

to describe what was expected to be a private exchange, said

the meeting with Schumer began with cordial remarks.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez . . . unloaded on Schumer, accusing him

and Democratic senators of not caring about the fate of

dreamers and ``throwing them under the bus.''

In response, Schumer raised his voice, telling Gutierrez

not to insult fellow Democrats.

Gutierrez shot back, telling Schumer, ``Don't raise your

voice.''

[A] few other caucus members made pointed comments toward

Schumer.

Later in the day, Gutierrez tweeted after all that: ``The fight continues in January . . . I think [we] are [all] on the same page.''

Incredible pressure is being mounted the whole time.

There is one more thing I will cite here, and this is from the New Yorker on January 18.

[M]any Democratic activists are demanding that Schumer and

other elected Democrats vote against the G.O.P. spending bill

even at the risk of a government shutdown. . . . On

Wednesday, three protesters from the Dream Action Coalition .

. . were arrested while demonstrating outside Schumer's

office in New York City.

Some Democratic activists and strategists are arguing that

the Party should take its stand now while the stench of

Trump's [alleged you-know-what] comment is still hanging in

the air.

So this is all about political pressure. That is the leverage point, and that is why this is happening. It is untenable. The position they have established is untenable.

Most people in America just wouldn't agree with this. If you are being honest with yourself--I challenge anyone to go into any diner in your State or call 10 people who just kind of follow politics a little bit but are not activists or whatever and ask them: Do you think it is right to shut down the government over an issue that we have until March 5 to fix? Ask them that. Call people and ask them: Do you think it is a smart thing to do to close the Federal Government over an issue that we have another 43 days to address? You know what the answer is going to be; you do. That is why the position they have adopted is untenable, but that tells you the amount of political pressure they are under to do this. This is all motivated by that. This is all motivated by an incredible amount of pressure brought to bear on my Democratic colleagues--in particular, on the Democratic leader--by activists, and it brings us to this point.

By the way, I would also argue that the strategy, in addition to being driven by that, is counterproductive. Yesterday, there was supposed to be a meeting with the White House and congressional leaders from both parties to keep working on this issue of DACA. The Democrats didn't show up, probably because they were too busy dealing with the shutdown. So this isn't making arriving at a deal for DACA easier; it is making it harder.

On this argument that they don't trust--if we don't do this, we can't trust the President is going to do this, I don't think that is true. I think there is a balance of leverage here that exists that almost guarantees something can happen if we want something to happen. So let's begin with facts.

The President of the United States campaigned on a very specific promise, and we know what that promise was. He was going to build a wall and secure the border. The President knows that he needs 60 votes in the Senate. The President knows that he is not going to get a border wall and get increased security unless we do something about DACA. They are well aware of that at the White House, and I think they have said that openly.

What is important to remember, as well, is that there isn't going to be a deal on DACA unless we have a deal on the wall. That is the way our system works. I say that to you as someone who supports a wall and supports dealing with DACA. But as I have already talked about earlier, in this system of government, it is not a zero-sum game. It cannot be ``I get the wall and you get nothing,'' and it cannot be ``We get DACA and even more, and you don't get the wall.'' It is not going to work.

Right now, we have a lot of wasting of time going on, entertaining ridiculous fantasies about what could be achieved here. A bill that creates permanent status under DACA but would allow some future Congress to stop funding the wall isn't going to pass. The President is not going to sign that. Think about it. If you have a wall that takes 10 years to build and you have DACA that is permanent, the next year they don't fund it, DACA stays, and the wall is not there. They are not going to sign that.

A bill that creates a path to citizenship under DACA but then also allows the recipients of that citizenship to use it to bring in their parents who brought them into the country illegally--the President is not going to sign that. That is just reality, and I say this to you as someone who has tremendous sympathy for the young people who were brought here as minors, yes, in violation of the law but through no fault of their own. They didn't commit a crime, and now they find themselves with no legal immigration status.

It would be a mistake, in my opinion, to allow their status to expire without a replacement. There are practical reasons why it would be a mistake. We have spent years and taxpayer money educating them. We would be hurting their employers. These people are working somewhere now, and overnight they can't work there anymore. They might own a business, and you would be hurting the people who work for them. Maybe they are married to a U.S. citizen; you would be hurting a U.S. citizen who is their spouse. Maybe they have children who are U.S. citizens, and these children need those parents. You would be hurting them. These are the practical reasons we shouldn't let it expire.

There are more reasons we shouldn't let it expire. It is immoral to have laws that punish anyone for the mistakes their parents made. It is immoral to deport someone to a country they have never really lived in. You were 2 years old when you came from Honduras, you don't even speak Spanish, you don't know anybody there, and they are going to send you there--it just doesn't feel right.

It is my deepest belief that if DACA expires and 700,000 young adults who have spent the majority of their lives among us are forced to leave this country, I think it would be a dark stain on our history. I think future generations would look back at that and say that was a terrible thing those people did back then. I think we have more support for what I just said in the Republican Party than we have ever had in the 7 years that I have been here.

But I have to be fair and I want to be frank. It is also a mistake to overreach on the other side of this argument. It is fair to argue that we should deal with DACA because it is the moral and compassionate thing to do. It is fair to argue that dealing with DACA is in our national interest, but it is a big mistake to demand a right that does not exist. There is no right to illegally immigrate to any country on the planet. No one has a right to DACA, but dealing with DACA is the right thing to do.

I think it is also overreaching to insist that not only must DACA recipients be accommodated, but we also have to accommodate their parents. Maybe because I personally know so many people under these circumstances, I am personally open to figuring out something that allows their parents to stay, especially if the children are minors. I understand that is not a majority position in my party, and I have to be honest with you that I believe that if we take the position around here that we are not accepting any deal unless it takes care of both the DACA recipient and the parent--if that is the hard position we adopt and people aren't willing to move off of it, I think there may be no deal at all, and that means that neither the recipients of DACA nor the parents will have anything.

By the way, I also think it is overreach to oppose a border wall because you find it symbolically offensive. First, America has a right and, more importantly, a responsibility to protect its borders and enforce its laws. Second, there is not going to be a DACA deal of any kind without a wall, period. Donald Trump is not going to sign, cannot sign, and will not sign a bill that doesn't have real enforcement. That is a fact. That has to happen.

So what is the way forward? Right now, the government is shut down. You won't really notice until Monday, but on Monday people will start to notice. DACA expires 6 weeks from Monday.

So on Monday, if we haven't done anything, the government will be shut down, and we have 43 days to go until DACA. I think we need to fund the government on a short-term basis--maybe it is February 9--and then we spend the next 3 weeks working on an agreement on defense, an agreement on disaster relief, and an agreement on border security and DACA.

For Democrats who are worried they don't have leverage, you have plenty of leverage without shutting down the government. For example, there are two Republicans who oppose short-term spending in general. Then you have several Republican Members who oppose any longer term spending without defense spending increases. In essence, this worry that you have that they are going to fund the government for just 6 months and walk away from DACA--there are at least five Republicans who are going to vote no on that, several because of defense and two because of short-term spending. Then add to that, there are at least three other Republican Members--myself being one of them--who will have a lot of trouble voting for a long-term spending plan that doesn't include disaster relief. That alone gives you leverage to ensure that not only do those issues need to be dealt with, but all three of them would have to be dealt with in order for there to be any long-term deal that forecloses the leverage you want.

You have another piece of leverage: The President needs to fulfill his campaign promise, which Americans supported at the ballot box: Build a wall. He knows he can't do that without a DACA deal. So, really, both sides here have leverage. But as long as the government is shut down, we are wasting valuable time.

