Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 169 (Thursday, October 19, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 169 (Thursday, October 19, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6593-S6630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2018

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H. Con. Res. 71, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 71) establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2018 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2019 through 2027.

[[Page S6594]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:45
a.m. will be equally divided between the managers or their designees.
The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 1302 to Amendment No. 1116

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1302 as provided
for under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment
numbered 1302 to amendment No. 1116.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the reconciliation instructions relating to tax
reform)

After section 2002, insert the following:

SEC. 2003. MODIFICATION TO RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS.

Section 2001(a) and 2002(a) are null and void.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, later this morning, the
Senate will be voting on the amendment I am offering to strike what are
known as reconciliation instructions from the budget proposal.
The reason I will be focused this morning on that is that it is
absolutely key that we pass this amendment in order to get bipartisan
tax reform. The fact is that reconciliation is an on-ramp to the most
partisan process around, and the history of successful tax reform is in
our working in a bipartisan way. For example, that is what the late
President Reagan worked to do in 1986 with a whole host of Democrats,
and they came up with a lot of very important, bold, progressive ideas.
They chose to actually treat income from a wage in the same way as one
would treat income from investments so as to send, in one fell swoop, a
message that working-class people would get a fair shake, that the tax
law was not about the 1 percent back then but that it was about
working-class people. The middle class drives 70 percent of the
American economy. They were not talking about massive tax handouts to
big corporations and the wealthy; they were talking about the fact
that, in our country, economic success is built around a thriving
middle class--a middle class that can buy homes and cars and educate
kids and pay for essentials.
What troubles me so much about these reconciliation instructions that
would allow for a $1.5 trillion net tax cut is that it is just the
opposite of the kind of approach that Ronald Reagan and the Democrats
used in 1986. It is going to polarize us rather than bring us together.
I think that is particularly important right now, given the meeting
that was held at the White House yesterday that I attended along with a
number of Democratic colleagues on the Finance Committee, because at
that meeting Democrats made it very clear to the President of the
United States that we think that the Tax Code is broken, that it is a
broken, dysfunctional mess. We described the letter we sent that lays
out our principles that tax reform should focus not on the 1 percent
but on the middle class and not savage Medicare and Medicaid and Social
Security, which are our essential retirement programs.
What was striking about the discussion was that the President said: I
agree with you on all of those things. He said: Tax cuts should not go
for people like me. I want help for the middle class, and I don't want
to cut Medicare and Social Security. I made the point--I hope
respectfully, Mr. President. I said: Unfortunately, there is a big gap
between the administration's rhetoric on this and the reality of what
is really on paper. That is why it is so important that we strike these
reconciliation instructions and make it clear from the get-go that we
are going to get tax reform right, that we are not just going to kind
of utter these sort of sound bites and rhetorical plights and speeches,
as the discussions go out from various administration officials, and we
actually focus on what it is going to take to do bipartisan tax reform.

The President agreed with the principles that Democrats talked about
yesterday. It is very different when you see it on paper, and I want to
talk a little bit about what is actually on paper.
First, the Trump tax plan creates a massive new loophole, the Grand
Canyon of all loopholes, by twisting and abusing what is known as tax
passthroughs. It used to be that the tax passthrough was for a store or
a restaurant or a garage. You see them all over Oregon. You see them
all over America. Those are the people for whom we ought to be working
together to give a boost to. That is not what is on paper. What is on
paper is very different, and it is very different than what the
President said yesterday he wanted.
For example, on paper is a new loophole that would allow tax cheats
to self-declare as passthroughs, rake in income, and pay a much lower
rate. It is a tax change that is deeply slanted toward what I call the
top of the top--not just the 1 percent but the top of the top. Eighty-
eight percent of the benefits of this kind of passthrough rate cut
would go to those at the very top, according to recent analyses, the
top 1 percent and those even more affluent. It opens the door for tax
cheats to dodge paying into Social Security and Medicare like every
hard-working wage earner in America. This would leave a lot of those
programs that are lifelines for working families a lot worse off than
they are today and that, too, is something the President said he didn't
want.
Next, apropos again of the most affluent the President said he didn't
want to help, is the estate tax. Here, there is a proposal in the
administration's plan to abolish the estate tax. Let's make sure
everybody understands who is affected by that. The tax today touches
estates worth more than $11 million, $5.5 million for a single
individual--a tiny fraction of all the estates in the country.
Eliminating the estate tax isn't a policy change that has anything to
do with helping the middle class. It is entirely about helping the
megawealthy--exactly the people the President told us yesterday he
didn't want to help.
The Finance Committee Democratic staff put out a report last week
that looked at some of the worst schemes and dodges that are used by
the megawealthy to avoid paying estate tax. There is a cottage industry
of crafty lawyers and accountants who have made careers out of gutting
the estate tax by engineering billion-dollar tax shelters for the 1
percent. So the estate tax is already full of loopholes, but this
administration isn't interested in closing them even after the Treasury
Secretary, Mr. Mnuchin, admitted just the other day that it goes mostly
to the people at the very top.
So there is a common thread in these proposals. There is a common
thread in this debate that is driven by partisanship and
reconciliation, which is why I want to strike those instructions. What
is actually on paper--not what is said in the speeches or in sound
bites and the like--is that the Republican plan doesn't close the most
egregious loopholes. It enshrines them as permanent features in our tax
law. That is contrary to what the President said he wanted to do, and
it certainly isn't a tax recipe focused on the middle class.
One of the individuals who has been most out in front of the cameras
selling the Trump tax plan to the public is the Treasury Secretary. A
few weeks ago, the Secretary doubled down on the failed experiment that
tax cuts pay for themselves. Forget the history that shows that isn't
true. Secretary Mnuchin said the Trump tax cuts will not just pay for
themselves, they will raise an additional trillion dollars in revenue
on top of their own costs. The fact is, there is no magical growth
fairy, no unicorns, no kind of growth fairies that are going to somehow
spring to life if this tax cut plan becomes law, but Secretary Mnuchin,
our Treasury Secretary, keeps going back to the unicorns, keeps going
back to rainbow economics.
What is striking is, I asked the Republican economist--the economist
chosen by our friend and distinguished chairman Orrin Hatch--who came
before the Finance Committee the other day about whether tax cuts pay
for themselves, and the Republican economist chosen by the Republicans
on the Finance Committee, those Republicans' economist acknowledged
that tax cuts don't pay for themselves.
There have been some other whoppers about the Republican plan, at
least what is again written down on paper. Secretary Mnuchin said it is
very hard not to give tax cuts to the wealthy with tax cuts to the
middle class. That is one stunner of a statement: It is very hard not
to give tax

[[Page S6595]]

cuts to the wealthy. In the same interview, he delivered what sounded
like a real ultimatum; that if the Congress doesn't pass this plan so
tilted to the megawealthy, oh, boy, it is going to be tough times on
Wall Street. You have to appreciate the eye-popping honesty, but the
ideas behind what the Treasury Secretary is talking about on tax reform
pretty much leave your jaw on the floor. If that is where the
administration has trained its focus, as far as tax reform is
concerned, the middle class is in tough straits.
In my judgment, this is yet another reason the Senate should reject
using reconciliation for taxes and support my amendment. The fact is,
the Congress has never used reconciliation to write a comprehensive tax
reform bill. There is a template for comprehensive tax reform that has
been proven to work, and I have mentioned it already. It is the one
initiated by President Reagan, a big group of Democrats, a culmination
of years of bipartisan work. What we saw was real bipartisanship, which
I define as not taking each other's bad ideas but taking each other's
good ideas. The bill was considered under regular order, it was debated
in the Finance Committee and on the Senate floor for months, and it was
open to unlimited amendments and passed the Senate by a vote of 97 to
3. That is the kind of bipartisan process we would like to see.
Democrats have made it clear, and we made it clear again yesterday,
that we think the Tax Code is broken, that we have heard the
President's comments about how he wants to help the middle class and
not the wealthy, that he understands how strongly we feel about
protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but the fact is--
and this is the heart of the challenge--there is a big gap right now
between what the President says his priorities are and what is actually
written down on paper. That is the challenge, and we are not going to
be able to address that challenge, in my view, by signing up for more
partisanship, for taking the most partisan route on tax reform.
What we ought to be doing is saying that we all agree the Tax Code is
broken; we all understand the key is helping the middle class, not more
handouts for the top of the top, the 1 percent; that we are sensitive
to long-term costs because we don't want to pass those off to our
children. Doing that is best going to be accomplished by saying that as
we move now to the actual consideration of tax reform, we reject
partisan approaches like reconciliation, and we come together. I know
we can do it.
The fact is, what the President says when he speaks about this
subject is in line with the principles in the Democrats' letter. What
we have talked about doesn't even go as far as what President Reagan
did in 1986. What is in the Democrats' letter tracks a bipartisan piece
of legislation that several colleagues here have been part of,
including one in the President's Cabinet now.
We can do bipartisan tax reform that is good for our country. We
shouldn't make it a lot harder to accomplish that goal by including
these partisan reconciliation instructions in the budget proposal. That
is why I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to strip these
reconciliation instructions when we vote on my amendment later in the
morning.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use leader
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Healthcare

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, on healthcare, my two good friends
Senators Alexander and Murray have constructed a good, fair, bipartisan
agreement that gives us a way forward on healthcare. It will offer
stability in the markets, and it will help lower premiums.
We have seen President Trump's near-constant equivocation on the
agreement. We shouldn't let it impede the progress of this very
important bipartisan compromise. He is for the bill one day, against it
the next. That is not uncommon; the President sometimes is for and
against something in the same sentence. We can only hope he comes
around again once he grasps what is in the bill.
The Alexander-Murray deal is not a bailout to the insurance companies
at all; it is the opposite. We have taken pains to ensure that
insurance companies do not reap any benefits from this program. That is
what Alexander and Murray have done. They have explicit provisions in
the bill to ensure that the cost-sharing program does what it is
intended to do: Lower premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs
for Americans who can least afford it.
I was reading an article this morning where they interviewed a
retired manufacturing worker in Pennsylvania who was upset by the
President's decision. The man said:

It seems like he is trying to hurt the middle class. . . .
He [President Trump] says he's going to make it better for
everyone. How does a (premium) increase make it better?

That is the question the President should ask himself. Ending cost-
sharing hurts people, not insurance companies. Restoring cost sharing
will help people, not insurance companies. Senators Alexander and
Murray have made sure of it. I have talked to them about their
language. It is good language, well intended. Maybe we can make it
better. If the President has a suggestion, we welcome it, but as it is,
it is pretty strong.
Well-intentioned Members on both sides should continue to sign their
names onto this bill. I believe it has significant support within my
caucus, and if Leader McConnell puts it on the floor of the Senate, I
am pretty certain it would pass.
I urge my Republican colleagues to take a good, hard look at the bill
and to cosponsor it. So many of my Republican friends have said: Why
can't we be more bipartisan? This is a bipartisan agreement. It wasn't
one party coming up with something and telling the other to be for it,
as too often happens in this Chamber. It was done together by the chair
of the HELP Committee and the ranking Democrat of the HELP Committee.
It is truly bipartisan, and it is a good way for us to go forward and
set a metaphor for future bipartisanship.
Mr. President, now on the budget, today the Senate will vote on more
amendments to the GOP budget resolution, which increases deficits by
$1.5 trillion, slashes Medicare and Medicaid by $1.5 trillion, and sets
up this awful, partisan process--the same one our Republican friends
used in healthcare.
The Democrats could have offered an unlimited number of amendments on
the bill, but this bill is so bad that we didn't want to be all over
the lot. We wanted to focus on a few issues where we know the American
people are overwhelmingly with us, not with the language in the bill.
Here is some of what we are doing.
We are going to make our colleagues say that they want to vote to
increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion. After 8 years of crowing about
debts and deficits under a Democratic President, the Republican deficit
hawks seem to have flown the coop. This budget is going to increase the
deficit by $1.5 trillion. Our amendment would say: No, it should be
deficit neutral. We have heard that for the last 8 years. Whenever a
spending program comes about, I know our side says that spending
programs grow the economy; their side says that tax cuts grow the
economy. But if there is going to be an actual deficit, we should vote
for it. Put your convictions where your votes are.
We are also going to make our Republican colleagues vote on whether
they want to raise taxes on the middle class. The President claims that
his tax plan will cut taxes, but it actually will raise them on
millions of hard-working families. Today our Republican colleagues will
decide whether they want to support those tax increases or protect the
middle class from paying more taxes.
We are going to make our Republican colleagues vote on their specific
proposal to eliminate the State and local deduction. Nearly one-third
of all taxpayers take the deduction--red States,

[[Page S6596]]

blue States, everyone in between. As the chairman of the Finance
Committee knows, 35 percent of Utahns take the State and local
deduction. It goes right to the heart of the middle class and upper
middle class, giving families tens of thousands of dollars in
deductions so taxes are lower. The elimination of State and local
deductibility is a sure sign that the Republican tax plan does not
favor the middle class.
In fact, AP reported yesterday that, according to experts, the GOP
tax plan may still allow corporations to claim State and local
deductibility but not individuals. Did you hear that? Corporations can
claim it, but individuals can't. Isn't that backward? It shouldn't be
taken away from either one. What the GOP plan takes away from
individuals and families, it makes sure remains for big corporations.
So today Democrats will ask our Republican friends to vote on our
amendment, led by Senators Cantwell and Van Hollen, to protect State
and local deductibility for middle-class families.
Senator Capito has an alternative amendment that is incredibly vague
and leaves the door open to eliminating State and local. It doesn't say
it will, but it leaves it open. That is why a coalition of groups,
including the National Governors Association, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, and organizations representing firefighters, teachers, and
sheriffs have just come out against Senator Capito's amendment.
Senator Cantwell and Van Hollen's amendment, by contrast, is crystal
clear: no elimination of State and local. I hope my Republican friends
won't vote to raise taxes on so many of their middle-class residents.
Mr. President, finally, every morning I hear my friends the majority
leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee talk about the need
for tax reform because the middle class is stuck in a rut and the
economy isn't working the way it should for American families. I agree
with that assessment. We need to do more to grow the economy, create
jobs, raise wages, and put money in the pockets of average Americans,
but when you hear the details of the plan they have to solve those
problems, your head spins. Lower the tax rate on big corporations and
the top 1 percent, repeal the estate tax, which goes only to estates of
over $5 million, and eliminate critical middle-class tax breaks like
State and local deductibility. In what world does that deliver middle-
class tax relief or solve the problems we are talking about?
It is the same game they played with healthcare: Complain about high
premiums, deductibles, counties without enough insurers, and then each
Republican bill exacerbates the problem.
The Republicans slide in their favorite solution--tax cuts for the
rich--as the answer to every ill. If the economy is doing well,
Republicans push tax cuts for the rich. If the economy is doing poorly,
Republicans push for tax cuts for the rich. If our healthcare system
needs to be improved, tax cuts for the rich. It is entirely divorced
from the real problems in the economy and our society.
Our economy suffers from massive inequality, which is growing, with a
concentration of wealth at the very apex of our country's elite. The
rich are doing well in America. God bless them; I am glad they are.
American corporations are recording record-high profits. Look at the
stock market, which reflects that. God bless them too. We hope they do
well. But looking at the GOP tax plan, the American people have to
wonder, is now the time to tilt the scales even further in favor of big
corporations and the very rich? I believe the American people will
reject that approach soundly and roundly, and after the amendment votes
today, the American people will have a much clearer picture of what the
Republican budget and tax plan is about.
There is still a chance to turn back from this budget and the one-
party legislating that has stymied this Congress. I urge my colleagues
on the Republican side to reject this budget. Come work with Democrats,
and we can produce real, successful, bipartisan tax reform.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one yields time, the time will be
charged equally to both sides.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I know the Presiding Officer and all of
our colleagues and those watching today know that we have been focused
on the budget resolution. It is a very important document for the
country, for the Senate, and for the Congress. There are a lot of big
issues that we are all focused on, but there is one I wish to talk
about this morning that relates to the budget document. Actually, to be
perfectly frank, it relates to a number of the speeches made by my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They have been coming down
to the floor and talking about issues related to energy, which is
really important for America, the environment, which is also very
important to America, and--a little bit to my surprise, from all of
these experts coming to the floor--Alaska, which is my State.
I am going to say a little bit more about what some of my colleagues
have been talking about--my State. There seems to be a few experts on
Alaska from States like Massachusetts and Oregon. I just want to put
things in perspective from a Senator who is actually from the State and
not these other Senators who, to be honest, don't know much about what
they are talking about.
The one thing you are seeing is that it is for sure that you know
there is kind of an issue in the debate on the floor when you see
talking points that are just stale--talking points that, if you took a
speech from 30 or 40 years ago, are the same talking points. They are
stale talking points from the other side of the aisle that have been
used for decades, that haven't been updated or that don't reflect what
has really been happening in the country in terms of technological
advances, environmental standards, and one of the most important things
that has happened in America over the last decade, and that is the
American energy renaissance--the American energy renaissance.
I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't
even like to talk about it. They don't like to acknowledge it: As to
energy, we don't produce that in America. Yes, we do. Yes, we do. We
are doing it really, really well, and it is benefiting millions and
millions and millions of Americans in every State in the country.
The budget resolution that we are debating has a provision in it that
is really simple. I bet if you polled it with every American--Democrat,
Republican, people watching on TV--it probably has a 90-percent
approval.
There is a simple instruction in the budget resolution that says that
Congress needs to look at ways to increase Federal revenues by
increasing American energy production. What could be wrong with
increasing American energy production?
That provision that we are actually debating right now should be very
bipartisan. Who is against that? Who could be against that? Why is this
so important? Why is the American energy renaissance so important?
Well, as the Presiding Officer knows, because his State is certainly
involved in it, the energy renaissance that is happening in the United
States right now is a win, win, win, win, win on almost every category
you can imagine.
What do I mean by the energy renaissance? Right now in our great
Nation with our resources, we are producing more oil, more natural gas,
and more renewables than any other place in the world. That is really
good for the country. That is the renaissance. That is really a
revolution in energy production. It is something that you would think
on the Senate floor should be completely bipartisan. Unfortunately, it
isn't.
Let me talk a little bit about how this energy renaissance and what
is in the budget resolution will produce more energy for America by
Americans, which is good for the country. Let's count the ways. When I
said win, win, win, win, win, I wasn't joking. The wins are all on the
board.
First, there is energy security. For our Nation, it is lower cost
energy. With the increase in natural gas, we are seeing the drop in the
prices of natural gas for homes and manufacturers and increasing
manufacturing. These are enormously important for our Nation.
There is economic growth and jobs. In the energy sector, these are
good jobs. The Presiding Officer has a lot of these jobs in his State.
I have a lot of these jobs in my State. These are really important
jobs. When you look at

[[Page S6597]]

the weak economic growth in the United States over the last 10 years,
the one sector that is actually driving growth has been the energy
sector.
How about the trade deficit? It is a big problem. Everybody has
talked about it. The President is very focused on it. We are now
starting to export oil and export natural gas. My State has been
exporting natural gas for over four decades. That helps our trade
deficit.
Then, when you look at the Federal budget deficit, energy is a huge
positive impact on the Federal budget deficit. That is what the budget
resolution asks Congress to do in terms of policy: Let's produce more
energy so we can produce more revenue for the Federal Government. That
is a good idea. Nobody should be opposed to that.
Mr. President, as you know, when we are the world's energy
superpower, as we are, that really helps our national security. It
really helps our foreign policy. A lot of Americans have been concerned
for decades that we have troops in the Middle East, that we have troops
in areas where energy is really important. Well, let's produce it here.
I was in a meeting last year at the Munich Security Conference with
the great Senator from Arizona and many of my colleagues. It was
bipartisan. Senator McCain led that codel to the Munich Security
Conference in Germany. We met with a very prominent Russian dissident
who has been fighting and battling with Vladimir Putin. At the very end
of the meeting, we asked a simple question: What more can we do in the
United States to help somebody like you, who is battling against a
dictator who doesn't have our interest at heart? Do you know what this
very smart Russian official, a courageous man, said? He said: America
needs to produce more energy. That is how you take down the leadership
in the Kremlin--more energy.
This is national security.
Let me say one more thing that doesn't get talked about a lot. It is
not just helpful in all of these areas. When the United States of
America is producing energy, it helps the global environment. Some
people say: Well, wait a minute. A lot of the colleagues on the other
side of the aisle come to the floor and kind of insinuate that when our
country produces energy, it actually hurts the environment. That is not
the case. When the United States produces energy, it actually helps the
global environment.
Why is that the case? Let me just pause for a minute because, like I
said, a lot of my colleagues are coming to the floor and talking about
Alaska, energy, and the environment. Again, it is not with a lot of
knowledge. They are stale talking points, yes. They have been using
them for 40 years. Literally, I think one of my colleagues has been in
the Congress plus or minus 40 years and has been using the same talking
points on this.
As somebody who came to the Senate previously from a job as attorney
general and a commissioner of natural resources and energy in Alaska, I
know a little bit about this topic. I can tell you two important
points.
My colleagues talk a little bit about Alaska, the environment, and
energy. First, Senator Murkowski and I care a lot more about the
environment, the wildlife, the pristine wilderness in our great,
amazing State than any other Member in this body. I don't need Senators
coming down from places like Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington,
Vermont, and Rhode Island talking about Alaska's environment. OK?
Thanks. I don't need it. I care way more than any of them. With all due
respect, I know a heck of a lot more about it than any of them.
I also know this. In my State--and, I believe, in most of the
country, but particularly in Alaska--Democrats, Republicans, Alaskan
Natives, and non-Natives certainly support the highest standards on the
environment, but we also support responsible resource development. Here
is the key issue: We know we can do both. You can protect the pristine,
amazing Alaskan environment, and you can responsibly develop our
resources.
Let's talk about how we do this. Let's talk about how this applies to
Alaska and how this applies to the rest of the country in general.
As I mentioned, this is a really important point. We have the highest
standards on developing our resources and our energy than anywhere in
the world, and we have some of the most technologically advanced and
sustainable ways to develop resources in the energy sector. That allows
us to do what I just mentioned, which is to protect the environment and
to develop our resources.
Here is a really important point that a lot of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle miss. They come down here, and this is what
they talk about--by the way, they were in alliance with the last
administration: How do we shut down energy development? How do we make
it harder? How do we delay it?
As I mentioned, I was attorney general and the DNR commissioner in
Alaska for almost 6 years of the Obama administration. It was all about
how to shut it down in Alaska, how to delay it in Alaska, and how to
shut it down in America. This is not what the country wants. This is
not what the country needs, and, certainly, it is one issue that is
often overlooked. This doesn't help the global environment, as they
claim. It doesn't. Why is that? Because when you chase away investment
in places like Alaska, with the highest standards on the environment in
the world, what does that do? That drives capital and that drives
investment to places like Russia, Iran, and Brazil, whose standards are
so much lower than ours.
Russians on the tundra in the Arctic don't care anything about their
environment. In my State and in the rest of America, we do.
I don't need to remind people that Russia and Iran right now are
certainly our adversaries. Yet the policies that some of my colleagues
like to promote, and certainly the last administration promoted, are to
drive away investment, drive away energy production in America, with
the highest standards in the world, so the Russians and the Iranians
can take the capital and produce energy. They do not have high
standards on the environment, and they are our adversaries. It makes no
sense--no sense.

So how do we do this in Alaska? What are the environmental standards
that almost no other place in the world--maybe Norway, maybe, to some
degree, Canada--uses? What is the technology that enables us to produce
American energy, with American jobs, with the American people, with the
highest standards in the world? Let me provide a few examples. First,
what I want everybody here to be aware of is, do not believe these
doomsday scenarios. Don't believe the misinformed commentary. When my
Democratic colleagues come to the floor, with very little knowledge
about what is really happening in this sector, don't believe it. When
they come to the floor and talk about a State like mine--Alaska--about
which they know next to nothing, don't believe it.
Let me give one infamous example. In the 1970s, we were debating in
the Senate--and I think one of my colleagues was maybe here then,
probably using the same talking points--the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System, one of the greatest energy infrastructure projects in the
history of the world: 800 miles, 16 billion barrels of oil; at one
point, 2 million barrels a day, from Americans, in America.
The people who were against it came to the floor and said: Oh, no.
The Central Arctic caribou herd is going to be decimated if you do
this--these beautiful animals that we care so much about in Alaska.
Those were the arguments right on this floor. So what happened to the
Central Arctic caribou? Again, we care about these animals way more
than anybody else does in this body. In 1975, we had about 5,000
caribou; today, 66,000. I don't think the herd was decimated. We
haven't heard that from anybody because they don't know, but that is
the kind of doomsday scenario we heard from people with no knowledge,
and then, when it doesn't happen, we don't hear them on the Senate
floor saying: Oh, we were wrong about that.
Let me talk just briefly about some of what we do to make sure we do
this in the most responsible way in the world. First, in the energy
business, one thing we do is we explore. Again, in Alaska we have the
highest standards in the world. A lot of other places in the United
States have these standards. In the Arctic, we have what is called no
impact exploration. What does that mean? It means we literally do
everything to make sure there is no

[[Page S6598]]

impact on these great species like the polar bear. Again, we care a lot
more about our animals than my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle.
What does no impact exploration mean? Well, we undertake exploration
required by State standards--these are not Federal standards--where we
essentially have what are called ice roads and ice pads. Let me show my
colleagues what that means. We only allow for exploration in the winter
on the tundra. When an exploration crew comes out, they have to build
an ice road--it is a road made of ice--over the tundra. This photograph
is an example of an ice road. Then they do exploration on an ice pad.
They have drills, and they do all this work on the ice, on the tundra.
They have about 4 months to do it and then they are done and then they
leave.
What does the tundra look like after that exploration on ice? Right
here. This is just one capped exploration well. It is as though nobody
was even there--literally zero impact. These are Alaska standards, the
highest in the world. They are expensive, yes, but we do it because we
care so much about the environment. That is the exploration phase.
How about the production phase? What has happened in the production
phase? The innovations in technology, many of which have occurred in my
State, have made it so the surface footprint--when we actually put
together a production pad--has shrunk dramatically. When we look at
this chart, we see Prudhoe Bay in the 1970s. The other developments in
Alaska include Kuparuk, Alpine, and Liberty. What happens is, the
surface footprint has shrunk dramatically to 11, 12 acres now. Yet the
ability to horizontally drill extends the reach of these wells
underneath the ground, where we can reach resources in an incredibly
vast manner without impacting the environment at all.
If a rig was placed right here on the Capitol Building, in terms of
horizontal drilling, it could extend out to Andrews Air Force Base in
Southeast, Silver Spring, MD, to the north, and well into Fairfax
County--miles and miles and miles. Yet the surface footprint--the
impact on the environment--is minimal.
That is what we do. We don't hear about it from the other side of the
aisle, but it is really important, as we debate these issues, that all
Americans know this. More energy for the country is really positive.
In conclusion, tonight the budget resolution is not just going to be
a vehicle for tax reform, but there is also, as I mentioned, going to
be an instruction for increased revenues for the country for more
American energy production. It is a simple instruction.
As I mentioned, this should be very noncontroversial. What could be
wrong with more energy production, particularly in a State like mine,
where the standards are the highest in the world, and the technology is
the most advanced in the world. What could be controversial about more
energy production? More energy production means more American jobs,
more American economic growth, more American national security, more
American energy security, decreased Federal budgets and trade deficits,
and a more sustainable global environment because no one in the world
produces energy more responsibly than Americans, especially Alaskans.
Nevertheless, some of my Democratic colleagues will be putting forth
an amendment that does just the opposite. Think about that, an
amendment that says let's kill energy production, thereby undermining
American job growth, good jobs, American economic growth, American
national security and energy security, while increasing our budget and
trade deficits and harming the global environment. That is a lose-lose-
lose scenario to me, but that is what is at stake tonight.
Later this afternoon, when we debate that amendment--and I certainly
ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject any
attempts to not take advantage of this incredible opportunity in
America--the American energy renaissance that we need to continue--and
this afternoon we are going to have an opportunity to do that.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Nuclear Agreement With Iran

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the President's
action last week stepping away from certifying Iran's compliance with
the nuclear deal that was negotiated between the U.S. allies and the
nation of Iran.
National security is about military power, but there is more to it
than that. America's strength also comes from the power to use
diplomacy.
In October 1945, President Harry Truman, my favorite President,
changed the seal of the Office of the President to have the eagle face
the olive branches of diplomacy instead of the arrows of war,
signifying that America would also prefer that we use diplomacy first.
In modern times, our judgments to go to war rather than use diplomacy
have been flawed. Under this administration, diplomacy, in my view, is
under assault, and that is why I rise today.
We see a decimated State in the USAID budget. We see bellicose
rhetoric from the President. We see efforts to undermine, publicly,
American diplomats engaged in negotiations. We see the refusal to even
nominate key State Department diplomatic appointees.
As of last week, the administration has not put forward a nominee for
approximately 52 percent of high-level positions at the State
Department that require approval by the Senate. Thirty-two countries do
not yet have Ambassadors in place, and that includes no nomination from
the White House for Ambassadors to key countries like South Korea,
Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. No one has been nominated for
Assistant Secretary for Arms Control, for Assistant Secretary for
International Security and Nonproliferation, for Assistant Secretary
for Near Eastern Affairs, Assistant Secretary for South and Central
Asian Affairs, or for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
How serious can the administration be about nuclear threats with no
Ambassador to South Korea or no ambassadorial nomination for the key
State Department official around nonproliferation? And the President
has repeatedly undercut his Secretary of State's diplomatic efforts
with North Korea.
President Trump's most recent action--his recent attack on
diplomacy--is the decision to decertify the Iran deal, and I think this
could be the most dangerous yet. By stepping back from a diplomatic
deal that the United States made with the global community that is
clearly working, the President is publicly undercutting diplomatic
negotiations, and he is setting us on a road where military options
become increasingly more likely. I will state it bluntly. If you weaken
diplomacy, you raise the risk of unnecessary war, and that is what this
President is doing.
First, President Trump's refusal to make the Iran certification and
his threat to abandon the nuclear deal with Iran recalls the disastrous
U.S. entrance into the Iraq war in 2003, where intelligence was
politicized, and the administration repeatedly made false claims to
justify going to war--a war of choice--to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
The Bush administration insisted that regime change in Iraq was
necessary, and it insisted on that because of the claim of Iraq's
continuing productions of weapons of mass destruction.
In March of 2003, the IAEA came out and said there was no credible
evidence that Iraq had a program of weapons of mass destruction and
that there was no evidence they had revived the nuclear program they
shelved in the 1990s, but the Bush administration would not accept that
claim. It did not fit with the narrative they were selling to the
American people about Saddam Hussein so they said the IAEA was wrong.
They said we needed to initiate war--one that has proven so costly to
Virginians and to Americans in treasure and in regional stability but
especially in American lives--to prevent Iraq from obtaining weapons of
mass destruction.
We went to war. It turned out the scientists and the technicians and
the IAEA were right. Iraq didn't have a program of weapons of mass
destruction. The politicians who tried to undermine the credibility of
the international agencies were wrong. Of course, the consequences of
that decision are significant. Ironically, you

[[Page S6599]]

could claim--I believe there is strong evidence--that decision in 2003
has today led to greater Iranian influence in Iraq and the region and a
proliferation of extremist groups that didn't exist before.
We are now hearing the Trump administration make similar claims about
Iran; that Iran will soon enough have a nuclear weapons program, that
the IAEA cannot be trusted, that Iran supports al-Qaida, and from a
Republican colleague: ``The policy of the United States should be
regime change in Iran,'' and from Secretary of State Tillerson, we need
a ``peaceful transition'' of the Iranian Government.
We should stop to think, Is this really about the nuclear deal or is
it about beginning a drumbeat from the administration to march the
United States toward another preventable war in the Middle East?
Second, while threatening to unilaterally terminate the nuclear deal
at any time, President Trump also wants to revisit the terms of the
deal to address what he sees as its flaws.
This isn't new. Since the day the deal was announced, some critics
have argued that we could get a better deal or push for an alternative.
I wasn't then, nor am I now, interested in the world of hypotheticals.
I am interested in the world of facts. The fact is, the deal is
working, and it is dramatically better than the alternative for at
least 15 years or possibly longer.
Additionally, if we want to renegotiate the deal, Iran will seek to
do the same. If we take a step back from the deal, Iran will take a
step back, and what will they ask for--that they get to now increase
centrifuges or get some of their enriched uranium back? I don't want to
give Iran one thing back from this deal, but if we step back from a
deal that is working and say we want to renegotiate, they will, too,
and I don't think we should tolerate that.
Most wars start because of miscalculations. The notion that we can
renegotiate the deal just on our side and the other side wouldn't think
of renegotiation is magical thinking. The U.S. entrance in World War I
100 years ago started with miscalculations--most nations do. A
miscommunication, a misunderstanding, another step, another step, and
you are at war. We should be very, very wary.
I and all of us are very willing to go after Iran on the nonnuclear
front. It was just 2 months ago that we passed--I think unanimously;
maybe there was one ``no'' vote in this body--a set of stiff sanctions
against Iran, North Korea, and Russia. We have given the power to the
President to impose more sanctions on Iran for bellicose behavior, for
activities in other countries, for violations of human rights, and for
violating U.N. Security Council resolutions on their missile program.
The President should use the sanctions power we just gave him to go
after Iran's activities that violate international norms and make
America less safe. But when the IAEA, our allies, the head of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State
all say that with respect to the nuclear deal, Iran is complying, we
should avoid stepping back on that deal, lest we suggest that the
United States cannot be trusted in good faith to follow a deal.
Third, I worry about the timing of this effort to step away from the
Iran deal with respect to the imminent threat. I hear concerns about
the Iran deal and what Iran might be able to do in year 8 or year 10 or
year 15. Let me tell you about something I am worrying about this
month, and that is the North Korean nuclear program.
We have been in briefings, and we hear the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of State say to us and say to the world: The United
States will always push for a diplomatic solution. We are never out of
diplomatic solutions.
But let's be candid. What are the chances of a diplomatic solution
with North Korea that would end or dramatically limit their nuclear
weapons ambitions? I don't think the chances are high. I would say they
are 20 percent at best. They are not zero, but they are not high,
either. But if there is any chance of a diplomatic negotiation and a
diplomatic end to this program, don't we owe it to the American public
and don't we owe it to our troops to seek to exhaust and explore it? Of
course we do. Yet every time Secretary of State Tillerson talks about
trying to have some diplomatic outcome to pressure the Chinese to use
leverage against North Korea, the President pours cold water on him.
I would argue that stepping back from the Iran deal sends an
unmistakable signal to North Korea if I am right, and there is even a
small chance of a diplomatic resolution. But the message we send to
North Korea is that the United States will back out of a nuclear deal
even when it is being complied with. I think we drive the chances of a
diplomatic resolution with North Korea down to zero, and we should not
do that.
There is significant evidence that while Iran's nonnuclear behavior
is worthy of additional sanctions and pressure, the deal on the nuclear
program is working. Our closest European allies, U.S. intelligence
services, the IAEA, the P5--when I visit Israel and speak to national
security and intelligence leaders, such as Gadi Eisenkot, who is
essentially the equivalent of the head of our Joint Chiefs of Staff,
they say Iran is complying with the deal, and it is making the world
safer in the near and medium term. Secretary Dunford and General Mattis
have said the same thing.
The deal gives us more intelligence because we have inspections that
we didn't have before. We have more inspections, and we know more about
their program. In the first paragraph of the deal, on the first page of
the deal, Iran pledges to never purchase, acquire, or develop military
weapons. That promise, which is in perpetuity, gives us a legal
justification, if they ever break it, to take action, including
military action, to punish them for violating what they have signed. Do
we want to give Iran the ability to step back from that promise they
have made by stepping back ourselves when the deal is working?
Finally, the deal gives us a coalition. Our partners around the world
who have signed on to the deal, who have been witness to the Iranian
pledge, who know that Iran will have to permanently comply with the
additional protocol of inspections under the deal--if we move away from
the deal and Iran moves away from the deal, could we count on the
coalition partners being with us to try to put a deal back together
when it is we alone among the partners who have walked away from the
table? What coalition could we expect if we are the ones who walk away
from the table, if we say we are not interested in diplomacy? Then,
later, if we need to take military action against Iran after we walked
away from a deal, could we expect a coalition to support us in that?
I would like to conclude in this way: I think the President's
decision to step back from this diplomatic deal poses a real challenge
for this Congress. The President has done some things I agree with. He
has done a number of things I disagree with. He has done only one thing
that scares me, and it is this. I think that, together with defunding
the State Department and pouring cold water on diplomacy and not
filling key posts, this leads us closer to an unnecessary war. When you
reject diplomacy or weaken it, you run the risk of an unnecessary war.
I have had to cast two war votes in the Senate, both as a member of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have been a city councilman,
a mayor, a Lieutenant Governor, and a Governor, and casting a war vote
is different from any vote you ever have to cast--any vote you ever
have to cast. I have a son in the military, and that makes that vote
different from any vote I have cast in 23 years in public life. As a
Member of Congress, I may have to cast other votes to go to war against
other nations, whether against nonstate terrorist groups or against a
nation like North Korea or even Iran if they break for nuclear weapons.
If I have to cast that vote, if I have to contemplate putting Congress
on record that we should go to war, I want to be able to look American
troops in the face and say: I exhausted every diplomatic option before
I cast this vote. I think that is an obligation we owe to the public
and to our troops. We have to exhaust diplomacy.
There may come a time when that eagle just cannot face the olive
branches of diplomacy, but we have to insist on military strength to
keep order in the world and protect Americans. But if we turn to those
arrows of