Monday could have been a day that people met and hashed out key details of DACA. Instead, Monday will probably be all about the shutdown--and maybe Tuesday and maybe Wednesday. We are wasting time we do not have.

Finally, as for DACA, what is the way forward on that? There are a lot of ideas going around. Here is what I would say to you: The baseline in the core of any agreement is one that basically codifies DACA, in essence, deals with the President's decision to suspend the Executive order on it and funds in a way that can guarantee continued funding the President's immigration enforcement plan. That is the core. You codify DACA, and you do something to ensure that the wall is going to be built and that they can't come back and cancel the funding. Then the Senate can go into an open amendment process and debate any additional matters you want put in there. For example, maybe there is a deal that, instead of codifying DACA alone, it actually creates a pathway to citizenship under DACA, but it eliminates not just DACA applicants but future applicants from being able to sponsor parents. I am not saying that it will pass, but that might be a debate that happens.

Even if you can't reach 60 votes on any of these amendments people are offering, even if all those amendments fail, in the end, you are at least left with a bill that secures our border and gives permanent certainty to close to 700,000 people who currently are registered under

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 1 p.m. on Sunday, January 21; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 195.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I would like to have printed in the Record an article that was published in today's Miami Herald, ``What makes a classroom click? Meet four great teachers who make it happen,'' and recognize the finalists for the annual Miami-Dade County Teacher of the Year contest. I wish them, and all nominated teachers from around the State the best of luck and commend their hard work and dedication to Florida's students.

The material follows:

What Makes a Classroom Click? Meet Four Great Teachers Who Make It

Happen

(By Kyra Gurney)

What's the secret to being a great teacher?

The four finalists for Miami-Dade's annual Teacher of the

Year contest--chosen from the county's roughly 18,000 public

school teachers--have some ideas.

Inspiring students takes passion, hard work and

perseverance, they said. Above all, a great teacher finds a

way to connect with each child as an individual, not as a

test score.

The winner of the 2019 Francisco R. Walker Miami-Dade

County Teacher of the Year will be announced on Jan. 25 along

with the rookie teacher of the year. The awards dinner will

be held at 6 p.m. at the DoubleTree by Hilton Miami Airport &

Convention Center at 711 NW 72nd Ave. The winner will compete

for the state title.

Here are the finalists:

North Region: Molly Winters Diallo, Alonzo and Tracy Mourning Senior

High

Molly Winters Diallo grew up in a family of teachers, so

going into education ``felt like it was the natural route to

take,'' she said.

Her first teaching job was at a private school in the

British Virgin Islands. In the early 2000s, Winters Diallo

moved to Miami because she wanted to teach in the Haitian

community. She spent five years at Miami Edison Senior High

before transferring to Alonzo and Tracy Mourning Senior High,

where she teaches Advanced Placement Human Geography and

Psychology and Honors U.S. History.

Winters Diallo said she encourages every student to take

advanced classes, like the college-level Advanced Placement

courses she teaches.

``I believe that regardless of students' backgrounds, they

should be able to take advanced coursework and they should

see college as an attainable goal,'' she said.

In 2016, Winters Diallo was selected as a Bezos Educator

Scholar--one of 12 teachers chosen nationwide to participate

in a leadership program funded by the Bezos Family

Foundation, which was created by the parents of Amazon

founder Jeff Bezos. As part

of the program, Winters Diallo and a student created ``Branch

Out'' at Alonzo and Tracy Mourning Senior High, an effort

that brings together students from diverse backgrounds who

might not ordinarily socialize. At one ``Branch Out'' event,

students wore masks and wrote how society views them on the

outside of the mask and how they view themselves on the

inside.

``I try to create a welcoming environment for my students

and a safe place,'' Winters Diallo said. ``I want my students

to feel comfortable in my classroom and express themselves.''

Winters Diallo was excited to learn that one of her former

students, Karen Fernandez, won rookie teacher of the year at

Melrose Elementary School in Miami this year.

``This is coming full circle, and it's a beautiful thing,''

she said.

Central Region: Aaron Taylor, Henry E.S. Reeves Elementary

Aaron Taylor was working on a degree in criminal justice

when he started substitute teaching to make some extra money.

At the time, Taylor planned to join the FBI or the Secret

Service after he finished his degree.

But Taylor quickly became a popular sub and before he knew

it, he had a teaching gig lined up for every day of the week.

After seeing him in action, one school principal encouraged

Taylor to become a full-time teacher.

``It was like I had this gift,'' he said. ``I fell in love

with it.''

Taylor went on to get two master's degrees, one in

educational leadership and one in special education, and

certifications in gifted education and English for Speakers

of Other Languages (ESOL).

``You never know what kind of student you're going to get

so I try to prepare myself to deal with all types of

students,'' he said.

Taylor currently teaches fourth-grade reading and language

arts at Henry E.S. Reeves Elementary. He also serves as the

school's site director for the 5000 Role Models of Excellence

Project, a mentoring program for at-risk boys. Taylor

participated in the program when he was a student at Miami

Central Senior High and said it had a positive impact on his

life. Now, he's planning college tours for the students he

mentors.

Taylor said it's important to show each child in his class

that he cares about them. He makes a point of eating lunch

with his students--and not talking about schoolwork.

``They're not just a test score,'' he said. When a student

knows his or her teacher cares, ``everything else follows.''

South Region: Katina Perry-Birts, Florida City Elementary

Katina Perry-Birts didn't set out to be a teacher, but an

experience volunteering in her son's kindergarten class

sparked an interest in education.

`` `Hey, I can do this and impact the students,' '' she

remembers thinking. ``It reminded me what I learned at an

early age about the power of education.''

That was roughly 20 years ago. Perry-Birts first worked as

a substitute teacher for five years before completing her

education degree in 2005. Then she got a job at Florida City

Elementary, where she has taught ever since.

Many of her fourth-grade students face significant

challenges at home, Perry-Birts said. More than 95 percent of

the children at Florida City Elementary are low-income.

Perry-Birts said she tries to instill in her students the

power of change and teach them that they don't have to be a

product of their environment.

In her classroom, the mantra is a Muhammad Ali quote:

``Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men

who find it easier to live in the world they've been given

than to explore the power they have to change it.''

``I embed that in my students,'' Perry-Birts said. ``I tell

my kids that on a daily basis.''

She also works with Real Men Read, a national program that

recruits men from the community to read to students. Recent

guests at Florida City Elementary included a congressional

staffer and a clergyman.

For Perry-Birts, teaching isn't just about learning gains.

She also tries to develop a personal connection with her

students.

``You've got to have a heart and a passion for the kids,''

she said. ``You have to have that passion and if you have

that passion, you can motivate them.''

Alternative Education: Judy Rodriguez, C.O.P.E. Center North

Judy Rodriguez's previous job could not have been more

different. Before she became a Miami-Dade teacher, Rodriguez

worked in the pharmaceutical industry as a quality assurance

auditor, ensuring that batches of medication were safe to

release.

Then Rodriguez had a son and her whole world changed. When

she started looking for a daycare, she came to a frightening

realization.

``It was like an awakening for me that I was going to have

to trust somebody with my child,'' she said.

Rodriguez started teaching business part time for an adult

education program before becoming a full-time business

teacher at Miami Northwestern Senior High. Along the way,

she's carried that realization with her. ``I've always tried

to treat my students as I would want my son to be treated,''

she said.

For the past eight years, Rodriguez has taught at C.O.P.E.

Center North, a school that serves teen moms and pregnant

teens. She currently teaches entrepreneurship, English for

Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and on-the-job training.

``It's extremely challenging, but it's extremely rewarding

because you're impacting two generations simultaneously,''

she said.

The best part about her job, she added, is ``when you

ignite their fire for learning.''