[[Page S6600]]

war, we should be able to look at our public and look at our troops and
say we exhausted diplomacy.
Stepping away from a diplomatic deal that is working is exactly the
wrong thing for us to do at this time. It is my hope that Congress will
not dignify what the President is doing in this regard and that we will
insist, yes, upon strict compliance and also insist upon sanctions
against Iran for nonnuclear behavior. But let's not be a nation that
refuses to keep its diplomatic commitments. The stakes are just too
high.
Mr. President I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from South
Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to support
the effort to pass the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. I am on the
Budget Committee, and I am pretty familiar with the document. It
provides a pathway to balance. It actually has a $197 billion surplus
in 2027, and it allows for tax cuts.
To Republicans--and Democrats too; you are welcome to join--the only
way we are ever going to meaningfully get a tax cut is to pass a budget
reconciliation instruction. This budget allows us to cut taxes. I hope
some Democrats will join us, but if they choose not to, we can do it
with a simple majority. If we don't pass this budget, we can't cut
taxes unless we get 60 votes. With our friends on the other side--I
think it is going to be hard to get any Democrats for a meaningful tax
cut. They are not bad people; they just see things differently. When
they spend money, they think that is good. They don't worry about the
deficit. When we cut taxes, the deficit is the most important thing. My
belief is that not only will we not have a deficit, we will actually
have a surplus because this budget does two things: It restrains
spending by $5.1 trillion over the next decade, and it actually creates
a system for tax cuts to spur economic growth.
If we could grow the GDP number by just 1 percent, that would be
trillions of dollars of revenue. To those who are interested in this,
we have been growing at about 1.9 percent GDP per year over the last 8
years--right around 2, sometimes under, sometimes a bit over. The
historical average since World War II has been 3.2. If we could get
back to 3.2 percent GDP growth, there would be trillions of dollars
coming in to the Treasury, and I believe we can.
President Trump is trying to deregulate America after 8 years of
heavy regulation, but he can only do so much through Executive order.
Senator Sullivan, the Presiding Officer, talked about the
opportunities in Alaska. I have learned a lot about Alaska. There are
750,000 people living in a State twice the size of Texas. It is
beautiful as it can be. Environmentally, you are very sensitive. That
is one of the qualities of Alaska you want to preserve. God has blessed
Alaska with a lot of natural resources, and it would be good for the
people of Alaska and the United States as a whole.
Every liter of gas and barrel of oil we can extract from Alaska in an
environmentally sound way is less to buy from people who hate our guts.
We are going to be using oil and gas for a long time to come. I want to
move to a lower carbon economy. I think that would be good for the
environment and good for our economy. Alaska has been blessed with
natural resources, and I think Senator Sullivan explained how sensitive
they are in the extraction process. But it would be insane to take
Alaska oil and gas off the table for America because in that area,
Russia is all over the place, and, trust me, they don't care about the
environment.
One thing this budget doesn't do is it doesn't change the Budget
Control Act caps. There is one member of our caucus who claims that
this budget is somehow fiscally irresponsible. It is not. It actually
leads to a surplus.
There is nothing in this budget that allows for more defense
spending. The overseas contingency operations account is money set
aside for our military and State Department to deal with the wars we
are fighting that are not part of the Budget Control Act. We have been
doing that for years. So for anybody to suggest that this authorizes an
explosion of spending on the defense side--you literally don't know
what you are talking about. If you looked at the details of the budget,
you would find that it cuts spending by $5.1 trillion and actually has
a $197 billion surplus 10 years from now.
But I want to let the body know--and the Presiding Officer will be
right in that fight--that I, along with Senator McCain, President
Trump, General Mattis, Senator Sullivan, Senator Blunt, and many
others, am going to do everything I can to give the military more
resources to fight wars we can't afford to lose.
I look forward to this debate with some of my colleagues on the other
side and a few on this side.
Really, is it smart to have the smallest Navy since 1950? Is it
really smart to have an Army 1940s-size given what is going on in the
world, having fighter squadrons grounded not because the enemy shot us
down but because the Congress shot us down?
We are spending about 3.2 percent of GDP on defense. Historically,
since World War II, it has been about 5. Tell me how you justify
spending that much less today given the world we have to deal with.
Where is the peace dividend?
Since 2011, when sequestration was passed, the world has
deteriorated. President Trump is promising to rebuild the military,
give them the capability they need to keep the enemies at bay and not
fight wars with one hand tied behind their back. So I will be working
with Senator McCain and many others to make sure that our military is
replenished; that we do have a 350-ship Navy, not 278; that we have an
Army consistent with the threats--about 520,000 versus 420,000.
The No. 1 job of the Congress and the Federal Government is to defend
the Nation. That is a different debate. That is not part of the budget.
The budget resolution doesn't change defense spending caps. Hopefully,
we can do that later, working with our Democratic friends.
This is the last best chance we will have to cut taxes. If this
budget resolution fails, the ability to cut taxes on President Trump's
watch goes away.
To those of you on the Republican side who have been claiming that we
need tax cuts and a simpler tax code, this is your chance. If we don't
succeed now, we are going to fail for the entire term of President
Trump. That will be the end of us as a party, because if you are a
Republican and you don't want to simplify the Tax Code and cut taxes,
what good are you to anybody?
Our friends on the other side have really invested in ``the
government.'' Somebody needs to be involved in American politics who
would actually like to send more money to you and less money to the
government in a responsible way.
So I hope we are going to cut the corporate tax rate to make us
competitive. We are going to double the standard exemptions so working
people will have more money in their pockets. We are going to clean up
some of the deductions and exemptions for the few at the expense of the
many. But we can only do that if we pass a budget resolution.
A final thought. From the Republican Party point of view, we have the
House, the Senate, and the Presidency. We have nobody to blame in this
exercise but ourselves. If you are a Republican and you are frustrated
with the lack of progress, count me in. The President is a willing
partner to help us repeal and replace ObamaCare and to get a healthy
tax cut to grow an economy that is dying to grow. But we have to help
ourselves.
If we can't muster the votes necessary to pass this budget resolution
to cut your taxes, then everybody who supported us for all these years
should feel let down, and we will have let you down. I hope that
doesn't happen. I am confident it won't. But to those Republicans who
believe that a ``no'' vote is good for the future of conservatism and
the future of the economic well-being of the country, I could not
disagree with you more. You will never balance the budget by dealing
with discretionary spending alone. We are at 2008 levels of
discretionary spending. What balances the budget is entitlement reform.
If you want to balance the budget, vote for Graham-Cassidy because it
finally puts Medicaid on a sustainable path.

We have to deal with our entitlement problem, but that is not in this
budget reconciliation instruction. This instruction allows us to cut
taxes with a

[[Page S6601]]

majority-only vote and gets to balance or a surplus in 2027.
From a Republican point of view, this is the most important vote we
are going to cast in 2017. If we fail, that is the end of this party's
ability to grow. All of those who worked hard to get us here are going
to be disappointed, and they should be.
We are not going to disappoint you. We are going to pass this budget
resolution. We are going to cut your taxes, and we are eventually going
to rebuild and replace ObamaCare, which is failing, with a block grant
that gets the money and power closer to where you live, in the hands of
the people you can vote for. We are going to succeed.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, let me first agree with the point that the
Senator from South Carolina just made about the importance of passing a
tax bill this year. He made the point--and if he didn't, I will make
it--that if we don't pass a tax bill this year or at least get most of
the way there--I hope we get done with this tax process this year. If
we don't get that done, I think we won't have another opportunity to
pass a tax bill in the next 4 years.
On the other hand, if we do pass a tax bill this year, we will have
the incentive to take a second look in 2019, maybe 2020, but probably
in 2019. The point I am making is, we don't have to do everything that
could possibly be done to improve the Tax Code this year to take an
important step. But if we don't take that important step, my belief is
we are likely not going to have the kind of tax relief that working
families need in the next 4 years. So not only is the pressure on the
Republican Senate, the Republican House, and a White House that wants
to work with us to get this done, but the pressure should be on
everyone who cares about hard-working families. And the pressure should
be on everyone who wants to see tax relief for those families happen.
We need to understand that it needs to happen now.
Fights that can't be won in the next few weeks can be won in this
Presidential term but only if we take this step successfully right now.
As the Senator from South Carolina and others have pointed out, this is
an important two-step process.
The first step is a budget that allows us to move forward so that we
can do this under the budget rules and allow 51 Senators to pass a bill
on tax reform. By the way, they don't have to be 51 Republicans. I
suspect that is what will happen, but once we get to 51 Republicans, I
would love to see Democrats join us. I would love to see them join us
before that.
This is the kind of help that hard-working families need--families
who, for 9 years, were stuck in a situation where their buying power
wasn't increasing, their job opportunities weren't increasing. They
generally were not seeing that better job out there that was largely
available to those very same hard-working families in the past because
we aren't as competitive as we need to be.
There ought to be a couple of things we focus on. One is, how do you
create tax relief for working families right now so that, as soon as
possible, they begin to see a check that has more take-home pay? The
other way to increase take-home pay is to increase starting pay, to
make those jobs better. That is where we need to be looking on the
other end of the spectrum.
On the end that creates jobs, what do we need to do to make ourselves
more competitive? What do we need to do to constantly have the kind of
pressure on the working job market that allows people who are working
hard for a living to have better opportunities than they would have
otherwise because we are more competitive than we would be otherwise?
I think the entire focus of this discussion should be, what do we do
that improves the opportunities and improves the future for hard-
working families? You can do that with a tax cut right now, which we
should do. You can do that with policies that make more sense as we try
to compete with the people we compete with around the world.
You can't have the highest corporate tax in the entire world and
assume you are going to be the most competitive country in the entire
world. You can't have a tax system that is uniquely different as it
relates to products you sell overseas and expect to be more competitive
than the countries who don't have that unique system, which penalizes
rather than encourages American products to be sold in other places.
The Senate will vote later today on a budget resolution that reduces
Federal spending by $5 trillion over 10 years, provides a stronger
foundation for economic growth, and allows us to move forward in the
first, necessary legislative step in the Senate so that we can then
move immediately to tax policy. This is a budget that will allow us to
reduce taxes by $1.5 trillion over 10 years, a budget that would put
more money in the pockets of hard-working families, a budget that would
add some opportunity to that struggle where, for almost a decade now,
things haven't seemed to be getting better or easier. They seemed to be
getting more difficult because we were less competitive and there was
less pressure to find the workforce to do the jobs that need to be
done. And then this is a tax code that will make it simpler and fairer
and more uniformly impactful on everyone who pays taxes.
Most people don't mind paying taxes on the income they have until
they find out that their neighbor next door with the same income has
figured out how not to pay taxes. There is a reason American families
and American businesses can't get through April without a bottle of
aspirin. There is a reason this Tax Code creates headache after
headache.
There is one estimate that individuals and businesses complying with
the complicated tax system we have costs $267 billion a year. That is
half of the defense budget. If people are spending half of the defense
budget just to comply with the Tax Code, there has to be something
wrong with that, and we can do better. I think the proposals we are
talking about will do a better job.
Right now, the individual Tax Code has seven different brackets--
seven rates--and you have to figure out how they apply to whatever
income you have had. It has 100 different credits, deductions,
exclusions, and other provisions that make it extremely difficult to
know what you owe or when you are going to owe what you owe.
According to the American Action Forum, the IRS currently imposes 8.1
billion hours of paperwork on Americans, which amounts to about 54
hours per taxpayer who is paying taxes. It is more for some, less for
some, but a week's worth of work--54 hours of work--for taxpayers who
pay their taxes. Every taxpayer gives that week to the Federal
Government.
We are streamlining the Tax Code, increasing the basic deduction that
families can have. If they don't want to go through the complicated Tax
Code--here is how many of us there are who live at our house. Here is
the basic deduction we get for each of those people living at our
house. Here is how much we subtract from the money we make. Here is how
much we need to pay.
There is no reason that one of the compliance options can't be a
postcard or a piece of paper. In fact, when the current income tax was
imposed on the American people, the entire set of instructions were on
one page--the entire set of instructions for everyone who had to fill
out the income tax form--with the assurance that only the richest
people would ever pay any income tax, so most Americans would never
have had to read that instruction sheet at all.
Now most Americans find it almost impossible to read the 100 pages of
instructions that just get them to the Tax Code itself. Streamlining
the Tax Code, helping families keep more of their money, figuring out a
way we can be more competitive so there is opportunity for better jobs
in the future, all should be important priorities for this Congress.
Passing a budget today will allow us to take the first step, which
then allows us to take the next step in tax relief that matters and
makes sense to the American people. We will take that step today. We
should take that step today.
We should then follow up as quickly as possible to win the fights
that can be won this year so Americans can start next year
understanding that their Tax Code is simpler, the Tax Code is fairer,
and their opportunities are

[[Page S6602]]

likely to be greater. But for hard-working families, their take-home
pay will definitely be higher than it is today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrats have 4 minutes remaining.

Amendment No. 1302

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, yesterday I was at a meeting with the
President at the White House, along with several members from both
sides of the Senate Finance Committee. I said to the President flatout
that Democrats agree that the Tax Code is a broken, dysfunctional mess.
Finance Democrats yesterday laid out to the President our principles
for reform, focusing on the middle class--not 1 percent--and being
fiscally responsible so that Congress doesn't turn around and look at
gutting safety-net programs such as Medicare and Medicaid or Social
Security.
I think it would be fair to say that a whole lot of ears in that room
perked up when the President said: Hey, I am for those kinds of things.
The President talked to us about wanting help for the middle class. He
said that this is not supposed to be about people like him, and he said
that he doesn't want to shred the safety net.
Unfortunately, as I have indicated, there are gaps as wide as Crater
Lake among all of the administration's statements, the rhetoric about
taxes, and the reality of what is actually written down on paper about
its tax cut plan. The Republican plan--this administration's plan,
which actually is written down on paper, doesn't resemble what the late
President Reagan accomplished in partnership with Democrats in 1986.
Back then, the two sides brought their best ideas forward and passed
major tax reform built around the idea that America is strongest when
the middle class is prospering. What is on paper today is just an
enormous gift to the top of the top--the most fortunate special
interests.
I hope the Senate, in a few minutes, will vote for my amendment to
strike the reconciliation instructions from the budget because budget
reconciliation is exactly the kind of partisan process, at least for
taxes--especially for taxes, given the importance of taxes in this
particular budget--budget reconciliation is exactly the kind of
approach that President Reagan rejected in 1986.
I hope my colleagues will support my amendment, striking the
reconciliation instructions from the budget. Senate Democrats have
outlined our principles for reform.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional
30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, very quickly, the principles that the
Senate Democrats have laid out in our letter are very much in line with
what the President says he wants. Now what we have to do is to have a
bipartisan process to advance it. You do not get that with
reconciliation. I hope the Senate supports my amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote in the 11:45 a.m.
vote series this morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate,
equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1302,
offered by the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think I have made the case.
To my colleagues, what the American people have told us--and they
certainly said this during this last work period--is that they
understand that the big challenges in this country require bipartisan
approaches. That is what President Reagan understood when he brought
together Democrats and Republicans for comprehensive tax reform.
We need to pass this amendment to strike the reconciliation
instructions from the budget because they send all of the wrong signals
with respect to tax reform.
The American people understand what it takes to tackle big issues.
They understand that tax reform should be about the middle class. It
should not be about the 1 percent, and it should not be about causing a
huge, new sea of red ink.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to strike the
reconciliation instructions from the budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time in opposition?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, we have an opportunity today to give
ourselves the tool to pass a tax reform bill that will absolutely mean
tax relief for middle-income and working-class families and will
promote the kind of economic growth that we have been waiting for, but
to do it, we are going to have to defeat this amendment and pass the
underlying budget.
What my friend from Oregon is suggesting is that we give a minority
in the Senate the opportunity to defeat tax reform by filibuster. That
is what would happen if we were to pass this amendment.
I have to disagree strongly with the notion that somehow this is not
a bipartisan exercise. There is nothing about reconciliation that in
any way discourages or prevents full Democratic participation. We are
going to have a markup in the Senate Finance Committee, and there will
be unlimited amendment opportunities. If we are able to report
something out, then there will be unlimited amendment opportunities on
the floor. There is nothing that we could do to stop it if we wanted to
because those are the rules of reconciliation. Every Democrat in this
body will have an unlimited opportunity to weigh in on this, to
influence this, and to amend this, and it will be a fully bipartisan
exercise.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--52

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Menendez

The amendment (No. 1302) was rejected.

Amendment No. 1393 to Amendment No. 1116

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 1393, offered by the Senator from West Virginia, Mrs.
Capito.

[[Page S6603]]

The Senator from West Virginia.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1393.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The Senator from West Virginia [Mrs. Capito] proposes an
amendment numbered 1393 to amendment No. 1116.

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To help provide tax relief to middle-class Americans by
reducing deductibility, for Federal tax purposes, of federal
deductions, such as the state and local tax deduction which
disproportionally favors high-income individuals)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3 ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO TAX
RELIEF FOR HARD-WORKING MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS.

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to speak, for my 1 minute, about this amendment, which
prioritizes tax relief for the middle class over the State and local
tax deduction, which disproportionately benefits the wealthy and high
earners.
Only 1 percent of the State and local deduction benefits go to
taxpayers who earn less than $50,000 annually. Tax reform means higher
wages, lower taxes for middle-class workers. To unlock these benefits,
we must reduce expensive deductions that do little to benefit everyday
Americans. Keeping the State and local tax deduction without
modification would cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years. That money
would be better spent on relief for the middle class.
Middle-class workers will benefit from the enhanced 0-percent
bracket, enhanced child tax credit, and lower rates that will be part
of this reform. We cannot let an unwillingness to reduce deductions for
the wealthy stand in the way of relief for the middle-class working
folks of this great country.
I hope my colleagues will join me in prioritizing middle-class
families by supporting this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the Capito
amendment. More than half the taxpayers claiming the State and local
deduction make less than $100,000. These hard-working, middle-class
folks are not going to appreciate Congress double-taxing them.
The fact is, the Capito amendment is Washington lingo that would
produce a Republican tax plan that hits the middle class, yet again,
with more taxes. Under Capito, you could again have one hand giveth and
the other hand taketh away. You might have the Republicans say let's
double the standard deduction, but then when those middle-class folks
lose their deduction for State and local taxes and their personal
exemptions, they are in a big hole.
Reject this amendment, reject sleight-of-hand tax policy and those
approaches like this that hurt hard-working, middle-class families.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NAYS--47

NOT VOTING--1

Menendez

The amendment (No. 1393) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1141 to Amendment No. 1116

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 1141, offered by the Senator from Washington, Ms.
Cantwell.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1141, as
provided under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell] proposes an
amendment numbered 1141 to amendment No. 1116.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would
raise taxes on middle class families by double-taxing income already
taxed at the state or local level)

At the end of title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4__. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ANY TAX BILL THAT RAISES
TAXES ON MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES BY ELIMINATING
OR LIMITING THE STATE AND LOCAL TAX DEDUCTION.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report that
repeals or limits the State and Local Tax Deduction.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, this amendment simply raises a point
of order on any legislation that modifies or eliminates State and local
tax deductions. I know there are many States that have tax deductions
from their Federal obligations on property, but I am specifically
talking about States like Washington, Wyoming, Nevada, South Dakota,
Alaska, Florida, Texas, and Tennessee.
We have had the ability to itemize and deduct our sales tax from our
Federal income tax. That has resulted in a savings to the taxpayers.
Under the President's proposal of increasing the standard deduction,
even for households between $50,000 and $70,000, if you repeal their
ability to continue to itemize, even with the standard deduction, you
are raising taxes on them. It will not be covered. The standard
deduction is only $12,000. For that bracket in my State, they are
deducting up to $23,000.
Please do not raise taxes on our constituents without a due process
and a budget point of order that says that we are all going to be a
part of this process and discussion before you take away a way for our
citizens to save money.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

[[Page S6604]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, this amendment is corrosive to the budget
resolution's privilege. So it falls outside the scope of what is
appropriate for inclusion. Adoption of corrosive amendments could be
fatal to the resolution's privilege, and loss of privilege could
compromise our ability to pass tax reform and enforce the budget
spending limits. Further, this amendment is also nongermane. The
Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget
resolution be germane, which is a statutory requirement we can't
ignore. So I raise a point of order against this amendment under the
Budget Act, section 305(b)(2).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of
that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 227 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--52

NOT VOTING--1

Menendez
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
52.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 10 minutes, and that following my remarks, the Senator from
Washington, Mrs. Murray, be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Healthcare

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, a week ago Saturday night, I was having
dinner with my wife. It was about 8:30 in the evening, and the
telephone rang, my cell phone, sitting in my pocket. I pulled it out,
and it was the White House operator. The President was calling. So I
walked out of the restaurant, sat on a curb outside in the dark, and
had about a 15-minute conversation with the President of the United
States while my dinner got cold.
President Trump said: I am calling about the cost-sharing reduction
payments. I have cut them off as of October 1. The court says they are
illegal. I don't want insurance companies to be bailed out. I think I
can get block grants to replace ObamaCare, but I don't want people to
suffer in the meantime.
So he said to me: I think I might want to get a bipartisan interim
deal, a short-term deal. I have called Chuck Schumer and told him that.
The President put that out in a tweet that day.
So the President said to me: Why don't you negotiate with Senator
Murray and try to get one; meaning a short-term, bipartisan deal.
I said: Well, what about the CSR payments?
He said: I can put them back, and you can use that as a negotiating
tool to get a better deal with the Democrats.
I responded that I was already working on an agreement with Senator
Murray.
He said: Finish it, and let me know.
He called me again last Saturday. We talked about it again, and we
talked twice yesterday.
I reported to the President that we finished our negotiations and
that we are here today to present to the Senate the agreement we
recommend.
The bill has 22 sponsors, half Democratic and half Republican--very
few bills come to the floor with that many cosponsors originally--and
there are a number of others on the Republican side and I understand
from Senator Murray a number on the Democratic side who support the
idea.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of the cosponsors I am about to
read be printed in the Record following my remarks.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the agreement
that Senator Murray and I would like to present to the Senate for its
consideration and the President's consideration and the consideration
of the House of Representatives be printed in the Record following my
remarks.
The Republican Senators who are cosponsoring the Alexander-Murray
proposal, in addition to me, are Senator Rounds, Senator Graham,
Senator McCain, Senator Cassidy, Senator Collins, Senator Ernst,
Senator Murkowski, Senator Burr, and Senator Corker. I thank them all
for doing that. Senator Murray will talk about the equal number of
Democratic cosponsors that we have.
We hope Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, the President of the
United States, and the House of Representatives will consider our
proposal. This is a first step--improve it and pass it, sooner rather
than later. Our purpose is to stabilize and then lower the cost of
premiums in the individual insurance market for the years 2018 and
2019.
In plain English, most Americans get their insurance from the
government or on the job. About 6 percent of insured Americans, or 18
million Americans, go into the individual market to buy it. They are
the ones we are worried about. They are the ones we are seeking to
help. There are 350,000 such people in Tennessee--songwriters, farmers,
small business women--they are the ones who are terrified by the
prospect of skyrocketing premiums and even the possibility that they
might not be able to buy insurance at all.
Our agreement tries to help in two ways. No. 1, it permanently amends
the Affordable Care Act to give new flexibility for States to create
insurance policies that have a larger variety and lower costs. No. 2,
it continues the cost-sharing reduction payments during 2018 and 2019.
Now, first, about cost-sharing. Cost-sharing reduction payments are
subsidies that pay for co-pays and deductibles for low-income
Americans. That is what they are. Every Democrat wants them to
continue, so do many Republicans, including every Republican in the
majority in the House who voted for their repeal-and-replace bill this
year because it continued the cost-sharing payments for two years.
Let me say that again. Every Republican in the House of
Representatives who voted to repeal and replace ObamaCare this year
voted for a provision that continued the cost-sharing payments for 2
years. Our bill does the same thing. The only difference is, we
eliminate any question about whether paying them is legal.
Now, why would so many Republicans and so many Democrats support
these payments for 2 years and why would the President of the United
States be interested in them? It is because the Congressional Budget
Office has told us that if we don't do it--if we let them expire--
premiums in 2018 will go up an average of 20 percent. They

[[Page S6605]]

are already set, in most cases. The Federal debt will increase by $194
billion because of the extra cost of subsidies to pay the higher
premiums, and up to 16 million Americans may live in counties where
they are not able to buy any insurance in the individual market.
So unless the cost-sharing payments, which the President says are
illegal--and I agree with him. The Federal Court in Washington, DC, has
told him they are illegal, not properly authorized by Congress. Unless
they are replaced by something else temporarily, there will be chaos in
this country, and millions of Americans will be hurt.
The President says there should be no bailout of insurance
companies--no bailout of insurance companies. I agree 100 percent and
so does Senator Murray. She can speak for herself. I have said to the
President in our telephone calls--as I mentioned, 4 of them in the last
10 days--that if there is a way to improve the language in our bill, we
would like to do that. We have a page and a half to make it clear that
the benefits go to consumers, not insurance companies. That can always
be improved.
Some conservatives object to the idea of paying them at all, but I
would ask this: What is conservative about unaffordable premiums? What
is conservative about $194 billion of new Federal debt? What is
conservative about creating chaos so millions can't buy insurance or at
least failing to deal with the chaos that has been created? What is
conservative about a four-lane highway that would be the chaos that
leads to a single-payer solution for insurance in this country? Do we
really think that if 50 counties in Tennessee or Iowa or Kansas or any
State are in a situation where no one can buy insurance on the
individual market, that government-sponsored insurance is not far
behind? Of course it is. That is why Senator Graham and Senator Cassidy
have cosponsored our bill, because our bill would have been part of the
Senate Republican repeal-and-replace bills if budget rules had allowed
it.
Senator Graham and Senator Cassidy know that if we repeal and replace
ObamaCare in 1 year or 2 years or 3 years, it takes 2 or 3 years for it
to take effect. We still need the cost-sharing payments for the
interim, and you can't pass those in the Senate with 51 votes. It takes
60. Democrats are for it. The Republican House majority has voted for
it. The sponsor of the Senate repeal-and-replace bills are cosponsors
of this agreement. It sounds like something that might actually become
law before the end of the year.
Second, flexibility. The biggest difference between the Senate
Republicans and the Senate Democrats with regard to health insurance
and the individual market is whether Washington should write more of
the rules or States should write more of the rules. Our position has
been that States should write more of the rules. We have had about 50
votes--maybe more--and we have lost them all. We have made thousands of
speeches, and we have lost them all. In the last 7 years, we haven't
moved an inch toward our objectives of giving States more flexibility
in creating insurance policies in the individual market. This agreement
does.
It provides and authorizes States to offer an insurance policy called
catastrophic insurance for people of all ages that would keep a medical
catastrophe from turning into a financial catastrophe. It encourages
interstate agreements among States in health insurance. It streamlines
the innovation waiver--section 1332, we call it--for States that want
to do what Alaska did, which is to create a fund to pay for the very
sick and then reduce premiums for everybody else by 20 percent and use
no new Federal dollars. Most important, it changes the law to make it
easier for States like Iowa, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Minnesota,
Massachusetts, Tennessee, Alaska, and many others to use their
creativity to write policies that offer more choices and lower costs.
Some have said: Well, that is not enough. Well, that is more than we
have gotten for 8 years, and it is the first step.
I welcome anyone who wants to negotiate further with Senator Murray
or Senator Schumer. That is what the legislative process is about.
Now, because I forgot to do it when I listed the sponsors, I would
like to add Senator Isakson and Senator Grassley to the sponsor list,
which would be two additional Republican sponsors, I would say to
Senator Murray. That gives us a total of 12. I thank Senator Grassley
for his support.
The only thing I would say to those who want to negotiate further to
get more flexibility is to keep in mind that with the cost-sharing
payments, you can't get most of those changes without 60 votes in the
Senate.
I thank Senator Murray for being an able and effective negotiating
partner. We have worked on many pieces of legislation together. She is
tough and respected in her caucus. She does what she says she will do,
and she is interested in getting a result. I respect that and I thank
her.
I thank President Trump for his encouragement. He called me 10 days
ago, he called me last Saturday, and he called me again yesterday. I
thank him for his encouragement--to encourage someone to come up with a
bipartisan agreement to cover these 2 years so people wouldn't be
harmed--and his willingness to consider what we are offering today.
I thank Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer because they have
created an environment in which Senator Murray and I could make this
proposal. I hope they and our other colleagues will seriously consider
it.
The President was right to suggest that we need a short-term
agreement so people will not be hurt. Now, some people are still
objecting to the idea of continuing these temporary cost-sharing
payments for 2 years and the other provisions that would have as the
objective to keep premiums from going up in 2018 and for premiums to
begin to go down in 2019.
They are listening to groups around Washington, DC. I would suggest
they listen to some other people. Listen to the waitress, listen to the
songwriter, listen to the bricklayer, listen to the small
businesswoman, and the people of America--and there are 350,000 in
Tennessee--who may be terrified by the prospect of increasing premiums
or even by the prospect of not being able to buy insurance at all.
These are people who don't get insurance from the government. They
don't get it on the job. They might never know when they are going to
lose their job and they will be in this individual market.
We have a solution here. Senator Murray and I--24 total Senators--are
offering it today. We are certain it can be improved. We look forward
to working with those who would improve it, but I do not believe
Congress would want to fail to deal with a problem that will hurt
millions of Americans if we allow it to continue.
I predict this agreement that we 24 Senators are suggesting today
will become law in some fashion before the end of the year. I think
most Senators and most House Members will be looking around for a
solution when they consider the consequences of a failure to act. When
they look for a solution, I believe this solution supported by 24
Senators--half Democrats, half Republicans--will be the easiest
solution to adopt. I believe all the Democrats want it. Almost all of
the House Republicans have already voted for it this year, and the
Senate Republican leaders who would prefer to repeal and replace
ObamaCare would put it in their bill if they could get it in there, but
they can't because the budget rules will not allow it.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

list of republican consponsors

Alexander, Rounds, Graham, McCain, Cassidy, Collins, Ernst,
Murkowski, Grassley, Isakson, Burr, and Corker.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Title: To stabilize individual market premiums for the 2018 and 2019
plan years and provide meaningful State flexibility.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Bipartisan Health Care
Stabilization Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. WAIVERS FOR STATE INNOVATION.

(a) Streamlining the State Application Process.--Section
1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42
U.S.C. 18052) is amended--

[[Page S6606]]

(1) in subsection (a)(1)(C), by striking ``the law'' and
inserting ``a law or has in effect a certification''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``OR CERTIFY''
after ``LAW'';
(B) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``A law'' and inserting the following:
``(i) Laws.--A law''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Certifications.--A certification described in this
paragraph is a document, signed by the Governor of the State,
that certifies that such Governor has the authority under
existing Federal and State law to take action under this
section, including implementation of the State plan under
subsection (a)(1)(B).''; and
(C) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``OF OPT
OUT''; and
(ii) by striking ``may repeal a law'' and all that follows
through the period at the end and inserting the following:
``may terminate the authority provided under the waiver with
respect to the State by--
``(i) repealing a law described in subparagraph (A)(i); or
``(ii) terminating a certification described in
subparagraph (A)(ii), through a certification for such
termination signed by the Governor of the State.''.
(b) Giving States More Funding Flexibility, to Establish
Reinsurance, High Risk Pools, Invisible High Risk Pools,
Insurance Stability Funds and Other Programs.--Section
1332(a)(3) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(42 U.S.C. 18052(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``or would qualify for a reduced portion
of'' after ``would not qualify for'';
(B) by inserting ``, or the State would not qualify for or
would qualify for a reduced portion of basic health program
funds under section 1331,'' after ``subtitle E'';
(C) by inserting ``, or basic health program funds the
State would have received,'' after ``this title''; and
(D) by inserting ``or for implementing the basic health
program established under section 1331'' before the period;
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period,
``, and with respect to participation in the basic health
program and funds provided to such other States under section
1331''; and
(3) by adding after the second sentence the following: ``A
State may request that all of, or any portion of, such
aggregate amount of such credits, reductions, or funds be
paid to the State as described in the first sentence.''.
(c) Ensuring Patient Access to More Flexible Health
Plans.--Section 1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18052) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``at least as
affordable'' and inserting ``of comparable affordability,
including for low-income individuals, individuals with
serious health needs, and other vulnerable populations,'';
and
(ii) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
``(D)(i) will not increase the Federal deficit over the
term of the waiver; and
``(ii) will not increase the Federal deficit over the term
of the 10-year budget plan submitted under subsection
(a)(1)(B)(ii).'';
(B) by redesignating paragraph (2) (as amended by
subsection (a)) as paragraph (3); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Budgetary effect.--
``(A) In general.--In determining whether a State plan
submitted under subsection (a) meets the deficit neutrality
requirements of paragraph (1)(D), the Secretary may take into
consideration the direct budgetary effect of the provisions
of such plan on sources of Federal funding other than the
funding described in subsection (a)(3).
``(B) Limitation.--A determination made by the Secretary
under subparagraph (A)--
``(i) shall not be construed to affect any waiver process
or standards or terms and conditions in effect on the date of
enactment of the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act of
2017 under title XI, XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social
Security Act, or any other Federal law relating to the
provision of health care items or services; and
``(ii) shall be made without regard to any changes in
policy with respect to any waiver process or provision of
health care items or services described in clause (i).''; and
(2) in subsection (a)(1)(C), by striking ``subsection
(b)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(3)''.
(d) Providing Expedited Approval of State Waivers.--Section
1332(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42
U.S.C. 18052(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``180'' and inserting
``90''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Expedited determination.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to any application under
subsection (a)(1) submitted on or after the date of enactment
of the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act of 2017 or
any such application submitted prior to such date of
enactment and under review by the Secretary on such date of
enactment, the Secretary shall make a determination on such
application, using the criteria for approval otherwise
applicable under this section, not later than 45 days after
the receipt of such application, and shall allow the public
notice and comment at the State and Federal levels described
under subsection (a)(4) to occur concurrently if such State
application--
``(i) is submitted in response to an urgent situation, with
respect to areas in the State that the Secretary determines
are at risk for excessive premium increases or having no
health plans offered in the applicable health insurance
market for the current or following plan year; or
``(ii) is for a waiver that is the same or substantially
similar to a waiver that the Secretary already has approved
for another State.
``(B) Approval.--
``(i) Urgent situations.--
``(I) Provisional approval.--A waiver approved under the
expedited determination process under subparagraph (A)(i)
shall be in effect for a period of 3 years, unless the State
requests a shorter duration.
``(II) Full approval.--Subject to the requirements for
approval otherwise applicable under this section, not later
than 1 year before the expiration of a provisional waiver
period described in subclause (I) with respect to an
application described in subparagraph (A)(i), the Secretary
shall make a determination on whether to extend the approval
of such waiver for the full term of the waiver requested by
the State, for a total approval period not to exceed 6 years.
The Secretary may request additional information as the
Secretary determines appropriate to make such determination.
``(ii) Approval of same or similar applications.--An
approval of a waiver under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be
subject to the terms of subsection (e).
``(C) Gao study.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act of
2017, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct a review of all waivers approved pursuant to an
application under subparagraph (A)(ii) to evaluate whether
such waivers met the requirements of subsection (b)(1) and
whether the applications should have qualified for such
expedited process.''. (e) Providing certainty for state-based
reforms.--Section 1332
(e) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42
U.S.C. 18052(e)) is amended by striking ``No waiver'' and all
that follows through the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``A waiver under this section--
``(1) shall be in effect for a period of 6 years unless the
State requests a shorter duration;
``(2) may be renewed, subject to the State meeting the
criteria for approval otherwise applicable under this
section, for unlimited additional 6-year periods upon
application by the State; and
``(3) may not be suspended or terminated, in whole or in
part, by the Secretary at any time before the date of
expiration of the waiver period (including any renewal period
under paragraph (2)), unless the Secretary determines that
the State materially failed to comply with the terms and
conditions of the waiver.''.
(f) Guidance and Regulations.--Section 1332 of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18052) is
amended--
(1) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Guidance and Regulations.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to carrying out this
section, the Secretary shall--
``(A) issue guidance, not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act
of 2017, that includes initial examples of model State plans
that meet the requirements for approval under this section;
and
``(B) periodically review the guidance issued under
subparagraph (A) and when appropriate, issue additional
examples of model State plans that meet the requirements for
approval under this section, which may include--
``(i) State plans establishing reinsurance or invisible
high-risk pool arrangements for purposes of covering the cost
of high-risk individuals;
``(ii) State plans expanding insurer participation, access
to affordable health plans, network adequacy, and health plan
options over the entire applicable health insurance market in
the State;
``(iii) waivers encouraging or requiring health plans in
such State to deploy value-based insurance designs which
structure enrollee cost-sharing and other health plan design
elements to encourage enrollees to consume high-value
clinical services;
``(iv) State plans allowing for significant variation in
health plan benefit design; or
``(v) any other State plan as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(2) Rescission of previous regulations and guidance.--
Beginning on the date of enactment of the Bipartisan Health
Care Stabilization Act of 2017, the regulations promulgated,
and the guidance issued, under this section prior to the date
of enactment of the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act
of 2017 shall have no force or effect.''; and
(2) in subsection (a)(4)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, as applicable''
before the semicolon; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``Not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall'' and inserting ``The Secretary may''.
(g) Applicability.--The amendments made by this Act to
section 1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (42 U.S.C. 18052)--
(1) with respect to applications for waivers under such
section 1332 submitted after the

[[Page S6607]]

date of enactment of this Act and applications for such
waivers submitted prior to such date of enactment and under
review by the Secretary on the date of enactment, shall take
effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) with respect to applications for waivers approved under
such section 1332 before the date of enactment of this Act,
shall not require reconsideration of whether such
applications meet the requirements of such section 1332,
except that, at the request of a State, the Secretary shall
recalculate the amount of funding provided under subsection
(a)(3) of such section.
(h) Clarifying Budget Neutrality.--Section
1332(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18052(a)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by
inserting ``over both the term of the proposed waiver and the
term of the 10-year budget plan'' after ``Government''.

SEC. 3. COST-SHARING PAYMENTS.

(a) In general.--There is appropriated to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (referred to in this section as the
``Secretary''), out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise obligated, such sums as may be necessary for
payments for cost-sharing reductions authorized by section
1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42
U.S.C. 18071) for the portion of plan year 2017 that begins
[on the date of enactment of this Act] and ends on December
31, 2017, and for plan years 2018 and 2019.
[(b) Ensuring Consumer Benefit in 2018.--]
[(1) Cost-sharing payments.--
[(A) In general.--[(i) Availability of funds.--For plan
year 2018, except with respect to issuers of qualified health
plans in a State described in clause (ii)(I), amounts
appropriated under subsection (a) shall be made available for
payments for cost-sharing reductions under such section 1402
to issuers of qualified health plans.]
[(ii) State flexibility.--
[(I) State described.--A State described in this clause is
a State in which the State insurance regulator, before the
date of enactment of this Act, directed issuers of qualified
health plans to decline cost-sharing reduction payments under
section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (42 U.S.C. 18071) for the 2018 plan year, through a
formal notice or correspondence.]
[(II) State option to reverse directive.--Nothing in this
clause shall prevent a State insurance regulator from
reversing a directive described in subclause (I).]
[(B) State plan.--
[(i) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, each State insurance regulator not
described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(I) shall submit to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services a certification that,
with respect to plan year 2018, the State will ensure that
each applicable issuer of a qualified health plan in the
State provides a direct financial benefit to consumers and
the Federal Government, as applicable, and a State plan for
so ensuring such benefit. The Secretaries of the Treasury and
of Health and Human Services shall assist the States in
developing and implementing plans as needed, including by
providing technical assistance.]
[(ii) Content.--A State plan under clause (i) shall
include, as applicable--]
[(I) providing monthly rebates to affected consumers and
the Federal Government;]
[(II) one-time rebates for consumers to affected consumers
and the Federal Government;]
[(III) after-the-year rebates for affected consumers and
the Federal Government;]
[(IV) rebates paid through the process under section 2718
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-18),
allowing for the appropriate portion of rebates to be
provided to the Federal Government; and]
[(V) other means of providing a direct financial benefit to
consumers and the Federal Government approved by the State
insurance regulator, provided such means of providing a
financial benefit does not result in increased costs for
applicable taxpayers described in section 36B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 or the Federal Government.]
[(iii) Considerations.--Any rebate amount described in
clause (ii)--]
[(I) shall be treated as part of the premium, but the
premium under section 36B(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 or section 36B(f)(3)(B) of such Code shall not be
affected by the rebate amount;]
[(II) shall be treated as if it were an expenditure
described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 2718(a) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-18);]
[(III) shall be accounted for by the Secretary in
calculating risk adjustment and reconciling any other
relevant downstream financial calculations; and]
[(IV) shall be provided so as not to create an inducement
to purchase health insurance coverage from an applicable
issuer.
[(iv) Notice requirements.--States that adopt a State plan
under this subparagraph shall prominently post a notice that
enrollees may qualify for rebates or other means and explain
how such rebates will be provided.
[(2) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall issue a report describing the activities taken
by issuers of qualified health plans in States that submitted
certifications and State plans under paragraph (1)(B) to
provide a direct financial benefit to individuals enrolled in
a qualified health plan and the Federal Government, as
applicable, for the 2018 plan year.]

SEC. 4. ALLOWING ALL INDIVIDUALS PURCHASING HEALTH INSURANCE
IN THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET THE OPTION TO PURCHASE
A LOWER PREMIUM COPPER PLAN.

(a) In General.--Section 1302(e) of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18022(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph
(B) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and adjusting
the margins accordingly;
(B) by striking ``plan year if--'' and all that follows
through ``the plan provides--'' and inserting ``plan year if
the plan provides--''; and
(C) in subparagraph (A), as redesignated by paragraph (1),
by striking ``clause (ii)'' and inserting ``subparagraph
(B)'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2); and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(b) Risk Pools.--Section 1312(c)(1) of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18032(c)) is
amended by inserting ``and including enrollees in
catastrophic plans described in section 1302(e)'' after
``Exchange''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1312(d)(3)(C) of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C.
18032(d)(3)(C)) is amended by striking ``, except that in the
case of a catastrophic plan described in section 1302(e), a
qualified individual may enroll in the plan only if the
individual is eligible to enroll in the plan under section
1302(e)(2)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections
(a), (b), and (c) shall apply with respect to plan years
beginning on or after January 1, 2019.

SEC. 5. CONSUMER OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND ASSISTANCE.