One of her students, a teen mom with a baby, recently

traveled to New York to compete in a national business plan

competition. When the student placed 12th, Rodriguez was

worried that she would feel discouraged. But the experience

had the opposite effect.

``Miss, so now what's next? `Shark Tank?' '' she asked

Rodriguez after the contest, referring to the

entrepreneurship TV show.

``My heart was full because she got it,'' Rodriguez said.

``There's always something next.''

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

Mr. President, as I try to do every year, if time permits--this will be my seventh year in the U.S. Senate; sometimes our work here finishes in a different fashion, but if possible, I try to come on the last day of the legislative year and give a speech to kind of recap the year behind us and outline the challenges of the year ahead.

For me, it was, obviously, an eventful year, a productive one, and I believe it has been one for this Chamber, as well, in what is a unique political environment in which politics today is practiced and covered in ways we have never seen before--almost like entertainment. Nevertheless, it was a year that we got a lot of good things done, and I wanted to highlight some of them in the hope that this gives us momentum into the new year.

This has been my first experience with a new President--obviously, not just a new President but a new administration that brought with it a set of individuals in different positions, so I think for all of us it was a transition in that regard. It also was the beginning of a second term, which, at one time, I didn't know I was even going to pursue.

In arriving here earlier this year and getting to work, we slowly but surely got going on a number of key priorities that we had been working on for a very long time. The first one that happened

was the VA accountability bill. This was a bill that I had been working on for a number of years. It basically gave the Secretary of the VA the power to fire people at the VA who are not doing a good job. It is that simple. It is not anything more complicated than that. It made it easier to fire people who were not doing a good job. They still have due process to defend themselves.

For the better part of 3 years, there were a lot of objections to that proposal from the previous administration and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Then everything lined up this year. Senator Tester and Senator Isakson, who are the ranking member and chairman of that committee, came onboard and really helped to push this and to move it forward. It passed in both Chambers and was signed into law by the President. This was a substantial achievement.

What is interesting about it is that because it was bipartisan, because there was cooperation, and because no one was fighting with anyone on it, it didn't get a lot of press coverage. But it happened, and people need to know about it.

Does it make the VA perfect? No. Are there still challenges that need to be confronted? Absolutely. This is something that has to do with accountability and the ability to get rid of people who were not doing a good job. It is something that, for years, could not get done because someone always objected and found a way to stop it. Then it came together with people working across the aisle to make it happen. Today, it is the law. Today, there are people who were not doing a good job who are no longer employed at the VA, thanks to this. That is an important thing that people need to know.

I always remind everyone that the overwhelming majority of people who work at the VA are doing a good job. The ones who are not are the ones we need to replace.

The year went on, and I had an opportunity to interface and interact with the National Security Council and with the White House on two foreign policy issues that didn't really require legislation but that I am grateful and excited about having the opportunity to help craft.

The first was the new direction on U.S. policy toward Cuba. The previous administration had basically changed our policies toward Cuba--opened it up to much fanfare and, quite frankly, a lot of editorial board excitement.

It was the enlightened position, apparently, to argue that doing more trade with Cuba was going to somehow help Cuba transition to a democracy. But after 2\1/2\ years, it has become apparent that this change has done nothing other than flow more dollars into the hands of that regime and help them in their efforts to normalize.

When President Trump was elected, one of the things he wanted to talk about was what we needed to do to change that relationship back to something that favored the Cuban people and not the Cuban regime. Those changes came about. They were announced earlier this year at an event in South Florida.

To cut to the chase, what it does is this: It says that people can still travel to Cuba. Americans can still go to Cuba as part of a group or as an individual going to support the Cuban people. But if you go to Cuba, whether off a cruise ship, an airplane, or if you are there in support of the Cuban people, you have to spend your money at places that are owned by Cubans--by everyday Cuban people--not by the Cuban military, which is trying to create a monopoly.

For the first time in the history of that tyranny, there is a U.S. policy that places individuals in Cuba--private individuals in Cuba--in a favored position in comparison to the military and the Castro government. I believe this law will slowly but surely pay dividends as it becomes abundantly clear to the small, independent, private sector in Cuba that the reason they are aren't growing--the reason they aren't attracting more customers--has nothing to do with U.S. policy. It is because their own government does not want to allow them to be able to grow their businesses.

The Cuban Government feels threatened by private business, No. 1, because they are Communists and, No. 2, because they don't want people in Cuba to be able to support themselves. They want people to be dependent upon them; that is how they control politically.

We will see what decision the Cuban Government makes in the months and years to come, but here it is abundantly clear that there are people--Americans--who, under our law, can travel to Cuba, can spend money in Cuba, and they will have to stay at an Airbnb or in a private home or even, if the Cuban Government allows it, a hotel that is owned by a private entity. Where they cannot stay is in places controlled by the Cuban military or companies controlled by the Cuban military.

The second foreign policy issue that we were able to get involved in is another tragedy in our hemisphere; that is, what is happening in Venezuela. To cut to the chase, we have a tyrant who is afraid that he won't get reelected. He lost control of the National Assembly, which is their legislative body. His name is Nicolas Maduro. So what does he do? He basically figures out a way to create an alternative Congress called the Constituent Assembly, basically modeled after the fraudulent Cuban constituent assembly-like model. What it basically does is it guarantees that certain sectors in society have seats of representation. Instead of seats in Congress by a district or state, they are represented by different sectors, like labor, electricians, you name it.

But here is the funny part about it: The only people who can run for it are the people they allow to run for it, and they also get to count the votes. As you can imagine, that fraudulent Constituent Assembly basically votes 100 percent in favor of whatever he wants, literally with very little dissent. It is not democratically elected. Meanwhile, the legitimate, democratically elected Congress, to use terms that we use here, has basically been intimidated and stripped of their power. Maduro doesn't allow them to be paid anymore; they don't staff anymore; all sorts of things of that nature.

We encourage the President of the United States to pursue first individual sanctions. We encourage the President to grow the list of individuals in Venezuela who are sanctioned and no longer able to benefit from ill-found gains here in the United States and ultimately to prevent them from continuing to do something they have been doing for far too long.

For far too long, they have been stealing the oil from Venezuela. They are selling it in global markets at a discount. Then they use those--to use rough numbers, they take $1 million worth of oil and sell it for half a million dollars. Then they will take some of that half a million dollars and use it to pay the interest on the debt they already owe. Then the rest of that cash, they use for themselves, and they sprinkle a little bit of it to some of the elites around them just to keep them loyal to the regime. Those are the midlevel or high-level military officials who decide, well, things aren't great in Venezuela, but at least my family is better off than everybody else because we are loyal to the regime.

The President moved to stop that. Today, U.S. entities can no longer trade in these fraudulent, illegal bonds that are stolen from the people of Venezuela. This is a tragic situation. This is not an embargo. This is not economic warfare, which is what Maduro calls it. This, basically, is preventing them from continuing to steal.

I would add one more point to this. I encourage every one of you, if you can, to read an article in the New York Times that appeared last weekend, a pretty extensive series on starvation. Children are literally starving to death in Venezuela. Venezuela is the richest country in the hemisphere, the richest country in South America, in terms of being one of the most oil-rich countries in the world. Venezuela is a nation with a long history of stable economics and even the longest democratic tradition in South America. There are children starving. We see images that we normally associate with other continents at other times in our history--children starving to death in Venezuela. Meanwhile, he looks as though he weighs more than he ever has before, and all the people who surround him in his government are heavier, fatter than they have ever been before. People are starving because of that. It is not because of U.S. policy. It is not because of sanctions. There is no one in

the world, other than his handful of cronies, who would argue that it has anything to do with sanctions. It is because of them, because in addition to being incompetent, they are criminals.