(a) Open Enrollment Reports.--For plan years 2018 and 2019,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services (referred to in
this section as the ``Secretary''), in coordination with the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor, shall
issue biweekly public reports during the annual open
enrollment period on the performance of the Federal Exchange
and the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP)
Marketplace. Each such report shall include a summary,
including information on a State-by-State basis where
available, of--
(1) the number of unique website visits;
(2) the number of individuals who create an account;
(3) the number of calls to the call center;
(4) the average wait time for callers contacting the call
center;
(5) the number of individuals who enroll in a qualified
health plan; and
(6) the percentage of individuals who enroll in a qualified
health plan through each of--
(A) the website;
(B) the call center;
(C) navigators;
(D) agents and brokers;
(E) the enrollment assistant program;
(F) directly from issuers or web brokers; and
(G) other means.
(b) Open Enrollment After Action Report.--For plan years
2018 and 2019, the Secretary, in coordination with the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor, shall
publish an after action report not later than 3 months after
the completion of the annual open enrollment period regarding
the performance of the Federal Exchange and the Small
Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Marketplace for the
applicable plan year. Each such report shall include a
summary, including information on a State-by-State basis
where available, of--
(1) the open enrollment data reported under subsection (a)
for the entirety of the enrollment period; and
(2) activities related to patient navigators described in
section 1311(i) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (42 U.S.C. 18031(i)), including--
(A) the performance objectives established by the Secretary
for such patient navigators;
(B) the number of consumers enrolled by such a patient
navigator;
(C) an assessment of how such patient navigators have met
established performance metrics, including a detailed list of
all patient navigators, funding received by patient
navigators, and whether established performance objectives of
patient navigators were met; and
(D) with respect to the performance objectives described in
subparagraph (A)--
(i) whether such objectives assess the full scope of
patient navigator responsibilities, including general
education, plan selection, and determination of eligibility
for tax credits, cost-sharing reductions, or other coverage;
(ii) how the Secretary worked with patient navigators to
establish such objectives; and
(iii) how the Secretary adjusted such objectives for case
complexity and other contextual factors.
(c) Report on Advertising and Consumer Outreach.--Not later
than 3 months after the completion of the annual open
enrollment period for the 2018 plan year, the Secretary shall
issue a report on advertising and outreach to consumers for
the open enrollment period for the 2018 plan year. Such
report shall include a description of--
(1) the division of spending on individual advertising
platforms, including television and radio advertisements and
digital media,

[[Page S6608]]

to raise consumer awareness of open enrollment;
(2) the division of spending on individual outreach
platforms, including email and text messages, to raise
consumer awareness of open enrollment; and
(3) whether the Secretary conducted targeted outreach to
specific demographic groups and geographic areas.
(d) Outreach and Enrollment Activities.--
(1) Open enrollment.--Of the amounts collected through the
user fees on participating health insurance issuers pursuant
to section 156.50 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations
(or any successor regulations), the Secretary shall obligate
$105,800,000 for outreach and enrollment activities for each
of the open enrollment periods for plan years 2018 and 2019.
(2) Outreach and enrollment activities.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``outreach and enrollment activities'' means--
(i) activities to educate consumers about coverage options
or to encourage consumers to enroll in or maintain health
insurance coverage (excluding allocations to the call center
for the Federal Exchange); and
(ii) activities conducted by an in-person consumer
assistance program that does not have a conflict of interest
and that, among other activities, facilitates enrollment of
individuals through the Federal Exchange, and distributes
fair and impartial information concerning enrollment through
such Exchange and the availability of tax credits and cost-
sharing reductions.
(B) Connection with federal exchange.--Activities conducted
under this subsection shall be in connection with the
operation of the Federal Exchange, to provide special
benefits to health insurance issuers participating in the
Federal Exchange.
(3) Contract authority.--The Secretary may contract with a
State to conduct outreach and enrollment activities for plan
years 2018 and 2019. Any outreach and enrollment activities
conducted by a State or other entity at the direction of the
State, in accordance with such a contract, shall be treated
as Federal activities to provide special benefits to
participating health insurance issuers consistent with OMB
Circular No. A-25R.
(4) Clarifications.--
(A) Prior funding.--Nothing in this subsection should be
construed as rescinding or cancelling any funds already
obligated on the date of enactment of this Act for outreach
and enrollment activities for plan year 2018.
(B) Availability of funding.--The Secretary shall ensure
that outreach and enrollment activities are conducted in all
applicable States, including, as necessary, by providing for
such activities through contracts described in paragraph (3).

SEC. 6. OFFERING HEALTH PLANS IN MORE THAN ONE STATE.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in
consultation with the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners, shall issue regulations for the implementation
of health care choice compacts established under section 1333
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C.
18053) to allow for the offering of health plans in more than
one State.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield the floor to Senator Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, first I thank Chairman Alexander for his
leadership in launching a bipartisan process, as well as his dedication
to seeing it through and getting a result, as he said.
I have to say that, after 7 years of intense partisanship on these
issues, which would lead everyone to believe that there was no hope for
Republicans and Democrats to come together and work to strengthen our
healthcare, I am really pleased with this common ground we have been
able to find, providing multiple years of certainty when it comes to
payments to reduce out-of-pocket costs that affect the people Senator
Alexander just talked about--the waitress, the songwriter, and people
who care and need this--restoring critical investments, making sure
people know about enrollment and can get coverage, and offering States
more flexibility to innovate, as the Affordable Care Act intended,
while maintaining those essential health benefits, like maternity care,
protecting people with preexisting conditions, and the elderly. It does
all this while making sure that costs do go down for our families and
preventing insurers from double-dipping and getting the benefit of both
cost reduction and higher premiums. If there are ways to do this even
more, to make sure patients come first and insurers can't pad their
profits, I, as I know Senator Alexander is, as well, am open to that.
Chairman Alexander just took some time to lay out the policies we are
putting forward in this legislation. So I will not go into those
details. But I do want to take a few minutes to focus on what this
legislation would mean for the people we are all here to serve because
what is really at stake is that patients and families across the
country are now looking ahead to next year, and they are realizing they
are about to pay the price for the uncertainty and partisanship we have
seen, especially from this administration, on healthcare over the last
9 months.
To many of those families, that out-of-pocket cost-reduction payment
we are debating in Congress has nothing to do with politics and has
everything to do with whether they will be able to make ends meet at
the end of the month. Now the law is very clear that these payments are
required, but with the President's decision to stop them, families are
looking to this Congress and the administration and asking what we plan
to do.
So I am very glad that Democrats and Republicans agreed that we need
to act. We could do much better working together under regular order
rather than doubling down on partisanship and dysfunction. As a result
of the hard work of Chairman Alexander and members of our HELP
Committee and with input from half of the Senate, we were able to put
forward an answer--a bipartisan solution that prevents families from
paying the price of sabotage and uncertainty and one that Members on
both sides of the aisle can be proud to support, starting with the list
of original cosponsors we are revealing today. Senator Alexander listed
the 12 Republicans. The 12 Democrats are Senators Murray, King,
Shaheen, Donnelly, Klobuchar, Heitkamp, Franken, Manchin, Carper,
Baldwin, McCaskill and Hassan.
We are doing this today not only because it will help protect our
families from premium spikes that are set to kick off in the next year
but because it sends a powerful message that, when Members of Congress
decide to get past our talking points and take a few steps out of our
partisan corners, there is a lot we can agree on and a lot we can get
done.
Chairman Alexander and I are going to continue to make the case for
this agreement. We are already getting a promising response from many
Members on both sides of the aisle. I am very appreciative of Senator
Schumer for his strong support and I am optimistic that, with Chairman
Alexander working on this, we will continue to build momentum and, as
he said, we will get this done.
At the end of the day, this isn't about Republicans or Democrats. It
is about doing the right thing for the people we serve. That means
having an answer to the premium spikes that are going to set in and
burden our families next year. We have been able to find one. It is
bipartisan. We both gave on this. I really hope all of our colleagues
will work with us to get this signed into law and show the American
public that we can get the job done for them and we understand the
priorities of this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, if I could ask a question, through the
Chair, to the Senator from Washington.
In my conversations with President Trump, he has made it clear--and
several of my colleagues have made it clear on the Republican side--
that they don't want to bail out insurance companies. What I responded
is that I 100-percent agree.
I have already said this to the President, but I think it is
important for our colleagues to know that probably the most heated
debate Senator Murray and I had was not over whether we agreed with
that but on how to actually do it in the most effective, strongest,
toughest way possible.
So I wish to emphasize the point that these payments are designed to
help low-income Americans pay their copays and deductibles. We have in
our agreement about a page and a half of language that requires every
State to make sure the benefits of those payments go to the consumers
in 2018 and not to the insurance companies.
I wish to ask Senator Murray if she sees any disagreement at all
between her and me, and most of our colleagues on that side of the
aisle and over here, about whether we want to bail out insurance
companies or whether we

[[Page S6609]]

would be willing to consider any effective language that would improve
our own language.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would respond to my colleague, through
the Chair, that negotiations are always tough. There are things you
disagree on, and you have to work your way to an answer. The one issue
we did not disagree on but we worked the hardest on and had the most
discussion on was how we make sure we have the language in place on
this--that consumers benefit and it is not a bailout for insurers. We
absolutely share that point, and I know we both heard from Members on
both sides of the aisle that they share that point.
We have strong language in here, but we are still open together to
make it stronger under anybody's suggestion because our intent is to
make sure our constituents get the result of this. We are together on
that and working on that. I, absolutely, disregard anyone who says this
is a bailout for insurers because they haven't read the bill, if they
have seen it.
I thank Senator Alexander for his attention, discussions, and hard
work to reach this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, before I speak on an amendment that is
expected to be voted on later this afternoon, I wish to take just a
brief moment and thank my colleagues, the Chairman of the HELP
Committee and his ranking member, Senator Murray. The work they have
done to knit together this compromise--and we all recognize it is a
compromise--is such an important one, and it comes at such an important
time.
It is not only good from a policy perspective to ensure that we don't
pull out the underpinnings on the individual market here, but it is
good, from the perspective of the health of our institution, to be able
to demonstrate that, at a time when things are a little tense, let's
just say, on issues that are highly emotional, highly personal, and
highly, highly complex, we can come together and we can demonstrate the
ability to govern. It doesn't come without great patience and
persistence, and these two individuals, these two leaders, have really
helped guide us here in the Senate to find a better path, not only when
it comes to how we deal with access to healthcare, reducing costs,
reducing premiums, and providing for better levels of care but also a
better path for the Senate.
So I want to acknowledge and show my genuine appreciation for their
leadership.
Mr. President, as chairman of the Energy Committee, I come to the
floor today to urge every Member here to vote against amendment No.
1301, which will be voted on later on this afternoon.
The fiscal year 2018 budget resolution instructs the Energy Committee
to raise $1 billion over the next decade. That is all that it does. It
just says: Go out and find $1 billion over the next decade.
I appreciate Chairman Enzi's willingness to include this instruction,
and I have every confidence that our committee will be able to meet the
instruction. There are good reasons why we should be able to meet it,
and, really, very good reasons why we should oppose an amendment that
would preemptively strike it.
I think it is fair to say that we have opportunities within the
energy sector to help advance this country when it comes to our energy
security, our national security, and our economic security. But we need
to be able to move forward with that.
So what we are able to do within this instruction, which is pretty
wide open, is to focus on those areas where we might be able to see
increased energy production that could bring us new wealth--that could
create new wealth in this country.
I am going to be the first to agree that some of our options within
this open instruction are better than others. Some will create jobs.
Some may end jobs. Some will reduce energy costs as opposed to raising
them. Some will increase our energy and mineral security as opposed to
sacrifice or selling it off.

What I hope Members will do is look at this instruction as an
opportunity to do something constructive for the country. The best
example of that is to expand energy development in our Federal areas
where we have seen decline in recent years.
I think we recognize that responsible development not only will
reduce our immediate deficits, but it is about jobs and job creation.
It is about wealth and wealth creation, about allowing us to build new
wealth and create prosperity. It will help energy affordability for our
families and businesses. That is something I hear about all the time.
It will strengthen our national security and our competitiveness.
This is a point that needs to be emphasized over and over again. It
is not only energy security, but it is national security. When we are
dependent on other nations for our energy resources, there is an energy
insecurity and vulnerability. We also realize energy production will
ensure the type of growth we need to finally begin reducing the Federal
debt, which is now over $20 trillion.
In short, what we will be able to do with this energy instruction is
allow us to create new wealth. Why wouldn't that be something we would
all embrace? I think the instruction will allow us to see some enduring
benefits that will be felt all across our country. I think it is
important to recognize and to state that this does not come at the
expense of our environment. This is not an either/or proposition.
Anyone familiar with modern development can recognize that as the scare
tactic it is.
Senator Sullivan, my colleague from the State of Alaska, was on the
floor earlier this morning, and he spoke to the outdated, stale
arguments we have heard repeated on the floor and why we must reject
them.
The amendment we have in front of us, 1301, simply strikes the
section in the resolution that would provide for the Energy Committee
instruction. The purpose perhaps takes it a little bit further in
mentioning and bringing out the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR.
There has been a lot of discussion on the floor about ANWR already.
Senator Sullivan, when he spoke earlier, spoke to the broader
opportunities we have seen in the Arctic with Arctic development in
general. I want to raise a few facts about ANWR more specifically,
since it clearly has been put out there for discussion.
As an Alaskan, and one who has been part of these debates for many
years now, not only on the Senate floor but in Alaska, we know what we
are talking about when we discuss the issue of Arctic development. We
know and understand what ANWR is, where the wilderness area is, and
what the 1002 area is.
I think it is important to put it into context. ANWR is an area of
19.3 million acres. It is about the size of the State of South
Carolina. Included in this ANWR area are 8 million acres of Federal
wilderness. You have wilderness area, you have refuge area, but you
have nonwilderness area designated as the 1002 area. That is this area
on the coastal plain. This is an area of 1.5 million acres. Delaware is
about 1.3 million acres. The 1002 area is what was specifically set
aside under ANILCA that would allow for consideration for its oil and
gas potential. When ANWR was established, it was recognized that there
were areas that were appropriate for wilderness, and there were areas
that were appropriate to be reviewed and considered for their
exploration and production potential.
That is what we are talking about within the 1002 area. Even within
this area that was specifically set aside, we are not asking to develop
all of the 1002. We are asking to develop just 2,000 Federal acres
within it, effectively one ten-thousandths of the refuge area.
You can't see it, but that little red dot is basically what we are
talking about. We can say this. We can say we don't need to do more
than 2,000 acres, in this 19.3 million-acre area that has been set
aside specifically for oil and gas production, because of what has
happened over the decades with regard to our technologies, how we have
worked to reduce the footprint since Prudhoe Bay opened over 40 years
ago. Well pads on the North Slope have shrunk by over 80 percent in
these intervening years. We are talking now about pad areas that are 12
acres in size--10, 11, 12 acres in size.
We have reduced the footprint dramatically, but what we have expanded

[[Page S6610]]

dramatically is the subsurface reach. The new technologies have allowed
us to increase the ability to reach out under the surface to an area
125 square miles--125 miles. We have increased it by 4,000 percent, in
the years we have been producing, exploring, and innovating up north,
due to the technologies we use for exploration. Senator Sullivan showed
the ice roads we use that reduce the impact on the surface and avoid
the need for permanent roads.
We use forward looking infrared cameras to survey for polar bear dens
so we can avoid them. There was actually a story just this spring about
a polar bear that was denning. We found where she was by using the
technologies that we know and literally working around where that polar
bear was until she emerged from her den with her cub in the spring. It
is working with the technologies we have to allow for the activity but
with minimal disturbance to not only the land but to the wildlife
there.
Caribou. We all know about the caribou in the North Slope area. What
we have learned is that over the years, the caribou that occupy these
areas have not suffered. In fact, they have thrived. When oil
development first began, we were looking at herds in the numbers of
about 5,000. Just this last year, the caribou herd is numbering about
22,000, and it has maintained steady and substantial levels.
When you understand what the 1002 area really is and what development
would actually look like, it is not hard to understand why you have
Alaskans' support. Over 70 percent of Alaskans support responsible
development there.
I want to give you one of the best examples. Matthew Rexford is the
president of Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, KIC, which is a member of
the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat. This is a group of community leaders
from our North Slope. He wrote a great opinion piece not too long ago,
explaining why he supports responsible development in the 1002 area.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Matthew
Rexford's op-ed.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Oct. 2, 2017]

Alaskans Say Yes to Drilling in ANWR

(By Matthew Rexford)

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the largest wildlife
refuge in America. Spanning more than 19 million acres, it's
an area larger than 10 U.S. states. This vast expanse is home
to caribou, fox, bears and other species. Much of that land
is also home to the Native Inupiat, and our people have used
the resources it has blessed us with for more than 10,000
years. One of those natural resources lies beneath this great
land--oil and gas, and lots of it.
The debate over opening ANWR to drilling gained headway
nationally in 1980, when President Jimmy Carter set aside
less than 8 percent of the refuge for potential oil and gas
development. This section of ANWR became known as the 1002
area, after a section of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act.
Since then, Alaskans and the oil and gas industry have
fought unsuccessfully to open the 1002 area to drilling,
which literally requires an act of Congress. At the same
time, Lower 48 lawmakers, special interest groups across the
country, folks and organizations around the world have waged
war on the idea, citing the disruption of wildlife and the
pristine Arctic environment.
As ANWR debates occur, the views of the Inupiat who call
the area home are oftentimes left out. The wishes of the
people who live in and around the refuge's coastal plain
frequently are drowned out by people who live hundreds--even
thousands--of miles away, many of whom have never bothered to
set foot anywhere near the Arctic. Well, today is a new day.
Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, an organization with 21
members from across the Arctic Slope region, including
members from Kaktovik located inside ANWR, have voted
unanimously to pass a resolution supporting oil and gas
development in the 1002 area. This is an unprecedented show
of unity by community leaders of the North Slope--those who
live in and around the coastal plain of the refuge--and
should send a clear message to America that we support
development of a portion of the coastal plain.
My fellow Inupiat and I firmly believe in a social license
to operate, and perhaps no other potential project in the
history of America has called for such a blessing from local
indigenous peoples more than this one.
When oil was first discovered on our land in 1969, the
Inupiat were worried of industry activities and fought hard
for self-determination to protect our subsistence resources.
So we fully understand the trepidation from outsiders: the
fear that the presence of industry on the coastal plain of
ANWR could disrupt wildlife and affect America's manufactured
perspective of our land and culture.
However, we also have the benefit of decades of experience
working with the oil and gas industry to implement stringent
regulations to protect our lands, and the industry
consistently has lived up to our standards. Prudhoe Bay, the
largest oil field on the continent, located 60 miles west of
the coastal plain of ANWR, has demonstrated for four decades
that resource development and ecological preservation can
coexist in the Arctic.
The oil and gas industry supports our communities by
providing jobs, business opportunities and infrastructure
investments, has built our schools and hospitals, and has
provided other basic services most Americans may take for
granted. Our region recognizes its importance to our local
and state economy, and we believe that development can be
done responsibly in a portion of the 1002 area. We are not
alone.
During the past 35 years, the Alaska Legislature has
consistently passed resolution after resolution supporting
the opening of ANWR to drilling. During that same time, each
Alaska member of Congress and every Alaska governor has
supported responsible development of the 1002 area.
More recently, in January, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski
introduced Senate Bill 49--the Alaska Oil and Gas Production
Act--to allow development of 2,000 surface acres in the
refuge's coastal plain. This legislation served as the
catalyst for the Inupiat people coming together to make an
informed, united decision on whether or not to support
drilling in ANWR.
As Inupiat, we stand to be unarguably the most affected by
oil and gas activity in the Arctic. Therefore, we have the
greatest stake in seeing that any and all development keeps
our land and subsistence resources safe. We know it can be
done, because it's being done.
Now is the time to open ANWR to drilling.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. In part, Matthew states:

As ANWR debates occur, the views of the Inupiat who call
the area home are oftentimes left out. The wishes of the
people who live in and around the refuge's coastal plain
frequently are drowned out by people who live hundreds--even
thousands--of miles away, many of whom have never bothered to
set foot anywhere near the Arctic. Well, today is a new day.

He goes on to speak to the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, which has
members from across the Arctic Slope who have voted unanimously to pass
a resolution supporting oil and gas development in the 1002 area. He
goes on further to state:

When oil was first discovered on our land in 1969, the
Inupiat were worried of industry activities and fought hard
for self-determination to protect our subsistence resources.
So we fully understand the trepidation from outsiders: the
fear that the presence of industry on the coastal plain of
ANWR could disrupt wildlife and affect America's manufactured
perspective of our land and culture.
However, we also have the benefit of decades of experience
working with the oil and gas industry to implement stringent
regulations to protect our lands, and the industry
consistently has lived up to our standards. Prudhoe Bay, the
largest oil field on the continent, located 60 miles west of
the coastal plain of ANWR, has demonstrated for four decades
that resource development and ecological preservation can co-
exist in the Arctic.
The oil and gas industry supports our communities by
providing jobs, business opportunities and infrastructure
investments, has built our schools and hospitals, and has
provided other basic services most Americans may take for
granted. Our region recognizes its importance to our local
and state economy, and we believe that development can be
done responsibly in a portion of the 1002 area. We are not
alone.

I am with Matthew and a strong majority of Alaskans are. These are
the voices we need to be listening to. My answer on this discussion is
yes. Opening the nonwilderness 1002 area to development is an option to
meet the instructions to the Energy Committee, but it is not the only
option. I will tell you, it is the best option, and it is on the table.
We should be clear, amendment No. 1301 is not a vote to open the 1002
area or to keep it closed. It is about whether this instruction should
stay in the budget resolution, and it is about whether we are going to
recognize the substantial benefits that await us or whether we are
going to ignore our future energy needs and once again wind up in a
situation where we see prices rising, families hurting, and everyone is
wondering: Why didn't you act when you had a chance?
I think we all recognize that we are enjoying some benefits of lower
energy prices, and some have suggested here: Hey, we are all fine. We
don't need to do anything. A few have even said that

[[Page S6611]]

because we are exporting oil now, we don't need to do more for
ourselves here. It is truly an open invitation to ignore the supply
side. That is just a bad idea. Quite honestly, we have been down that
road before, and we know enough not to be in that place again.
The EIA, the Energy Information Administration, projects that in
2040, the world will be using more oil, not less. They project that our
country will still be importing about 7 million barrels a day on a net
basis. They project prices will be back above $100 a barrel. There are
other experts who are already pointing to other signs. The
International Energy Agency recently found that ``global oil supply
could struggle to keep pace with demand after 2020, risking a sharp
increase in prices, unless new projects are approved soon.''
My point here is we have an opportunity. We have an opportunity not
only to help America create jobs, to allow for opportunities not only
in my home State but around the country, we have an opportunity to
ensure a level of energy security while at the same time broadening
this to enhance our national security.
So what I am asking my colleagues today is to not preempt this very
important conversation. Give us a chance to consider this instruction
within our committee. We will have an opportunity for hearings, and we
will be able to put these options out on the table and understand more
fully how we can do more when it comes to energy production in this
country. Let the Energy and Natural Resources Committee do its part in
helping. Let's not pull the plug even before we get going.
Given everything that we have heard here on the floor about
strengthening our economy and protecting the middle class and making
life better for people whom we serve, I think we really have to ask the
very legitimate question: Why? Why would one leave energy out of this
debate? Why would we limit our opportunity to create new wealth in this
country?
I would again urge the Senate to reject this amendment. It would
deprive us of a substantial opportunity to benefit our country and
ensure that we have great prospects and possibilities in front of us.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee wanted to see this
instruction in the budget resolution. I have every confidence that we
can meet it, so I would urge Members to vote no on the motion to strike
when that comes up later today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

Amendment No. 1138 to Amendment No. 1116

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I join my colleague from the State of
Virginia, Senator Warner, in offering an amendment that will prevent
tax reform from ballooning our deficits.
The Republican budget, which we are currently considering, includes a
troubling provision that would exempt a $1.5 trillion tax reform bill
from the important requirement that legislation that adds costs to the
U.S. Government must be paid for rather than merely added to our
deficit. This rule, well known to our colleagues, is one by which I am
troubled to see a number of my longtime friends choose to ignore this
time around--a rule long known in the Senate as the pay-as-you-go rule,
or pay-go. It is an important rule that forces Congress to be
responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. It forces Congress to find
ways to actually pay for new programs or find offsets for reductions in
revenue rather than to add to our national debt. It is the right
policy, and it has been in place for years. So it is, frankly, jarring
that this budget document would include a provision that explicitly
exempts a $1.5 trillion tax reform bill from the pay-go rule.
Look, I agree that we need to work together toward a bipartisan tax
reform bill, one that reduces taxes on the middle class and simplifies
our overly complicated Tax Code, but we cannot simply pass a budget
that allows Congress to put $1.5 trillion more on the government's
credit card, on our credit card.
I thank Senator Warner for his long leadership on the need for
fiscally responsible governing. Senator Warner is a former Governor and
a successful business leader, and he understands the importance of
sound fiscal management and the danger that our national debt poses to
our long-term economic prosperity. I am proud to work with him and to
remind our colleagues of the Senate's longstanding support of pay-go. I
encourage all Members, especially my Republican colleagues, to support
this amendment.
Now, with the forbearance of my colleague, I will speak to one other
amendment for a moment.
There is an amendment that I have introduced that I know may well not
get a vote but that I wanted to speak to. It would ensure that, as we
consider tax reform, we do not forget those who are the most in need of
our assistance right now and in the future.
The United States was hit very hard by three hurricanes and many
wildfires this year. In particular, Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory of
3.4 million people, was devastated by Hurricane Maria, which was wider
than the entire island. It caused massive damage and is now resulting
in a humanitarian crisis. Puerto Rico's 3.4 million people is several
times more than live in my State of Delaware. It is about the size of
Connecticut.
Once we get past this initial crisis and restore power, provide clean
drinking water, get hospitals functioning, and ensure people have
housing, then Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the areas of
Houston, TX, and Miami, FL, as well as areas affected by wildfires in
all of these other parts of our country will have significant
rebuilding needs.
We have representatives of the Governor of Puerto Rico and the
Governor himself here on the Hill this week to clarify just how much
more will be needed for the Marshall Plan-style investment to rebuild
Puerto Rico. I am going to be advocating that we provide further
support for folks from the Corporation for National and Community
Service, AmeriCorps volunteers, and NCCC volunteers. Thousands of them
have served in response to these emergencies. We are going to need
investments in CDBGs for parks and for infrastructure.
Before I hand it over to my colleague from Virginia, I want to
reference a second amendment that would prevent us from moving forward
with tax reform until we first provide for the needs of Americans who
have been affected by these disasters and emergencies. I wish we would
take that up.
Let me close by thanking my colleague from Virginia for his long
leadership on the issue of responsible fiscal management for our
country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let me thank my friend, the Senator from
Delaware, for his kind comments. More importantly, I thank him for his
good work that he brings to the issue of fiscal responsibility. Before
he served here in the Senate, he served as the head of one of the
largest counties in Delaware. Whether you serve as a county chairman or
as a Governor, you are used to the notion that you have to pay your
bills. I very much appreciate his support for this amendment, that of
keeping pay-go in place.
Let me also echo that I absolutely support his notion that the
American citizens in Puerto Rico deserve not to be forgotten and
deserve to receive the same attention we have bestowed upon Americans
in Texas or in Florida or in Louisiana or elsewhere around our great
country when they were victims of national disasters. I hope the
Senator from Delaware gets a chance to submit his amendment.
While Puerto Rico is not receiving sufficient attention, there is
another American territory nearby, the U.S. Virgin Islands, that also
has those same kinds of challenges. If the Senator gets a chance to
submit that amendment, I hope he will include the U.S. Virgin Islands
in there as well.
Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1138, which I filed at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an
amendment numbered 1138 to amendment No. 1116.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S6612]]

(Purpose: To strike the Senate pay-as-you-go exemption for tax cut
reconciliation legislation and the exception to rules preventing any
legislation from increasing the deficit over the short-term)

On page 50, line 8, strike ``, and'' and all that follows
through ``ledger,'' on line 9.
Beginning on page 50, strike line 23 and all that follows
through page 51, line 3.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of my amendment
to strike language in this budget resolution that would exempt the $1.5
trillion tax reconciliation instructions from Senate rules that are
meant to prevent this body from dramatically increasing our debts and
deficits.
I know that everybody is coming back from lunch, and they probably
feel pretty good and do not want to get indigestion, but remember, our
country is sitting on top of a $20 trillion debt at this point, an
accumulation in which both parties have unclean hands.
In the years that I have been in this institution, I have worked with
my Republican colleagues on issues that try to address debts and
deficits, but there is the notion that we are about to take on a budget
resolution this afternoon and start with the premise that the rules
that are there to try to protect us from being fiscally irresponsible
are going to be blown off at the outset. To say that we are going to
start with $1.5 trillion in the hole before we start counting is beyond
irresponsible.
I thank my friend, the Senator from Delaware, for joining me in
offering this amendment.
Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a question?
Mr. WARNER. I am pleased to yield to my friend, the Senator from
Texas, for a question as long as I still get a chance to finish my
comments.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate that. And the Senator from
Virginia is my friend. We work together closely on the Intelligence
Committee on a number of matters.
I just want to ask a pretty basic question, which is whether the
Senator from Virginia believes that it is possible to improve economic
growth as a result of tax reform in such a way as it will close that
$1.5 trillion gap that he is so concerned about. Some economists--ones
who I believe are people we can depend on--have suggested that as much
as a four-tenths of 1 percent increase in our GDP will essentially
improve our economy to the point at which that gap will close to zero,
and we will actually see true deficit reduction.
Does the Senator agree with that or disagree?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his
comment.
Let me say where I might agree with some of Senator Cornyn's
principles. I believe that we need a more simplified Tax Code. I
believe that a goal of our Tax Code ought to put American business on a
competitive basis with those of other countries around the world. I
believe, as well, that to do that, one of the goals of tax reform ought
to be to lower corporate rates. I will point out, though, three quick
things so that I may get back to finishing my comments.
One, let's actually look at where America's tax burden stands versus
those of other nations that actually have lower corporate tax rates,
for example. Out of the 34 OECD nations--35 now--if you were to listen
to some folks on this floor, you would think that America must rank at
the top of that list, but we are 31 out of 35.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. President. We will continue our
conversation.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, since I had a few
moments and I was trying to give courtesy to answer my colleague, for
an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CORNYN. Just to clarify, is the request for an additional 5
minutes of debate?
Mr. WARNER. Five minutes to answer the Senator's question and to make
my very short statement.
Mr. CORNYN. I object to any additional time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
All time has expired. The time was until 2 p.m.
Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 228 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--51

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--2

Cochran
Menendez

The amendment (No. 1138) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I came to the floor today in support of
the budget resolution for one reason. It is because it provides the
Senate a path forward on tax reform. I strongly support this effort to
fix America's burdensome tax system. It is my hope that reform will
lead to simplifying the Tax Code, strengthening the middle class, and
ultimately boosting our economy.
Unfortunately, I cannot offer my support without reservation, so I
have come to the floor today to explain my concerns and remind my
colleagues of the important work ahead of us. Even as we support this
resolution as a means to achieve meaningful tax reform, we must
acknowledge the fact that the underlying budget contains an
insufficient level of funding for national defense. As chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, my highest priority is to ensure that
our men and women serving in uniform have the training, equipment, and
resources they need to keep our Nation safe.
The Senate budget resolution will set fiscal year 2018 defense
spending at the levels dictated by the Budget Control Act cap. This
budget is $54 billion less than the President's request and $86 billion
less than this body authorized just last month in the National Defense
Authorization Act. We passed the National Defense Authorization Act by
a vote of 89 to 9, a demonstration of the overwhelming bipartisan
belief that the Budget Control Act level of defense spending is
inadequate and unacceptable.
Let be me clear. There is no BCA-level defense budget that would be
sufficient to provide our military with what they need to fulfill
current missions and prepare for future threats.
For those of us who have been paying attention, we heard the warnings
of the steady decline of our military. Time and again our senior
military and civilian defense leaders have sounded the alarm about the
dangers of the Budget

[[Page S6613]]

Control Act spending caps. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
our highest uniformed military officer, General Dunford, has warned
that if we continue on the current path, he assesses that ``within 5
years, we will lose our ability to project power; the basis of how we
defend the homeland, and advance U.S. interests, and meet our alliance
commitments.''
Make no mistake about what that means. America's military advantage
is degrading. Without the ability to project power, the United States
will no longer be a global power. That means that we put at risk not
only our ability to secure our interests and protect our Nation but
also the unprecedented era of security and prosperity that American
global leadership has provided the world.
I might add for the benefit of my colleagues that former President
George W. Bush today gave a very strong statement emphasizing this
problem and the challenge we face. This is the strategic reality we are
facing in the next 5 years. It should not be a surprise. We have seen
the steady degradation of the military. The strain of constant
operational tempo, combined with inadequate and unstable funding has,
over the past 16 years, worn down the greatest military in the world.
Just this week, Secretary of Defense Mattis sent a letter to the
Armed Services Committee expressing his concerns with regard to the
National Defense Authorization Act that we are currently negotiating
with the House. The very first thing he said before addressing any of
the policy changes and reforms in the bill is that his primary concern
is the Budget Control Act, and we know why--because the defense
spending caps are doing such immense harms to our military. Secretary
Mattis wrote:

As I have testified before your committee, no enemy has
done more to harm the warfighting readiness of our military
than sequestration.

I will repeat that for the benefit of my colleagues.

. . . no enemy has done more to harm the warfighting
readiness of our military than sequestration. Current caps
continue to unnecessarily defer critical maintenance, limit
aviation availability, delay modernization, and strain our
men and women in uniform.

We have seen the evidence of this harm. Over the last few months
there have been a rash of training accidents, collisions, and crashes.
We are seeing the tragic accidents in the news far too often.
Seven sailors were killed when the USS Fitzgerald collided with a
containership off the coast of Japan.
A Marine KC-130 crash in Mississippi killed all 16 troops on board.
An Osprey helicopter crashed off the coast of Australia and that
resulted in the deaths of three marines.
An Army helicopter crashed off the coast of Hawaii, with five
soldiers presumed dead.
Ten sailors perished when the USS McCain collided with a tanker near
Singapore.
An Army Black Hawk helicopter went down during a training mission off
the coast of Yemen, and one soldier died.
One soldier died during helicopter training at Fort Hood.
An amphibious vehicle explosion at Camp Pendleton injured 15
Americans.
A demolition accident in Fort Bragg killed one soldier and injured
seven others.
Two Navy pilots died in a T-45 crash in Tennessee.
My friends, we are now losing more of our men and women in uniform in
totally avoidable training accidents than we are in combat. There is
plenty of blame to go around for all of these incidents, but we cannot
ignore the fact that Congress's inability to provide adequate, stable,
and predictable budgeting has contributed to the troubling state of
affairs. While increased funding is not the only answer, there is no
scenario where our military can get healthy and ready to meet the
challenges of an increasingly unstable world without additional
resources. There is broad, bipartisan agreement about that from Members
of the House of Representatives, here in the Senate, and the President.
Yet we are about to vote for a budget resolution that severely
underfunds the military because the reality is that we all know that it
would not impact the actual appropriations. To solve these problems and
to fulfill our duty to the men and women in uniform we must negotiate a
bipartisan budget agreement that will lift the caps on defense
spending. Only then can we rebuild the military, reverse the disturbing
readiness crisis, and retain our ability to project power and secure
our interests around the world.
I remind my colleagues that the fiscal year started 3 weeks ago and
that the Defense Department is currently operating under a continuing
resolution. We know the harmful effects it will have on the military.
That is why getting to work on a budget deal is so urgent. We must
delay no longer.
The budget resolution is not meant to provide that broader budget
agreement. This budget resolution is simply a means to get us to tax
reform. However, this budget resolution does represent something
extremely troubling. The Republican Party used to be unified in its
support for a strong national defense. If our leaders in Congress and
the White House don't immediately get to work negotiating a deal to
lift the defense caps and fund the military at a higher level than in
this budget resolution, I am not sure we will be able to claim that
mantle any longer.
I just want to sum up by saying that we have a problem in the
military today, and that is, whenever there are cuts in defense
spending, the first thing that goes are the easy ones--the training,
readiness, the spare parts, the flying hours. Those are the ones that
get cut first because they are the easiest. Cutting a major weapons
system or program is extremely difficult.
So now we have this list, as I just read off, of men and women
serving in the military and we are responsible, at least partially, for
their death and injury. Why? Because they are not able to be trained.
They are not able to be equipped. They are not able to be maintained,
and 60 percent of the F-18s are not able to fly. We have sailors and
airmen who are working 100-hour workweeks. We have gigantic problems
with the ability to simply operate.
Meanwhile, our adversaries are stepping up their capabilities.
Obviously, every time we turn around there is another crisis of some
kind. Look at the world 8 years ago and look at the world today. You
will find an incredible deterioration of America's position and
influence in the world. The front page of the Economist magazine this
week has a picture of the dictator of China and the title is ``The
world's most powerful man,'' and it is true.
So here we are with a budget resolution that basically has cut our
military--that is basically not funding what we need. My friends, I do
not mean to get emotional, but why should we send these young men and
women in uniform in harm's way without all they need in order to fight
and defend this Nation? Right now, they are not ready. Right now, their
planes can't fly. Right now, they are not able to operate and train.
They are not ready, and that is not just McCain's word. That is our
military leaders' words and those of some of the most respected people
in America and in the world. General Mattis, General McMaster, and
General Kelly will all tell you the same thing.
We are sending our young men and women into hazardous situations
without their being completely equipped and capable of defending
themselves. That is wrong. What greater responsibility do we have than
to the men and women who are serving us in uniform today? Four just
died in Niger. How many of the 100 Members of this body knew that we
even had an operation in Niger? I will not go into the details, in
deference to the family, but this is wrong, what we are doing. We saw
it in the 1970s, and now we are seeing it again. It was Mark Twain who
said: ``History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.'' It is
beginning to rhyme, and if we don't, with this resolution that we are
going through, increase our spending to the level as authorized by the
National Defense Authorization Act, then we will bear some
responsibility for what happens.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, later today the majority is going to
attempt to pass a budget for 2018. Passing a budget has come to mean
all sorts of things in Congress these days. Last year's budget was an
attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This budget is supposedly
all about tax reform. However, a budget, first and foremost,

[[Page S6614]]

should be a statement about priorities for the coming year and for the
coming decade.
Let's take a moment and examine what this budget says about the
majority's priorities. With any budget, I think you need to look at the
end result and ask a couple of very simple questions.
First, does this budget help reduce Federal deficits and debt with a
responsible, sensible approach? Second, does this budget, ultimately,
put us on a sustainable fiscal path?
The answer to these questions is a clear no. Instead, this budget is
primarily intended to allow the majority to use an expedited procedure
to move tax breaks that would increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion
over the next decade.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say that this lost
revenue is offset by spending cuts and promises of new revenues from
economic growth far beyond what almost every single mainstream
economist predicts.
Let's look at the trillions in cuts that the majority is proposing.
Where the budget is specific, it is bad. Medicaid is cut by $1
trillion. Medicare, which provides essential healthcare services to our
seniors, is cut by $470 billion. On top of that, the budget includes
over $3 trillion in unspecified cuts.
You don't have to be an expert in the Federal budget to know that $3
trillion in unspecified cuts means one of two things. They are either,
No. 1, cuts to programs that families and communities rely on, like
Head Start, Pell grants, and transportation funding, or, No. 2, they
are unspecified because they are simply never going to happen.
That is what we are voting on today. There is nearly $1.5 trillion in
cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, and then there are trillions in cuts
that are either so unpopular that no one dares name what they are or
trillions more in deficits because there is not a plan.
The Federal budget is about choices. You can learn a lot about which
choices a budget puts in black and white and which are left
deliberately unspecified. When it comes to the majority's tax plan, we
know only a few details, but we know enough to see where there will be
winners and where there will be losers. The winners will be the
wealthiest Americans in our country and global corporations.
We also need to look at what it means for Michigan families and small
businesses, but there is a deliberate lack of detail that makes
figuring out what the bottom line is for working families impossible.
We don't know where the tax brackets will start and where they will
stop. We don't know what personal exemptions families will be able to
take. We don't know the size and the scope of the child tax credit. We
don't know if important incentives for charitable contributions will be
kept. The majority is even keeping open the possibility of raising
taxes on Americans who are trying to save for their retirement.
This budget should be straightforward. We should reduce the tax
burden on middle class families. We should make it simpler for
Americans to file and understand their taxes. We should make it easier
for them to save for retirement. We should increase take-home pay for
Americans that work hard each and every day to make a living.
Unfortunately, none of these details that are important for middle-
class folks were important enough to include in this budget. That is
why I will vote against it. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
We cannot add another $1.5 trillion to the deficit. We cannot slash
Medicare and Medicaid. This is simply the wrong direction for our
country.
So why are we moving forward with this budget at all? Well, on this
issue, I think the administration has been clear. Passing this budget
is all about passing a so-called tax reform bill. However, passing this
budget is not a requirement for passing tax reform. Passing this budget
is only a requirement to pass a tax bill with as few votes as
possible--without input or buy-in from Members of the minority. This is
not the way we should pass real tax reform. If tax reform is going to
be successful, it must have broad bipartisan input. I stand ready to
work with my colleagues on real tax reform.