The Venezuelan Government, from the top down and everywhere in between, is filled with narcotraffickers, with people who allow narcotraffickers from Mexico and from Colombia to fly into and use airports in Venezuela to traffic drugs. Just imagine for a moment, in this country, if our elected officials said to certain drug dealers: If you pay us, not only will the DEA not stop you from trafficking in drugs, but they will help you move it. That is what happens in Venezuela. Imagine for a moment if the Department of Defense went to drug dealers and said: If you pay us, not only will we allow your planes to fly, we will tell you what time to take off and we will escort you in our airspace. That is Venezuela--state-sponsored narcotrafficking at every level.

By the way, they offer another service. If you don't pay them, they will tell you: Don't worry, we will arrest the rival drug dealer, but we will protect the ones who pay us.

There are some very wealthy people in that government. In addition to corruption and stealing from the people of Venezuela, they are narcotraffickers. The Vice President of Venezuela is a narcotrafficker, sanctioned by the United States as a drug kingpin, and it goes on from there. The Vice President of the party, who controls their intelligence services--a thug by the name of Diosdado Cabello--is a drug trafficker. The nephews of the President of Venezuela, the nephews of his wife, the First Lady, were just convicted and sentenced last week, in a court in New York, for drug trafficking. By the way, in their testimony, it is all filled with evidence.

I hope in the new year that we can find a way to continue to support the brave people of Venezuela and a better way forward. We would hope, by the way, that even in the Venezuelan Government, even in that fraudulent Constituent Assembly, we would hope that there are people there, like Hugo Chavez, who believed in the stuff he believed in--but they would have to see that this is a disaster, that this incompetent man is destroying their country and starving their children, and that there is no future in the direction they are headed. We hope this situation improves in the years to come.

Senator Cardin was on the floor yesterday discussing this, and I want to reiterate that I hope that early next year, we can move on a bill that we introduced together called the Venezuelan Humanitarian Assistance and Defense of Democratic Governance Act of 2017. This helps address this problem. It puts in place a plan to help with this humanitarian crisis. We need a government that allows us to do it. But knowing that the United States, working with Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Spain, and the European Union--knowing that these countries are ready to step in and help might be an incentive for decent people still left in that government to step forward and begin a process of transition.

It was an interesting year, and one more legislative initiative that we took on was the RACE for Children. It is a pediatric cancer initiative. There are not enough innovations in pediatric cancer when you compare it to adult cancer. This law requires pharmaceuticals to begin testing adult drugs on pediatric populations so that hopefully we can develop more pediatric medicines. I worked on that with Senator Bennet of Colorado. We got it passed and signed into law. Again, it is not something that got a lot of attention because it was bipartisan and not controversial, but it is important. We are proud of the good work we accomplished this year in that regard.

We had hurricanes that impacted Florida not once but twice, first Hurricane Irma and then Hurricane Maria, which struck Puerto Rico and had an impact on Florida as well. Approximately 200,000 U.S. citizens from Puerto Rico have moved to Florida because there is no electricity, because the island had already been hit previously, and because it is facing a financial disaster, and now it got hit by the storm. We were very involved in helping there. In particular, we worked with Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez, who is a true and dedicated public servant to the people of Puerto Rico, No. 1, in getting the right response. It took a little too long for the response to get going, but it finally started moving. But there is still so much to be done. The estimates are that it will be another 8 months before power is restored.

A disaster like that is never good news, but for the first time at least in 7 years, I feel as though my colleagues know more about Puerto Rico than ever before. They understand the challenges it faces because of its unique status. They understand the preexisting challenges it faced before the storm, and they understand what lies ahead.

I don't mean this disrespectfully, but there was a time when people sometimes would talk to me about Puerto Rico as though it were a foreign country. We have to remind them that these are U.S. citizens. On a per capita basis, they volunteer to serve in the Armed Forces as much as or more than anyone else in the United States.

I hope that in the year to come we will redouble our efforts, particularly in disaster relief, to ensure that Puerto Rico doesn't just recover but is rebuilt stronger than ever so that we don't have to continue to revisit this in the future when the inevitable happens, because they will face a storm again.

Of course, just a few days ago, we passed tax reform. Not everybody likes it, but I think more people will as they start to see its true implications. By March of this year, the overwhelming majority of Americans are going to notice that their paychecks are bigger than they were a year ago, and if they didn't get a raise, it will be solely based on tax reform. If I were king for a day, the law would look a little different. But we don't have kings in America; we have a constitutional republic in which making things better is our goal. Sometimes if you get 70 or 80 percent of what you want, that is certainly a victory. Sometimes if you get 50 percent of what you want, that is a victory. Most change in America happens incrementally through our constitutional republic. Every now and then, we can take major steps forward.

Here is the bottom line: America's Tax Code today is better than it was before this bill passed. Do I think we went a little too far in the direction of multinational corporations? Perhaps--not that it is going to hurt the economy. But I thought some of that could have been geared toward working families through a further expansion of the child tax credit. But over all, I do believe it will help grow our economy, and more importantly, I do believe it will leave more money in the hands of Americans to be able to spend it on their families. It is their money. It is not ours.

The best way to look at it is, if I came here and said that I wanted to spend $2 trillion over the next 10 years--borrowed money--to give it to the government so the government could stimulate the economy, there would be a lot of support from the other side of the aisle and from the press. They would call it genius and enlightened for a Republican to think that way. But if we say we want to leave $1.5 to $2 trillion in the hands of the American people and the private sector so they can stimulate the economy instead, it is a disaster and it is irresponsible. It is just a philosophical difference of opinion.

There is a role for government. We must fund it. We have to rebuild our military. We talked about disaster relief. There are important things for government to do. But by and large, a dollar spent by the private sector or by an individual family is going to generate more growth than a dollar spent by the government. We fund government not to grow the economy but to help sustain it and protect it and keep us safe and the food that we eat and the airplanes we travel on and certainly from threats foreign and domestic. Economic growth is a function of the private sector and of individuals, and tax reform helps to achieve it. That alone won't be enough.

One of the singular challenges in America today that we must confront in the new year, hopefully, is the skills gap. It is not just a throwaway phrase; it is the fact that the best paying jobs, the ones that actually pay enough to raise a family and save for retirement-- those jobs require skills that

our schools aren't teaching. Those jobs require skills that millions of Americans do not have. We have to change that. We have to make it easier not just to graduate people at 18 years of age ready to work, we have to make it easier for people at 45 to be able to go back to some sort of school and acquire the skills they need for a better paying job. That will lead to economic growth. That will help fill the 2 million to 3 million unfilled jobs that we cannot find people in this country with the right skills to fill. That is how people get a raise as a part of economic growth, and I hope the new year provides an opportunity for that.

I would add that, in addition to that, the new year will provide us an opportunity to focus on infrastructure, which is critical. My State of Florida is particularly impacted by not just storms but sea level rise in coastal areas, and there are things we can do to mitigate against it. We need to restore the Everglades, and, of course, we need roads and bridges and to improve our infrastructure and airports. Hopefully, we can confront that as we work on infrastructure.

Mr. President, 2018 will be a year that we will deal with the farm bill. I hope action will be taken to reform crop insurance, to ensure that my State's farmers are never in the position they were put in after Hurricane Irma, with neither a reliable safety net, nor a reliable commitment from the Federal Government to step in when Federal programs fail to meet disaster needs.

Next year could be a water resources year, a water year. Again, it is an opportunity for us to do critical things for our infrastructure. In Florida, beach renourishment and intercoastal navigation projects are important not just to our way of life but to our tourism industry. There are harbor dredging projects with the expansion of the Panama Canal. It is important that these things get done next year. They won't get as much controversy or fanfare, but these are critical things that we can do.