Modernizing and streamlining our Tax Code can boost Michigan
businesses, raise take-home pay for workers across sectors, and help
create the type of 21st century economy we need.
We can make it easier for small businesses, including manufacturers
and family farms, to invest in themselves, and we can make the code
fair across sectors. We can establish incentives for smart investment
in our communities. We can implement strong, enforceable rules to
prevent companies from gaming our tax system and moving profits and
jobs overseas.
For families, we can meaningfully boost take-home pay. We can expand
the child tax credit and earned-income tax credit, and we can work
together to find real ways to help alleviate the cost of child care. We
can lessen the burden of student debt, and we can help people save for
retirement.
Tax reform can help create more good jobs right here at home, fix
some of the issues in the code that drive jobs and companies overseas,
and put more money in the pockets of working families.
In 1986, Congress passed the most dramatic reform of the Federal Tax
Code in modern history. How many votes did this sweeping overhaul of
the tax system get? When tax reform ultimately passed the Senate in
1986, it received 97 votes.
If we want to repeat that accomplishment and truly overhaul our code
to make it work better for American families and American businesses,
that level of bipartisanship should be our goal, not 50 or 51.
I know we can do these things in a truly bipartisan manner if we are
just given the chance. Let's work together to pass real tax reform with
broad support from both sides of the aisle. The American people deserve
nothing less.
I stand ready to work with the majority, and so do my colleagues. I
urge the majority to abandon this effort and start over. Make the
decision not to add trillions more to the deficit. Make the decision
not to cut Medicare and Medicaid for Americans in need. Start over.
Let's find a path forward to find real, lasting, bipartisan solutions.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, budget resolutions set general spending
priorities for the Federal Government. The budget resolution before us
today, however, sets a path for so-called tax reform that will benefit
the wealthiest among us on the backs of hard-working Americans. For all
their talk of reining in spending and reducing the debt, the majority
is promoting a budget that will explode the debt by $1.5 trillion. They
propose increasing the debt not to invest in our infrastructure or in
educating the next generation. They propose increasing the debt not to
expand access to healthcare or promote medical research. No--they
propose exploding the debt to give corporations and the top one percent
a tax cut. Once again, they majority is turning away from the
bipartisan traditions of this Senate and toward the hyperpartisan
tactics that do not result in progress for the American people.
This budget invests in millionaires and billionaires like the Trump
family, the Koch brothers, wealthy corporations, and the top 1 percent.
It turns its back on millions of hard-working American families. While
the resolution authorizes a $1.5 trillion increase in the debt,
independent experts calculate that the real cost of the Trump tax plan
will far exceed that amount. How will the majority pay for the
difference? It will slash Medicaid, a proposal already rejected by the
Senate this year. It will slash Medicare. It will slash programs for
veterans and infrastructure.
It will be middle-class Americans who bear the brunt of these cuts.
According to independent analysts, middle-class Americans will see
their home values drop and will experience a tax increase as a result
of the Trump tax plan. This shameful budget sends the message that the
Senate supports putting tax cuts for the wealthy and biggest
corporations on our Nation's credit card and, to the extent we pay for
any of it, that we do so on the backs of the middle class and seniors
and at the expense of protecting the environment. This budget proposes
invading the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These are not Vermont
values. These are not American values. This is not how our Nation
became the greatest country on Earth.

[[Page S6615]]

After years of claiming that the deficit is one of the greatest
threats to our country, the majority today will waive away any concern
about the long-term impact of increasing it. They argue that the
economic growth spurred by these tax cuts will outpace the foregone
revenue, but as we saw with the Bush tax cuts, this claim is simply not
based in reality. This argument is based on a pyramid scheme of
assumptions on top of assumptions, and while we should be taking a
close look at the Congressional Budget Office's projections--a range of
both dynamic and conventional scores--this budget resolution eliminates
the only existing mechanism that requires the Senate to have a CBO
estimate in advance of a vote. Why might the majority want to rush a
vote before examining the long-term economic impacts of these proposed
tax cuts?
Our Tax Code is complex--very much, overly complex--and I share the
view that it is in need of improvement and simplification. We can and
should have a meaningful debate about tax reform, but any reforms must
be certain to benefit middle-class Americans, not just the top 1
percent. We need to strengthen tax credits that promote community
development and the construction of affordable housing. We should
extend and make permanent tax credits that help those who are
struggling to make ends meet. I am in favor of bipartisan tax reform
that brings both parties together and results in balanced changes to
the current system. That is in the best tradition of the Senate, and it
is the path to enacting truly meaningful reforms that will benefit
every single American.
The Senate should reject this partisan effort, just as it rejected
last month the unsuccessful partisan efforts to roll back health
coverage for millions of Americans. We should--and can--work together
to craft a balanced and sustainable budget and tax reform package. No
package will be perfect, but it should be bipartisan. It should be
fair. The budget before us today fails to meet that test, which is why
I will oppose it.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, last week, people across this country
celebrated National Wildlife Refuge Week--and rightfully so. National
Wildlife Refuges are one of the crown jewels of our Federal public
lands network. These refuges provide essential habitat for some of our
most imperiled species, including many impacted by climate change.
Millions of refuge visitors also fuel local and regional economies by
generating billions of dollars in sales.
This week, the Senate is considering a budget resolution that would
open one of our refuges, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to oil
and gas drilling. Despite tremendous public support for our refuge
system and the economic benefits that the refuges bring to our local
economies, efforts to develop these special wild areas are ongoing and
have been championed by the current administration. The budget
resolution is another such effort to promote development in a refuge,
an effort that should be rejected. In some cases, refuges are
compatible with development and increased human activity. In others,
development decisions, such as the siting of oil and gas drilling,
could negatively impact the future of both human and animal
inhabitants.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the largest remaining
intact ecosystems in the world, is an example of the latter. The Refuge
has been home to the Gwich'in people for more than 20,000 years. These
Native people subsist primarily on caribou. Research shows that oil and
gas development in the Refuge, even with a small footprint, could
significantly alter Porcupine Caribou migration patterns and calving
behavior. These changes would threaten the Gwich'in people's way of
life. The U.S. 30-year-old treaty with Canada to conserve the Porcupine
Caribou Herd could also be at risk.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arctic Refuge is
the only national conservation area where polar bears regularly den. It
is the most consistently used polar bear land denning area in Alaska.
These iconic bears are increasingly vulnerable due to climate change,
so the undisturbed Refuge land denning area is especially critical for
their survival. The Refuge also hosts nearly 200 species of migratory
birds, musk oxen, and wolves.
As the Senate contemplates the future of this spectacular natural
area, I want to remind my colleagues that this body has said no to
opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge dozens of times. With oil
prices significantly lower than they were earlier this decade and oil
supplies at historic highs, it is hard to understand why we would
change course now. The risks far outweigh any benefits, and the
American public has consistently opposed drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
I also want to express my strong concerns with possible pending
administrative action in the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge,
another national treasure. This Refuge is located on the U.S.-Mexico
border, along the southernmost stretch of the Rio Grande River at the
confluence of the Central and Mississippi flyways. It is home to more
than 400 bird species, more than 300 species of butterflies, and more
than 450 varieties of plants.
The Santa Ana Refuge supports rare wildlife species, some found only
deep in south Texas. The Refuge also provides habitat for at least
eight species protected under the Endangered Species Act, including the
ocelot. There are less than 50 ocelots left in the United States, so
this Refuge is essential to the species' recovery.
The Santa Ana Refuge is also a popular destination for birders and
hosts more than 165,000 visitors each year. The booming ecotourism
industry in the area is critical for local economies, which is another
key reason why we need to ensure this Refuge and its inhabitants can
thrive.
U.S Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
planning actions earlier this year suggest that the Trump
administration may shift existing Federal Homeland Security funds to
construct a segment of-border wall through the Santa Ana Refuge.
As I have said before, we already have 650 miles of fencing along our
southern border with Mexico in the areas where it is most effective. I
am not unequivocally opposed to physical barriers where they are needed
and where they can be shown to be the most effective method of border
security, but the Santa Ana Refuge is not a known problem area for
border crossing. Furthermore, a wall through the Refuge would
permanently damage critical habitat, block wildlife migration routes,
and would likely trap wildlife during floods.
Again, a wall through the refuge would not yield intended outcomes
and would harm both wildlife and communities. I urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to question and oppose construction of this
wall segment.
From Alaska to Texas to Delaware, our National Wildlife Refuge System
is well worth protecting and preserving for future generations. I look
forward to continued work with my colleagues and constituents to this
end.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendments Nos. 1178, 1139, 1205, 1228, 1422, 1234, and 1249 to
Amendment No. 1116

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Flake No. 1178,
Baldwin No. 1139, Rubio No. 1205, Heitkamp No. 1228, Portman No. 1422,
Donnelly No. 1234, and Kaine No. 1249.
I further ask consent that at 3 p.m., all time on the resolution be
yielded back and the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the
order listed; that there be no second-degree amendments in order to
these seven amendments prior to the votes; finally, that there be 2
minutes equally divided between the managers or their designees prior
to each vote and that all votes after the first in this series be 10
minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments en bloc by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for others, proposes
amendments numbered 1178, 1139, 1205, 1228, 1422, 1234, and
1249 to amendment No. 1116.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 1178

(Purpose: To make the American tax system simpler and fairer)

At the end of title III, add the following:

[[Page S6616]]

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO MAKING
THE AMERICAN TAX SYSTEM SIMPLER AND FAIRER FOR
ALL AMERICANS.

amendment no. 1139

(Purpose: To prohibit reconciliation legislation that would increase
the deficit or reduce a surplus)

At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following:

SEC. 41__. SENATE POINT OF ORDER AGAINST RECONCILIATION
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD INCREASE THE DEFICIT OR
REDUCE A SURPLUS.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any reconciliation bill, resolution, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, motion, or conference report
pursuant to section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (2 U.S.C. 641) that would cause or increase a deficit or
reduce a surplus in either of the following periods:
(1) The period of the current fiscal year, the budget year,
and the ensuing 4 fiscal years following the budget year.
(2) The period of the current fiscal year, the budget year,
and the ensuing 9 fiscal years following the budget year.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--
(1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of
the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
(c) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the levels of deficit increases and reductions in a
surplus shall be determined on the basis of estimates
provided by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.

Amendment No. 1205

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to tax
cuts for working American families)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO TAX CUTS
FOR WORKING AMERICAN FAMILIES.

amendment no. 1228

(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would
increase taxes on taxpayers whose annual income is below $250,000)

At the end of title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4__. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST RAISING TAXES ON TAXPAYERS
WHOSE ANNUAL INCOME IS BELOW $250,000.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report that
raises taxes on taxpayers whose annual income is below
$250,000.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

AMENDMENT No. 1422

(Purpose: To provide for an international tax system that
provides or enhances incentives for businesses to invest in
America, generate American jobs, retain American jobs, and
return jobs to America)
At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3 ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
PROVISION OF INCENTIVES FOR BUSINESSES TO
INVEST IN AMERICA AND CREATE JOBS IN AMERICA.

Amendment No. 1234

(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that allows
companies that have outsourced jobs to foreign countries to benefit
from any tax breaks)

At the end of title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4__. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ANY TAX BILL ALLOWING
COMPANIES THAT HAVE OUTSOURCED JOBS TO FOREIGN
COUNTRIES TO BENEFIT FROM ANY TAX BREAKS.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report that
permits companies which have outsourced jobs to foreign
countries to benefit from any tax breaks.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

amendment no. 1249

(Purpose: To modify section 4111 to reinstate and strengthen a
prohibition on voting on legislation without a Congressional Budget
Office score)

On page 83, strike lines 12 through 15, and insert the
following:

SEC. 4111. REPEAL OF CERTAIN LIMITATIONS.

Section 3206 of S. Con. Res. 11 (114th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016, is
repealed.

SEC. 4112. PROHIBITION ON AGREEING TO CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO
LEGISLATION WITHOUT A SCORE IN THE SENATE.

(a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order to
vote on the adoption of a covered amendment to a bill or
resolution that requires an estimate under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 653), unless an
estimate described in such section 402 for the covered
amendment was made publicly available on the website of the
Congressional Budget Office not later than 28 hours before
the time the vote commences.
(b) Covered Amendment Defined.--In this section, the term
``covered amendment'' means an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
(c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Waiver.--In the Senate, subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under subsection (a).
Mr. ENZI. For the information of all Senators, these are the first
seven amendments we will consider during vote-arama, and we will work
to get an agreement on a final list of amendments during these votes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I think I am the only one standing between
this body and a vote on something that 2 years ago I didn't know
existed, and that is a ``vote-arama'' in local Senate terms. Being an
outsider to the political process, I find a lot of this very strange.
I came to Washington, and now I have a new vocabulary. It includes
things like ``scoring,'' which doesn't have anything to do with sports,
``vote-arama,'' which doesn't have anything to do with the carnival
down the road, or ``deficit-neutral reserve fund.'' I am still trying
to figure out what that is; I see the Presiding Officer is smiling up
there. Then there are ``points of order.'' There is a vocabulary
centered around what we are going to be doing this afternoon, but I
want to speak to the budget process itself.
First of all, I want to be very clear with my colleagues on both
sides. I support this budget that we are going to vote on today for one
very strong reason. It is a vehicle to get to tax reform in the United
States. I will not speak on taxes today in the few minutes that I have,
but I do want to speak about the process.
What we are doing in America right now in the Senate and the
Congress--and what we have been doing over the

[[Page S6617]]

last 43 years--is losing the right to do the right thing. Let me say
that again. We are losing the right to do the right thing.
Just a few weeks ago, we voted without batting an eye for $15 billion
of allocated funds for the victims of two hurricanes in Florida, Texas,
and other southern States, with every dime of that money in borrowed
money. We have to go to China and other places and borrow that money so
we can spend and do the right thing. That is not an embellishment or an
exaggeration.
What about research for the rising, spiraling cost of our healthcare,
driven by Alzheimer's, cancer, and diabetes? We spend about the same
amount of money on that as we spend on all foreign aid. Yet, if we were
to do more, we could cure those heinous diseases and lower our medical
costs. We can invest in our infrastructure. We can absolutely take care
of victims of wildfires, and now we have Puerto Rico.
Tonight we are going to be asked to vote up or down on a supplemental
bill for some $30 billion-plus for the needs of these catastrophes. We
have lost the right to do the right thing, which is, of course, to meet
those needs.
Here is the biggest one. You just heard my great colleague, Senator
McCain from Arizona. He is the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, of which I am a member. He talked about how decimated our
military is from a funding standpoint. He talked about readiness. He
talked about capitalization. But today, we are borrowing every dime we
spend on our military, on our veterans, and on every domestic
discretionary program in the United States. That is a fact. Where do we
get the money when we run out of our own money? We spend every dime of
our own. By the way, we collected over $3.5 trillion of Federal tax
revenue last year. It is the largest amount America has ever collected
in income taxes and total taxes for the Federal Government--the most we
have ever collected--but all of that money goes to mandatory expenses.
As a matter of fact, since 2000, under one Republican President and
one Democratic President, our government has grown from $2.4 trillion
to $4 trillion. That is not the worst of it. The worst is yet to come.
We have added in two Presidencies $14 trillion to our Federal debt. Of
our $20 trillion, $14 trillion of it was added under these two
Presidents.
In the next 10 years, the current budget under which we are working
will add another $11 trillion to our debt.
Here is the problem. The blue line here is what you heard Senator
McCain talk about earlier. That is our discretionary spending. It is
flat. As a matter of fact, between 2009 and today, we have lowered
discretionary spending by over one-third, by $400 billion. But what has
happened is that our mandatory expenses have exploded.
On this chart, this line here, are our mandatory expenses; that is,
Social Security, Medicare, pension and benefits for Federal employees,
and the interest on our debt. This is a formula for financial disaster.
At this point, we already have $20 trillion of debt. Over the next 30
years, some estimates say that we will have over $130 trillion of
future commitments, liabilities coming at us like a freight train.
We are hamstrung because we have a budget process that doesn't work.
One thing that contributes to this is a process that over the last 43
years, since the 1974 Budget Act was put in place, which created this
budget process, the budget has worked only four times in 43 years. It
has funded the Federal Government only four times. That is not a
partisan comment; that is an indictment on this body and on the body
across the hall.
In any other environment--sports, medicine, business, military--
imagine if you had a process that worked only four times. Imagine if
you had a tank in World War II, and you are over there, and every 43
times you fired it, it worked only four times. Imagine what result
would be.
What we have here is a system that doesn't work. I am going to try to
explain that very quickly.
First, we have committees in the U.S. Senate that involve themselves
in appropriations and the funding of the Federal Government. Some are
called authorizing committees. These are committees like the Foreign
Relations Committee; we have Appropriations. We have all of these
authorizing committees over here on the left. On the right here are
Appropriations Committees. Today, these committees have to pass 12
bills in order to fund the Federal Government.
Over the last 43 years, out of the 12 bills we have to appropriate to
fund the government, we have averaged only 2\1/2\ bills. In any other
world, that can't work. It doesn't work here. So we end up with 179
continuing resolutions to get us past the end of our fiscal year to
continue spending at last year's rate, and then we go to an
``omnibus''--another new term that I had never heard of--at the end of
the calendar year. Basically, most times, six or eight people will get
in a room and decide how to spend $1 trillion. This current budget
deals with, primarily, issues that are not on the mandatory side.
There is a way forward. There are Members on the other side--and I am
going to call out one--my good friend from the State of Rhode Island.
Senator Whitehouse and I and others have been working on this for quite
some time. He has a great idea: Let's pick a point in the future, make
the debt a percentage of our GDP, and work backward from there with
guardrails on what we can do every year.
There is a budget process we have been working on that creates a
politically neutral platform that allows both sides, in a bipartisan
way, to argue and fight over what we think the budget should include,
because we believe the budget should be a law.
Today, the budget is only a resolution, which means it is nothing but
a political statement by the majority party.
We then go to an authorizing process where the minority party,
because they weren't asked to play in the budget process--we have an
authorizing process in which, today, we have over $300 billion of
Federal expenditures a year that are not authorized, over $300 billion.
Then we are supposed to go to an appropriations process. As I have
just said, we have appropriated, on average, over those 43 years, only
2\1/2\ bills a year instead of 12.
We can fix this. It is not a partisan issue. We will absolutely fix
this budget process in a bipartisan way. I am going to vote for this. I
hope my colleagues will vote for this budget bill so we can go on and
debate taxes.
The debt crisis is the No. 1 crisis we face in our country. It keeps
us from doing the right thing--funding our national defense and taking
care of our needs.
I will support this budget today, and I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Honoring Our Armed Forces

Lieutenant Patrick L. Ruth

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, this is not about the budget, but it is
about something that all of us can, unfortunately, understand the
importance of.
On Sunday, October 1, U.S. naval aviation instructor, LT Patrick L.
Ruth, and student naval aviator, LTJG Wallace Burch, were both killed
when their Goshawk training jet crashed in Tellico Plains, TN.
Lieutenant Ruth was a native of Louisiana, growing up in Metairie.
Lieutenant Ruth served in the Navy for 9 years, beginning his career in
the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps at Tulane University. He was
commissioned in May of 2008. After flight training, he joined Carrier
Airborne Early Warning Squadron 126, based in Norfolk, VA, in 2012.
Lieutenant Ruth flew the E-2C Hawkeye as part of the tactical air
forces of the U.S. Navy. His primary mission was early warning defense
of the carrier battle group, as well as air strike control, ocean
surveillance, and search and rescue coordination.
In April 2015, he moved to Naval Training Squadron 7, based in
Meridian, MS.
As an instructor, Lieutenant Ruth trained the next generation of
naval aviators in strike aviation, basic aircraft maneuvering, and
landing skills.

[[Page S6618]]

Lieutenant Ruth was a dedicated naval aviator. As evidence, he earned
two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals during his distinguished
career.
Our brave men and women in uniform take extreme risks every day to
defend our Nation. The risks are necessary, made to ensure that our
military is fully prepared to face any threat. We are forever grateful
for Lieutenant Ruth and those who answer the call of duty to keep us
safe.
We must also think of the incredible sacrifices of Lieutenant Ruth's
family and all military families. They may not be wearing uniforms, but
they, too, serve our country.
I had the privilege of speaking with Lieutenant Ruth's family. I
learned that his younger brother Shane is Active Duty Navy. His older
brother is retired Navy. His sisters were, and are, so supportive.
Lieutenant Ruth's parents, David and Mary Ann Ruth, still grieve. How
could any parent not?
But to borrow from President Lincoln's letter to a grieving mother:

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of
your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of
the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours
to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the alter of freedom.