Another opportunity next year that we have heard some talk about is the ability to reform the social safety net. On that front, I would say that is an issue that I have pushed for for a very long time. But sometimes when you talk about reform, people think you are coming at it because you want to cut. For me, it is not so much about cutting; it is about improving the way we deliver the same services. How can we use the money we are already spending in the safety net but in a better way?

I believe in the safety net. I actually don't believe free enterprise works unless we have one. People are not going to take risks, people are not going to strive if they think that if they fall, the consequences will be economic devastation. You have to have a safety net to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves--the permanently disabled, the elderly and the like--but you also have to have a safety net for people who have come upon tough times until they can get back on their feet and try again.

But I fear--in fact, I realized long ago--that our safety net programs treat the symptoms of poverty, but they do not cure it. That is why I hope that if and when we tackle the social safety net--and I hope we will in 2018--it will not be so much about cutting as it will be about reorganizing and improving. Yes, we will take care of people in their emergent and immediate needs. But we will also make it easier for you to go back to school and get a degree or a technical certification so that you can find a job and never again rely on the government. If we do that for enough people, it will save us money because fewer people will be on the social safety net. But that should not be the reason we tackle it--not as a cost-saving exercise, but as a way to lift up more Americans.

We are in a global competition, and our chief geopolitical competitor in the economic space in the 21st century will be China. China has over three times as many people as we do, and we have to compete against them. They have 1 billion, and we have 380 million or 400 million people. We are competing against an economy with three times as many people. We need everyone. We are not a nation that can afford economically to leave anyone behind, and we are a nation in which leaving anyone behind would be a betrayal of our founding principles. That is why I hope we will tackle it next year--if we tackle the social safety net--with job training programs.

In a few moments, the Senate will hopefully take up and vote on the continuing resolution. I know everyone is anxious to return to their States and homes for the holiday. I will say that I am disappointed we are leaving here at the end of this year not having taken on a disaster relief bill that I know the people in Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico, and--with the wildfires--out West need. I believe we will confront it in the early part of next year, along with a permanent extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program and other matters.

Next year will bring an opportunity, as well, to deal with things like immigration security, the opportunity to deal with young people brought to this country, through no fault of their own, by their parents who now find themselves here, illegally, in the country. I believe there is a real chance next year to provide them certainty and the ability to stay in this country for the future.

All these things are there, and they will happen in the early part of the year. But, at least when it comes to disaster relief, it is disappointing that we won't be able to do that--largely for legislative strategic reasons, not for policy ones. But I am confident we will deal with it in the early part of next year.

I actually think that in 2018, despite it being an election year, if we allow the momentum that closed out this year to carry over to the new one, we will have a chance to do good things for our country.

In the end, given our differences that exist in this country today, it is hard to imagine we will ever always agree that every idea is a good one, but I hope we can all agree that our job here is to make things better. Sometimes making things better means 1 step forward, and sometimes it means 50 steps forward. But as long as we are moving forward in a pattern of perpetual improvement, I think we should be proud of the work we are doing.

I think, by and large, in 2017, despite the fits and starts, despite the controversies, despite the headlines every morning about the outrage of the day or questions in the afternoon that usually begin with ``How did you feel about the tweet on this or on that?''--despite all those distractions, I think 2017 will go down as a year of consequential improvement, where things happened in this Chamber and in this city that made America better, not worse. On that, I hope we can continue to work.

I wish all the people of Florida, all my colleagues, all the people of this great country and around the world a happy Hanukkah, a merry Christmas, and a happy New Year. I look forward to working together and making things better in the year to come.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President: I wish to pay tribute to a member of my staff, Kris Tande, who is retiring from the Senate at the end of this year. This is not the first time he has retired from public service as retired Navy Capt Ludvig K. Kris Tande spent a career as a naval aviator prior to working for several legislators from the State of Florida.

Captain Tande currently serves as my senior State military director, and I am the fourth Florida Senator to have had Captain Tande help me represent northwest Florida. Starting in 1998, Captain Tande served as regional director for Senator Connie Mack, later serving in the same position for Senators Mel Martinez and George LeMieux. Former Congressman Jeff Miller tapped Captain Tande as his district director from 2001-2005. Captain Tande has served the constituents of Northwest Florida for the past 19 years, a term that notably included the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission, which saw Florida gain vital military missions such as the relocation of 7th Special Forces Group from North Carolina and the standup of multiservice F-35 Joint Strike Fighter training at Eglin Air Force Base. During my time, when our country lost one of its brave troops, Captain Tande helped connect me with the families to whom we owed a great debt. When disaster struck, Captain Tande was instrumental in assisting Floridians adversely affected by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill that resulted in substantial economic damage in northwest Florida.

Former Senator Mel Martinez has this to say about Kris: ``Captain Tande was one of the most valued members of my Senate staff. My service in the Senate came at the beginning of the `War on Terror'. Kris provided me valuable insight into the military issues we were confronting. He particularly helped me to understand the plight of military families impacted by long deployments, and the physical cost of war on our troops. He was much more than a regional representative. He was an integral part of my Senate life. Kris became a friend and trusted advisor and was a genuine pleasure to know. My visits to the Panhandle were always great because of good, cheerful company and a car full of snacks! Captain, enjoy a well-earned retirement and thank you for your many years of dedicated service to our country.''

For many people, this could be considered a full career. For Kris Tande, this was his second act. Captain Tande was designated a Naval aviator in 1970 and subsequently flew 4,000 hours in helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft and deployed on several aircraft carriers. He is a plankowner of the amphibious ship USS Wasp LHD-1. Tande held several commands, most notably as commanding officer Naval Air Station Whiting Field, 1993-1995, in Milton, FL, and commander Training Wing Five (1995). His flight helmet sits in the reconstructed NAS Cubi Point Officers' Club, originally in the Republic of the Philippines, now at the National Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, FL.

As he leaves the service of his country and heads into retirement with his wife of 47 years, J.J., his four children, and six beloved grandsons, I wanted to thank Captain Tande for his service to his country and particularly to northwest Florida. The business, military personnel, veteran and their families who make up so much of the Florida Panhandle will miss this good public servant's steady hand.

Best wishes to Kris and J.J. as they embark on a well-earned retirement.

Mr. President, due to my mother's hospitalization and illness, I must remain in Florida and missed today's vote.

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

Mr. President, this has to do with the child tax credit. We had a debate about it last week. I want to explain to everybody why it is so important that we continue to focus on it. Irrespective of whether we agree with the final outcome and whether the numbers were high enough in the Senate bill--and I continue to believe they were not--they are significantly better than the House position on this matter. I want to explain why.

The loss of the personal exemption hits middle-income families to the tune of about $600. That has to be made up for. If you add to that the fact that over the last 15 years because of inflation, the value of the child tax credit has declined by over $300, that leads you to the conclusion that the break-even point for a child tax credit that deals with the middle-income family hit and the erosion of the value of the credit due to inflation brings you to $1,900. As a result, if you wanted to actually help families be better off than they are today, which is the goal of tax reform, the $2,000 amount in the Senate bill is basically the break-even point, plus $100. The House, unfortunately, in their bill only calls for $1,600.

The first part of this motion to instruct is to ensure that the increase in the child tax credit, to our conferees instructing, be no less. Maybe it is more, but it can be no less than the $2,000 that is in the Senate bill.

The second part, which was the topic of our debate, is the impact on low-income workers or workers in the lower part of the income scale-- firefighters, teachers, police officers, construction workers, welders, home health aides. These are working people, the backbone of our country, the people who have suffered the most over the last 25 or 30 years, as the economy has made some people very profitable but left far too many American workers behind. Their anxieties, their daily concerns, the challenges they are facing really underpin a lot of the anxiety in our country, both electoral, political, and economic. Their primary tax liability is the payroll tax. If you make $40,000 a year, the biggest chunk of the taxes you pay is the payroll tax.

By the way, when I hear people say that people making $40,000 or $30,000 a year don't pay taxes, they are wrong. They pay taxes. They take money out of your paycheck. They paid a tax. It is irrelevant whether it is a payroll tax or an income tax. Those are taxes. When I hear people say that, it is offensive. Working people across the income scale pay taxes. Unfortunately, that is not recognized in a lot of the debates that are going on here about working people.

One of the things the Senate bill does do is it lowers the threshold upon which the tax credit begins to apply from $3,000 to $2,500. Again, not nearly enough, but it is certainly better than the House position. We can't regress on that point.

The second part of this instruction is, it asks the conferees to ensure that the final bill expands benefits so more low-income, low- wage parents and workers will be able to benefit from the child tax credit.

I remain surprised that there is not more consensus to support the reality that we need to do more to help working people in this country, and the child tax credit is one of the best tools to do it. I hope that what comes back from the conference committee is as good as or better than what we put out in the Senate. If it is worse, there are going to be problems.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know by now, we have been working for I believe about a year and a half--certainly throughout this tax reform process--to address the issue of the child tax credit in an effort to increase it. I am grateful that in this process, we have been able to increase the child tax credit to $2,000. That will help a lot of people.

I have been asked by some people: Why isn't that enough? Why aren't you happy with that? The answer is that the people we most want to help are not going to be able to fully use it, and here is why. For them, for people who are making $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000--you are a construction worker; you are a teacher; you are a firefighter; you are a welder; you are a bus driver--the backbone of America's workers-- their main tax liability is their payroll tax. Unless you allow the tax credit to apply fully not just to their income tax--many of whom don't have a high income tax liability but a payroll tax--they are not going to enjoy the full benefit. The result is kind of absurd if you do one without the other. The result is, if you make $500,000 a year and you have enough kids, you can use the whole credit, but if you don't make that much money--if you make, say, $25,000 a year--you won't get nearly as much of the credit even though you have paid the taxes. It kind of doesn't make any sense, right?

We are trying to help people with the cost of raising children by allowing them to keep more of their own money. It is the people who make less who need it the most, and when you only do half of it, which is the $2,000 increase, you only get it half right. So it is good, and there are people who are going to be helped by that, but we could have helped so much more.

The bill we have today, which is before us here and will be before us in a few minutes when there is a substitute provided, cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. A reduction in the corporate tax rate is something that I strongly support because I think it makes America more competitive and, in the process, is going to help a lot of these same people whom

we are trying to help. I know that sounds countercyclical, but it does because when these corporations are able to save money in taxes, many of them will use some of that money to create new jobs and hire more people. That money--some of it will be reinvested and perhaps even flow toward workers in the form of higher wages over time.

These are positive things, so I am not against a reduction of the corporate tax rate. In fact, I ran for President, for the Senate, and for reelection to the Senate on the promise of reducing the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. So 20 percent goes well beyond that. However, in order to be able to pass something that pays for it, because you have to--and people don't know this back home, so I will just kind of explain it--this bill allows us roughly about $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years of spending over revenue. Now, we think that the growth in the economy is going to more than offset that, but for purposes of the rules of the Senate, it has to be within those parameters.

In order for us to offer an amendment that provides an increase in the child tax credit at a rate that we want to do it--about $86.9 billion--we have to find $86.9 billion somewhere in order to be able to do it. Initially, instead of cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 to 20, we proposed cutting it from 35 to 22. It is still a massive cut. It is still well below the international average of 23. It still puts us in third place among the seven largest economies in the world. But that was met with significant resistance.

We have always said that we would be open to an additional way or a different way of doing it, so today when the substitute amendment is offered, we are going to offer an amendment, Senator Lee and I. Instead of 22 percent, it is going to propose that we reduce the corporate tax from 35 to 20.94 percent. Basically, instead of a 15-percent reduction, it will be a 14.06-percent reduction, OK? The difference between what is in the bill and what we are proposing is less than 1 percentage point of reduction in the corporate tax rate--0.94 percent. With less than that 1 percent difference, we can make a huge difference in the lives of millions of Americans making between $20,000 and $50,000, as an example. That would generate about $87.4 billion, and we could use $86.9 billion of it to allow working families with children to keep more of their own money to pay for the costs of raising their children. I will remind you of who these people are. These are teachers, firefighters, welders, construction workers, truck drivers--the working class.

We didn't even have to do that, to be frank. From last night to today, the leadership and those working on this--and they have worked very hard--found an additional approximately $260 billion to cut even more taxes for businesses. I have no problem with that. I want America to be super competitive. But somehow, through some political jiujitsu or some sort of magical formula, $260 billion appeared to provide even further cuts, and that is fine. I just wish that some of that jiujitsu and political magic had been employed on behalf of the millions of Americans making between $20,000, $50,000, and $60,000 a year because they need our help.

What has been the opposition to this? Frankly, some of it is untrue. Some of it is offensive. Some of the opposition I have heard is that the people who would benefit from this tax cut don't pay taxes. They don't pay income tax or a lot of income tax, but they pay tax. If at 5 o'clock today you left your job as a construction worker and you received your paycheck, they took money out of your paycheck. When they take $200 out of your paycheck, it doesn't matter if it says FICA or if it says income tax withholding; it is $200. It is the same money, and you have $200 less of it. That is a tax. Anytime the government takes your money, it is a tax.

I have had people tell me, including people in the administration, that they don't pay taxes. I have had people say that they don't generate economic growth, which is, in my mind, No. 1, not true, and No. 2, the wrong way to think about it. You see, our economy should be working for our people, not our people for our economy, and when you talk that way, you have it wrong.

I also disagree that they don't generate growth because when you make $50,000, you spend every penny that you make. I know these people. I live in West Miami, FL, and West Miami is a small, little city. It is three-quarters of a square mile. I have lived there since 1985. The average income is $38,000 a year. If you make $38,000 a year, you spend every penny, especially if you are raising children.

I do not care how much people tell you to put some money aside and save it for the future; you cannot because everything costs more and there are unexpected costs. You bought brandnew shoes in September for school, and by November they either have a hole or they no longer fit. You bought them a backpack in August for back-to-school, and by November or December, it has a hole in it or something broken and you have to pay for it. Costs constantly come up that you haven't anticipated.

Where do they spend this money? In our economy. So, yes, maybe they don't generate as much growth as a Fortune 500 company, but they have to spend every penny of it, so they do generate growth.

I have even heard terms used like ``It is a black hole'' and ``It is welfare.'' It is not welfare; it is their money. I heard one newspaper editorial say that it is anti-work. How could a tax credit that you can't get unless you are working be anti-work? I will tell you what is anti-work: a package of benefits from the government that you get-- which is worth more than this tax credit--that you are eligible for if you don't work.

I want you to tell the worker at a Head Start facility--think about this. You are a teacher at a Head Start pre-K, and you make too much money for your children to go to Head Start, but you don't make enough to be able to afford child care for your own kids. That is happening all over this country, and somehow there are black holes that we can't even find $86.9 billion to help them just a little bit more.

The second argument we have heard is that we can't cut the corporate tax rate because it is going to hurt growth. OK. You are telling me that if we have a corporate tax rate that goes from 35 percent to 20.94 percent, that is going to hurt growth. Twenty percent is the most phenomenal thing we have ever done for growth, but if you add 0.94 percent to that, it is a catastrophe. We are going to lose thousands of jobs. Come on--especially when you add that to the fact that they are going to be able to immediately expense their investments, when you add that to the fact that they are going to repatriate money abroad to the United States with the lower tax rates. When you add all the things that we have done, argue all you want, but don't please don't tell me that 0.94 percent is going to somehow lead to less economic growth because it is just not true.

We are going to have a vote later today. I don't know how many votes they are going to make us have in order to pass this; there are all kinds of procedural things that happen here. But I can tell you that this is about a lot more than just tax reform. We have a big problem that perhaps this tax reform debate has revealed; that is, the only way forward in this country is one that is pro-worker and pro-growth, and you cannot have one without the other. I can tell you that in this country today, there are millions and millions of people who have been hurt by the new economy. The new economy is great. There is nothing we can do to turn it back. The future is here, and you cannot go back to the past.

We should embrace the new economy. It has created extraordinary wealth for people who are innovators or people who have the right careers or right jobs. I don't begrudge it. I am glad that it is happening. But when you have a new economy, just as when we had the Industrial Revolution, there are some people who are going to be hurt and we have to help them in that transition because if we don't help them, we are going to break the social compact that holds our Nation together. I am not claiming that the child tax credit will solve that problem by itself. I am telling you that if we aren't even willing to do another $86 billion of allowing people to keep their own money--not even willing to do something as small as this--we are not willing to do anything for working people in this country, and that is a big problem. That is

an enormous challenge for our Nation. These people have felt neglected and disrespected for a long time.

I want to be very careful, but I want to be clear about what I am saying. The political debate in America today is either all about helping the very poor--and I support the safety net. I don't think free enterprise works without a safety net. It should be there to help people who cannot help themselves, to help people stand back up on their feet and try again. The political debate is also all about helping the business community, and I support that because we need vibrant economic growth to create jobs and opportunity.

But what about everyone else? What about the people who make $50,000 a year? They make too much money for CHIP, for pre-K paid for them by the government through Head Start, for ObamaCare subsidies, too much for government benefits, but they don't make nearly enough to afford the cost of living. What about them? What is in it for them?

Yes, there is going to be economic growth and there are going to be wage increases, but not for everyone, not in this new economy in which the haves and have-nots are largely divided between those who have the right skills and right degrees and those who do not, and that has gone unaddressed for a very long time. I am telling you, if we do not address it, we leave our Nation vulnerable to two dangerous political extremes--radical socialism on the left and ethnic nationalism on the right--and neither of them are true to the American principles that created the greatest Nation on Earth.

Again, I am not here to tell you that the child tax credit solves that problem. I am here to tell you that if we can't even do that, it is evidence of our unwillingness to do beyond it the tasks that need to be done. We have a major challenge in this Nation. All we are asking for and all I implore my colleagues to vote for--I know that for people on the other side of the aisle, this doesn't go far enough. I understand it; I do. I know you want to get to a higher number; I know you want it to apply to more people. I promise you, I did too. I wanted it to be $2,500. I am trying to figure out in this constitutional Republic, which cannot be a zero-sum game, how we can make things better if we do not make them perfect.

And on the other side of the aisle, I implore my colleagues to believe that this is not a black hole, and this is not welfare. These are the teachers, firefighters, neighbors, and friends who are struggling because everything costs so much more. Why can't we just help them keep a little bit more of their own money? Really, is a 20.94 percent corporate tax rate going to hurt growth, especially if it will help us provide a little bit more assistance for the people who, today, desperately need our help?

I hope I can earn the support of as many of my colleagues as possible. It won't make this bill perfect. It doesn't go far enough for some, but it will make it better.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this amendment would allow people making primarily between $20,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year--workers, firefighters, police officers--to keep more of their own payroll tax liabilities. In a moment, there will be a point of order, and the objection to this has been budgetary. This is paid for. Instead of cutting the corporate rate to 20 percent, it cuts it to 20.94 percent. Instead of a 15-point cut, we are asking for a 14.06 cut. Apparently, American corporations at 20 percent, America will be a corporate utopia, but at 20.94, it is a catastrophe. That is ridiculous. Voting against this today you are basically arguing that a 0.94 cut is something corporations can't afford, and that is more important to keep in place than giving American families an $800 child tax credit. That is ridiculous.

Apparently, American companies are allowed to immediately invest their investment in equipment and in land, but American parents should not be allowed to immediately invest their hard-earned money in our children and in our future. I ask all of you to fight for the American worker. This isn't perfect, but it is better than what we have now, and I ask everyone for your vote.

Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it would surprise my friend to know that in Florida we have a lot of people on Medicare and Social Security.

One of them is my mother. If I were to cut her Medicare and Social Security, sir, I probably would never be able to see her again or go home. So the answer to your question is no.

As I have been clear time and again, I believe that for future generations, like mine, there need to be adjustments made.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. President, just for clarification for the Senator from Vermont, I didn't speak to a group of people from Wall Street. I spoke at a POLITICO breakfast--POLITICO magazine, newspaper, whatever it is. I didn't know it had anything to do with Wall Street.

The second point that I would raise on this topic is, this is not a debate on Social Security or Medicaid--which I am happy to have. It is an important program. I think if you are 50 years of age or older and near retirement or in retirement, there are not going to be any changes to that program. I think if you are 46 or 36 or 26, you should be worried that there won't be Social Security or Medicaid if it continues on its current track. That is an important debate, and I hope we will have it.

But I want to talk today about something different, and that is the child tax credit. Yesterday, Senator Lee and I announced a plan that would expand it and make it fully refundable against payroll tax to help working families across this country, and it has been the subject of pretty significant criticism from some, including--the Senator from Vermont would be interested in hearing this--the Wall Street Journal, which editorialized against it today. So I want to address some of those criticisms because I think many of them are just not valid. They are all invalid, but a couple are actually disrespectful to American workers.

Here is the first one that is not valid: We have already expanded the child tax credit to $2,000, and that is enough.

Well, it is not enough, and here is why. Most families who make between $20,000 and $50,000 don't really benefit from that expansion. They don't make a lot of money, so they don't owe a lot in income tax, which is what the additional expansion in the child tax credit applies against. Since most of the $2,000 child credit applies only to income tax and their primary liability is payroll tax, they get nowhere near the $2,000 benefit.

The cost of raising a child is not any cheaper for a family making $40,000 than it is for a family making $200,000, and I would argue the family making $40,000 needs the credit more than the family making $200,000. Yet somehow we have a provision in which the family making more gets more for their children than the family making less. That makes no sense.

The second thing I heard today--and I hadn't heard this one before-- is that this is actually a negative tax; that people aren't just getting their taxes phased out, they are actually getting money on top of it. That is false because our plan is limited to your tax liability. You can't get any more credit than what you paid in taxes. If you owe $1,200 in taxes, the most your credit can be is $1,200. It can't be above and beyond your tax liability.

The third one I have heard from a number of people is that this is welfare. This one is false. To call the child tax credit welfare is downright disrespectful to the American worker. Who are the people who would benefit from this? Let me tell you who they are: truckdrivers making $36,000 a year, welders making $39,000 a year, construction workers making $43,000 a year, firefighters making $48,000 a year. These are not freeloaders. This is not welfare. This is their money. These are people who are working and make too much to get welfare from the government, but they aren't paid enough to afford many things in life. This would be, for example, about 8.5 million working families who make between $20,000 and $50,000--if this graph lines up--of an average cut of $800, which is not a lot of money, but it is $800 more than what they have now if we were to expand it in this way.

I alluded to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal that I generally agree with on most topics. They have never liked this child tax credit debate or idea. They claimed this provision is anti-work. That isn't just false, it is ridiculous. You can't get the child credit

if you are not working. You can't apply it against payroll tax unless you have payroll taxes off your paycheck. How can a tax credit that you can only get if you are working be anti-work? That is not just false, it is ridiculous.

The fifth argument is about the corporate rate. Our corporate rate is 35 percent. We proposed to cut it to 22 percent. Somehow, unless it is 20 percent, it is going to be a catastrophe for the American economy. That wasn't the case a few years ago. I campaigned for President and for U.S. Senate on a 25-percent corporate tax rate, and everybody said that would lead to growth.

In 2014, Americans for Tax Reform, the group led by Grover Norquist, called for a 25-percent rate. It said a corporate income tax rate from 35 to 25 is badly needed. It moves the U.S. rate closer to the developed nation average, and it would help with growth. The Senate Finance Committee international tax bipartisan working group called for 25 percent. The Heritage Foundation in 2010 called for 25 percent. The National Association of Manufacturers in 2014 called for 25 percent. Speaker Ryan's Path to Prosperity 2013 budget called for 25 percent. The Alliance for Competitive Taxation called for 25 percent. I am saying 22 percent.

By the way, this argument ignores all the other things that are in place--immediate expense, repatriation, all sorts of other things. It is not just the 13-percent tax cut or 15-percent tax cut, it is all the other things that come with it. By the way, if there is a better way to pay for what we are trying to do, we are open to it.

I will yield, as long as it doesn't count against my time.

That has been the gold standard for a significant period of time. That is what I campaigned on. That is a promise I made, and I want it to be even lower than that, at 22 percent. By the way, if there is a better way to pay for what I am trying to do here, I am open to that.

I want to make two more points of criticism. We already have too many people not paying income tax. This would create even more. In essence, it narrows the base. First of all, to the extent this credit takes people off the tax rolls at all, it isn't forever. It is until their children turn 17.

The second argument--and I actually agree with this--is what we are doing here is going to make us more competitive in the world, and that is going to lead to economic growth. That is not just going to create more jobs, it is going to create pay. We have been told by the White House economists, by the Finance Committee, by multiple different experts that we can expect to see real wage growth, on average, up to $4,000.

If you are going to be raising wages, then you are going to have people graduating to higher tax brackets or into the income tax range. In essence, what the people who make this argument are saying is, for purposes of economic growth and revenue, this is going to be dynamic, and it is going to grow the economy. I agree with that, but for purposes of the child tax credit, a bunch of people are not going to get pay raises. They are going to get stuck where they are today, and they will never pay income tax.

It can't be both. It is either one or the other. I believe it is growth. I believe there are people making $50,000 now that one day may make $55,000 or $60,000 and continue to move up. By the way, once their kids turn 17, the credit goes away.

The last argument, that it is not pro-growth, it is not stimulative. I know economists struggle to quantify it. I believe it is stimulus. Do you know what teaches me that? Not an economist or some book I read, real life teaches me this. Here is why. If you make $50,000 or $40,000 a year, and you get $800 back in your taxes, do you know what you are going do with that money? You are not going to put it under your mattress or in a coffee can and bury it in your backyard. You are going to spend that money. You are going to buy your kids clothes, shoes, and Christmas gifts. You may even be able to spend an extra day on vacation. You are going to spend it at the very businesses and into the very economy we are going to try to grow.

People making $50,000 a year consume almost all of the money they make. They are going to spend it on their children, but they are also going to spend it into the economy. If you believe that leaving more money in the hands of businesses leads to growth--and I do. I also believe that leaving more money in the hands of families leads to economic activity, and that is a positive thing.

The reason I am so passionate about it is--and I will close with this--I think one of the things we have been missing for too long is the working men and women of this country who have been hurt badly by the economic restructuring that we are going through--automation, outsourcing, and all sorts of changes in the American economy.

I think about my parents who worked in the service sector. Thirty years ago, as a waitress, as a bartender, and as a maid, my parents were able to afford to own a home. You know for a fact that at least in Miami, FL, today, a bartender and a maid will struggle to own a home, not to mention afford the things that people need to afford living there.

We need to do something to help people because they are being left behind. This new economy is great for a lot of people with the right degrees and the right industry, with the right skills. We are leaving millions of people stuck, and no one fights for them because they don't have a lobbyist, they don't have a trade association, and they don't have a newspaper that editorializes for them. We need to fight for them too. Leaving them a little bit more of their money that they earned by working is not too much to ask. We need a pro-growth and a pro-worker tax reform, and that is what we endeavor to do.

I hope I can get, when the time comes to offer that amendment, the support of as many of you as possible. This will not make life perfect, but for hard-working families, firefighters, and construction workers, whatever little more we can let them keep is more than what they have now, and it is going to make their lives and their children's lives better than it is today. Ultimately, isn't that what we are here to do?

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, I hope that in tax reform, we will try to do what we should do in all of our policies; that is, come up with ideas that are both pro-growth and pro-worker.

There are a lot of good things in this tax bill, but we need to make it better. We can make it more pro-growth and more pro-worker. Senator Lee from Utah and I have a plan that helps us move in that direction. I will describe it briefly, and I want him to have the opportunity to weigh in on this as well.

On the pro-growth side, it is about becoming more globally competitive, and we do so by lowering the current corporate tax rate. The current corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent; we would reduce that to 22 percent. Now, the current bill has it at 20, but 22 percent is just as competitive as 20. Here is why. Just like the current bill, it would be lower than the global average rate of 23 percent. Just like the current bill, it would move us from last place to third place among the G7 countries. So it is just as pro-growth. It makes us just as competitive, but it allows us to do the pro-worker reform that we desperately need.

Here is what it allows us to do. It allows us to change the child tax credit in the current bill to help working families even more. No. 1, it would make it fully refundable up to the amount you pay in payroll tax. No. 2, it would eliminate the marriage penalty, meaning you pay more in taxes if you are a married couple than you do if you are an individual. No. 3, it would index the tax credit to chained CPI, which basically means that as inflation grows and the cost of living goes up, the credit doesn't lose its value because it doesn't go up.

The one thing I want to emphasize is, Who does this help? I have had some people in the past and even today ask: Why are you doing this? This is like welfare.

I find that offensive. I find it offensive not because I am offended by people who need the help and are in the safety net program because they have come upon difficult times but because the people we are trying to help are not on government assistance. They are workers. You have to work to get this credit. In essence, the credit applies against their tax liability, be it payroll tax or income tax. A lot of people who are working don't make enough money to be paying a lot of income tax, but they pay up to 15.3 percent of what they make in payroll tax. It is their primary tax liability, and if you don't allow the credit to apply toward that, you are not helping them.

Who are they? Who are the kinds of people we are talking about? In essence, who are these workers? Well, this chart tells you who they are. They are the waitresses making about $20,000 a year. They are not fully benefiting from this credit right now. If we do it the way Senator Lee and I are talking about doing it, they would. They are the home health aides. They are the office clerks. They are the welders making $35,000 a year. They are the truckdrivers. They are the nurses. They are the firefighters making $48,000 a year. These are working people, the backbone of our country, the ones who have been left behind for over three decades because no one fights for them. They have been ignored and disrespected in our public policy, and they are not accounted for in this bill. They are raising families, our future taxpayers. It costs money to raise a family. The more children you have, the more expensive it is. Our Tax Code should recognize that, and we make a reasonable proposal in that regard.

Now I would like to turn to Senator Lee and ask him to expound on the importance of this for America's workers and why, if we are truly going to have a pro-worker reform, the expansion of the child tax credit and applying it toward the payroll tax the way we have described is essential.