Lieutenant Ruth is survived by his parents, David and Mary; his
fiance, Jessica; and his four siblings. We grieve with you. You are in
our prayers.
Lieutenant Patrick Ruth will not be forgotten.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time on the
resolution is yielded back.

Amendment No. 1178

There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a
vote in relation to Flake amendment No. 1178.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, this amendment would set up a deficit-
neutral reserve fund relating to making the American tax system simpler
and fairer for all Americans.
Not only do we need to do tax reform, but we need to do it urgently.
It has been more than 30 years since we have reformed the Tax Code in
any significant way. We have more preferences and loopholes and
deductions out there than we know what to do with. In fact, if we total
all of them together, there are more expenditures in the Tax Code, or
money avoiding coming to Washington--tax avoidance--than we spend on
our entire discretionary budget. It is about $1.26 trillion annually.
So we have to have a code where we lower the rates and broaden the
base. Broadening the base means going after some of these popular
loopholes and deductions and preferences that make the Tax Code a lot
bigger and scarier and more complicated than it should be.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we yield back the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1178.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 229 Leg.]

YEAS--98

Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Strange
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NOT VOTING--2

Cochran
Menendez

The amendment (No. 1178) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1139

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Baldwin amendment No. 1139.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to Baldwin amendment No.
1139. Wisconsin families need a tax break, and that is what I am
working for. This budget will fast-track enormous tax breaks for the
wealthiest few. It increases the deficit and puts Medicare and Medicaid
on the chopping block to pay for it.
I don't think it is right to ask the middle class to pay for tax
breaks for the top 1 percent with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and
rising deficits--deficits that will surely be used by my Republican
colleagues to continue to justify an unwillingness to invest in the
essential pillars of economic security for families.
The entire reason reconciliation was created was for deficit
reduction, which the majority claims to care so much about. My
amendment is very simple. It would reinstate a point of order, known as
the Conrad rule, against reconciliation legislation that increases the
deficit. Let's not use reconciliation to add to our deficit.
I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment that has
been cosponsored by Senators Warner, Whitehouse, Kaine, Coons, King,
Wyden, and Van Hollen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment, which would create an uneven playing field for the upcoming
congressional reconciliation. If adopted, this amendment would
reinstate a point of order from the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution,
which Congress repealed 2 years ago. It was repealed to ensure equal
treatment of all reconciliation bills by restoring the level playing
field that had existed prior to the adoption of the point of order in
2008. That was used under the Byrd rule.
The Byrd rule specifically does not require such budget neutrality
inside the budget window. Why? Because reconciliation was designed to
be neutral in its orientation. The Budget Act states that
reconciliation instructions must enumerate changes in spending and
revenue amounts. It does not stipulate those changes must be increases
or decreases.
The fiscal year 2016 budget resolution restored the longstanding
neutrality principle of the Byrd rule. It was the right thing to do
then, and we should reaffirm that position today. I urge my colleagues
to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. ENZI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

[[Page S6619]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 230 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--51

NOT VOTING--2

Cochran
Menendez

The amendment (No. 1139) was rejected.

Amendment No. 1205

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Rubio amendment No. 1205.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, this amendment relates to the child tax
credit. It is abundantly clear that perhaps one of the most effective
ways to deliver tax relief--tax cuts--to working families is through
the expansion of this credit, as it is our hope to achieve during tax
reform.
I think it is important to point out that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture compiles data on how much it costs to raise children in the
21st century. Today, it is expected that middle-income families are
going to spend $230,000 to raise their children. By the way, that does
not include the cost of their going to college.
Being able to deliver relief to hard-working families through the
expansion of the child tax credit, which is applicable not just against
income tax but payroll tax, is perhaps the single most effective way to
do that given the framework under which we will be working. That is
what this amendment intends to reserve the opportunity to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise not in opposition to the amendment
but to compliment the Senator for bringing this issue forward. I intend
to support the amendment, but I just want to make the point that this
is a broader issue in that we are going to have to address the child
and dependent tax credit.
One of issues is making it refundable so the tax credit is available
and useful to lower income families, who are the hardest hit by high
child care costs, and also making it available to those families who
use these funds to care for perhaps an aged relative or an injured
relative.
I agree with the amendment, and I support it, but I think we need to
make the point that there is more work to be done. I have introduced a
bill with Senator Heller, Senator Burr, and Senator Collins on this
subject, and I look forward to bringing that forward for consideration
at an appropriate moment.
I urge support for Senator Rubio's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend debate by
30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment.
This would correct a great defect in our Tax Code--the parent tax
penalty. We have been punishing parents for decades because of the way
our Federal tax system and our senior entitlement programs--Social
Security and Medicare--interact. We have to end this tyranny and end
this now. This amendment does that, and I urge my colleagues to support
it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1205) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1228

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Heitkamp amendment No. 1228.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, as we move forward on tax reform, I
think the one great potential for absolute agreement is that we should
lower the burden for middle-income taxpayers, and as we move forward,
the one thing we absolutely should not do is in any way increase the
tax burden for middle-income taxpayers. This amendment is about
guaranteeing that no one who makes under $250,000 sees his taxes
increase in any kind of legislation, including in any tax reform
proposal.
I have heard from teachers, nurses, and veterans. They all want to
know what this means for them. To guarantee people an absolute bright
line that their taxes will not go up is absolutely essential as we move
forward.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, again, this is another attempt to do the
Finance Committee's work as part of the budget. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment. The amendment would inappropriately bind the
Finance Committee's work on any tax legislation it writes.
This point of order is meant to be a poison pill in the process and
would set a 60-vote threshold on tax reform, effectively killing its
efforts through reconciliation. This resolution's instructions to
Finance do not specify the policy or the provisions that are going to
be reported out of the committee, but the framework, as stated, will be
just as progressive as the current Tax Code. The chairman of the
Finance Committee and members can assure you of that result.
This amendment is unnecessary, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
I raise a point of order against this amendment under the Budget Act,
section 305(b)(2).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of
that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--51

[[Page S6620]]

Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--2

Cochran
Menendez
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
51.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendment No. 1234, as Modified

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Donnelly
amendment be modified with the text of his amendment No. 1423, which is
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1234), as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
eliminating tax breaks for companies that ship jobs to foreign
countries)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
ELIMINATING TAX BREAKS FOR COMPANIES THAT SHIP
JOBS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

Amendment No. 1422

There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote
in relation to Portman amendment No. 1422.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 1422,
which is a commonsense and, up to now, bipartisan approach to
international tax reform. It simply says that under this budget we
would do international tax reform. It would create incentives to have
more jobs here in this country. Those are incentives for both U.S.
companies and foreign companies to create jobs here in America.
This is not a partisan issue; it has been bipartisan. In fact, it was
part of the Simpson-Bowles provisions with regard to tax reform. Only a
couple of years ago, I cochaired a working group on this issue with the
now minority leader, Senator Schumer, where we came up with a proposal
which said that the international system is broken and that we need to
move to one like the one we are talking about in this amendment that
brings back jobs.
One of the problems is that the current Tax Code actually encourages
companies to keep their money offshore. We think we could bring back a
lot of that money. There is probably $2.5 to $3 trillion locked out
offshore. But it is worse than that. It also leads to American
companies being taken over by foreign companies and these inversions we
have heard so much about. In the last 24 hours, we had another major
inversion. Companies that have household names are picking up and
leaving our country and taking their jobs and investment with them.
This amendment is common sense, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Portman
amendment. We can all agree that tax reform should help create more
good jobs and protect the good jobs we already have. I support the
Portman amendment, and I look forward to colleagues supporting my
amendment that ensures that companies that ship American jobs to
foreign countries are not eligible for tax breaks. I want to work with
my colleagues to make sure any tax reform package is good for American
workers.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
If no one yields time, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1422) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1234, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Donnelly amendment No. 1234, as
modified.
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment
I offered to address the outsourcing of American jobs. Currently,
American companies that ship jobs to foreign countries can still claim
massive tax breaks. That is wrong, and we should claw back incentives
and prohibit companies from receiving tax breaks for outsourcing jobs.
My end outsourcing amendment is common sense for taxpayers,
supporting companies that invest in American workers, not those
shipping jobs to foreign countries. I urge all of my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. President, I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
If no one yields time, the question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified.
The amendment (No. 1234), as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1378 to Amendment No. 1116

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Brown amendment No. 1378.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment
numbered 1378 to amendment No. 1116.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
providing tax benefits to patriot employers that invest in American
jobs and provide fair pay and benefits to workers)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROVIDING
TAX BENEFITS TO PATRIOT EMPLOYERS THAT INVEST
IN AMERICAN JOBS AND PROVIDE FAIR PAY AND
BENEFITS TO WORKERS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to income
taxes paid by businesses, which may include measures
providing tax breaks for companies that have not moved
overseas to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, have
maintained or expanded their United States workforce, or have
provided fair wages and quality health insurance, prepared
workers for retirement, hired veterans and workers with
disabilities, and provided paid family medical leave, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2018
through 2022 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2018
through 2027.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask for support of the Patriot
Corporation Act amendment. It is all pretty simple. Over the years, we
have seen companies shut down production in Mansfield, OH, or Dayton,
OH, and move to Tijuana, Mexico, or Hunan, China, and then sell their
production back in the United States.
Under this simple idea, the Patriot Corporation Act, companies that
do the right thing--companies that pay their workers decent wages;
companies that do the right thing by their workers in terms of
benefits, healthcare, and pensions; companies that make their products
and keep their production in the United States--will get a tax break.
They will pay a lower tax rate.
Yesterday at the White House, about 15 Senators met with President
Trump. I talked to him about the Patriot Corporation Act. He said he
likes the idea.
It is about time that U.S. companies that do the right thing should
be rewarded instead of those companies that shut down production and
move overseas and sell their products back. It is the right thing to
do. It is a simple idea. Its time has come, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

[[Page S6621]]

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. The budget resolution's reconciliation instruction to the
Finance Committee does not and should not specify the policies or
provisions that are being reported out of the Budget Committee
resolution. The Finance framework includes international tax reform
that will incentivize companies to invest domestically and create jobs
in the United States. But this amendment defines ``patriot employers''
with a long list of criteria and pinpoints tax breaks for these
companies. ``Patriot employers'' should not be defined by the budget
process or by politics but by those that allow our constituents to join
and remain in the workforce so as to participate in the American dream.
American companies will be able to create additional jobs based on
tax relief envisioned by the Finance Committee. As such, we should pass
the resolution and reconciliation in a timely manner, and we should
oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. BROWN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--51

NOT VOTING--2

Cochran
Menendez

The amendment (No. 1378) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendments Nos. 1296 and 1375 to Amendment No. 1116

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Paul No. 1296
and Cardin No. 1375.
I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote in relation to
these amendments in the order listed; that there be no second-degree
amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes; finally, that
there be 2 minutes, equally divided between the managers or their
designees, prior to each vote, and that all votes in this series be 10
minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments en bloc by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for others, proposes
amendments numbered 1296 and 1375 en bloc to amendment No.
1116.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 1296

(Purpose: To modify reconciliation instructions to reduce the deficit)

Strike section 2001 and insert the following:

SEC. 2001. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.

(a) Committee on Agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture
of the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that reduce the deficit for fiscal year 2018 by
not less than $4,800,000,000.
(b) Committee on Armed Services.--The Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit for fiscal year 2018
by not less than $480,000,000.
(c) Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.--
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of
the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that reduce the deficit for fiscal year 2018 by
not less than $9,660,000,000.
(d) Committee on Energy and Natural Resources .--The
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce
the deficit for fiscal year 2018 by not less than
$12,070,000,000.
(e) Committee on Finance.--The Committee on Finance of the
Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that--
(1) reduce new budget authority for fiscal year 2018 by not
less than $25,100,000,000; and
(2) that increase the deficit by not more than
$1,500,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2018
through 2027.
(f) Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.--The
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that reduce the deficit for fiscal year 2018 by not less than
$6,760,000,000.
(g) Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.--The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that reduce the deficit for fiscal year 2018 by
not less than $16,900,000,000.
(h) Committee on the Judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit for fiscal year 2018
by not less than $21,720,000,000.
(i) Committee on Veterans' Affairs.--The Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate shall report changes in laws
within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit for fiscal
year 2018 by not less than $480,000,000.
(j) Submissions.--In the Senate, not later than November
13, 2017, the Committees named in subsections (a) through (i)
shall submit their recommendations to the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate. Upon receiving such recommendations,
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall report to the
Senate a reconciliation bill carrying out all such
recommendations without any substantive revision.

Amendment No. 1375

(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that includes
deficit-financed tax cuts)

At the end of title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4__. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT INCLUDES
DEFICIT-FINANCED TAX CUTS.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report that
includes tax cuts and would cause or increase a deficit or
reduce a surplus.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

Amendment No. 1296

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to Paul amendment No. 1296.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this amendment is about whether or not we
are serious about the debt. In the current budget, there are
instructions to reduce the debt by $96 billion in mandatory spending. I
applaud that, but we need budget reconciliation instructions to allow
it to happen. This amendment will allow instructions so we can really
do what we say we are going to do, which is to cut spending.
I think, in light of the fact that we are for tax cuts, we ought to
also be for reducing spending so we don't explode the debt.
I recommend a ``yes'' vote on reconciliation instructions to allow
for mandatory savings and spending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Paul
amendment. This amendment includes reconciliation instructions to cut
nearly $100 billion in programs that are vital to working families in
this country, including education, healthcare, nutrition, affordable
housing, and many, many other programs.
This amendment paves the way to make it easier to cut Medicare by
over

[[Page S6622]]

$400 billion and Medicaid by over $1 trillion over the next decade in
order to provide almost $2 trillion in tax cuts to the top 1 percent.
This amendment should be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blunt). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 4, nays 94, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]

YEAS--4

Flake
Lankford
Lee
Paul

NAYS--94

Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Strange
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NOT VOTING--2

Cochran
Menendez

The amendment (No. 1296) was rejected.

Amendment No. 1375

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Cardin amendment No. 1375.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It allows a
point of order to be raised if the tax reform reported back to the
floor by the committee increases the deficit. It is as simple as that.
Do you believe we should act on tax reform that increases the deficit?
If you agree with me that we should not be increasing the deficit with
the tax reform reported back from the committee, then vote for this
amendment or, if necessary, vote for waiving the point of order that
may be raised.
I urge my colleagues, if you are serious about the deficit, we
shouldn't be passing legislation that increases it.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. Budget rules don't accommodate current tax policy. This
means at least $460 billion of scored revenue loss can be attributed to
the difference between a current law baseline and a current policy
baseline. Many of the tax extenders covered by this amount are popular
and are supported on a bipartisan basis.
This amendment is corrosive to the budget resolution's privilege. It
falls outside the scope of what is appropriate for inclusion. Adoption
of corrosive amendments could be fatal to the resolution's privilege,
and loss of privilege could compromise our ability to pass tax reform
and to enforce the budget spending limits.
Further, this amendment is also nongermane. The Congressional Budget
Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane--a
statutory regulation we can't ignore.
So I raise a point of order against this amendment under the Budget
Act's section 305(b)(2).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, what the chairman is saying is, basically,
the process will be used in order to add to the deficit. Therefore,
pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move
to waive section 305(b) of that act for purposes of the pending
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--52

NOT VOTING--1

Menendez

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
52.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendments Nos. 1298, 1430, and 1277 to Amendment No. 1116

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Paul No. 1298,
Lee No. 1430, and Paul No. 1277.
I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate now vote in relation
to the Kaine amendment No. 1249 and that following disposition of the
Kaine amendment, the Senate vote in relation to the above amendments in
the order listed; finally, that there be 2 minutes equally divided
between the managers or their designees prior to all further votes
tonight and that they be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ENZI. The next four votes will be on the Kaine amendment No.
1249, the Paul amendment No. 1298, the Lee amendment No. 1430, and the
Paul amendment No. 1277.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc
by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for others, proposes
amendments numbered 1298, 1430, and 1277 en bloc to amendment
No. 1116.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 1298

(Purpose: To reduce discretionary spending by $43,000,000,000)

On page 4, line 25, decrease the amount by $43,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $35,948,000,000.
On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $33,550,000,000.
On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $86,000,000.
On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $35,260,000,000.

[[Page S6623]]

On page 6, line 2, decrease the amount by $6,450,000,000.
On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by $860,000,000.
On page 6, line 15, decrease the amount by $35,260,000,000.
On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by $6,450,000,000.
On page 6, line 17, decrease the amount by $860,000,000.
On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by $35,260,000,000.
On page 7, line 4, decrease the amount by $6,450,000,000.
On page 7, line 5, decrease the amount by $860,000,000.
On page 37, line 19, decrease the amount by
$43,000,000,000.
On page 37, line 20, decrease the amount by
$35,260,000,000.
On page 37, line 24, decrease the amount by $6,450,000,000.
On page 38, line 3, decrease the amount by $860,000,000.

amendment no. 1430

(Purpose: To expand the deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
repeal of provisions of title I of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act)

On page 49, line 5, insert ``, which may include
nullification of any regulations promulgated under title I of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (including any
amendment made by such title)'' before ``by the''.

amendment no. 1277

(Purpose: To provide for reconciliation instructions to the relevant
committees for the purpose of repealing and replacing the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act)

In section 2001, strike subsection (c) and insert the
following:
(c) Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.--
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of
the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by not less than
$1,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 2027.
(d) Committee on the Judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by not less than
$1,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 2027.
(e) Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.--The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by not less than
$1,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 2027.
(f) Submissions.--In the Senate, not later than November
13, 2017, the Committees named in subsections (a) through (e)
shall submit their recommendations to the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate. Upon receiving such recommendations,
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall report to the
Senate a reconciliation bill carrying out all such
recommendations without any substantive revision.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Amendment No. 1249

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1249.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. KAINE. The amendment is a simple amendment, folks. It is about
transparency. Two years ago, the Senate passed a budget that added a
laudatory requirement to have a Congressional Budget Office score for
reconciliation legislation 28 hours in advance of voting on the
legislation. There are obvious benefits to the Members who are voting
and obvious benefits to the American public.
The budget resolution before us from committee repeals that
requirement. The majority has argued that it is unnecessary because the
requirement has never been triggered. But I remember that just a couple
of months ago, the Senate was debating healthcare legislation that
hadn't seen the light of day and didn't have a CBO score.
Do we really believe the answer to our problem is to make it easier
to pass legislation without knowing the cost? I think the 28-hour
requirement is worthy, it should be continued, and I think it should be
extended to include amendments in the nature of a substitute.
I ask all my colleagues to support transparency and not embarrass the
institution by enabling us to more easily pass important legislation
without the public knowing the score.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. The congressional budget clearly empowers the Budget
Committee chair as scorekeeper. Since becoming chairman in 2015, I am
pleased to say that the Budget Committee has always discharged its
responsibilities with scores in hand, proving our important work and
function without this amendment. In fact, the 28-hour rule is a recent
creation, and its repeal shows no deviation from Senate practice. It
would require 28 hours on every amendment.
It is also important to note that a budget resolution is not a law.
Because it is not a law, it cannot supersede or replace any statutory
provisions. The Congressional Budget Act is a law and sets forth the
rules that the congressional budget must follow.
The proposed amendment attempts to make a significant change to
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act, which should be
accomplished through regular order legislation which the President
signs.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--51

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Menendez

The amendment (No. 1249) was rejected.

Amendment No. 1298

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Paul amendment No. 1298.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this amendment is about the debt. We have a
$20 trillion debt. It is about whether we are serious about tackling
that debt. The budget before us exceeds our own spending caps by $43
billion.
You will be told that technically that is not so because we hide the
money by sticking it in an account we call the Overseas Contingency
Operations. Over the past 3 years, we have spent more than $1.7
trillion in this account, but we don't account for it, and we don't
budget for it. What I am asking us to do is to be responsible, budget
for this, stay within our self-imposed caps, and actually act as though
we really believe in what we say--that the debt is a problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. The amendment seeks to reduce discretionary appropriations
this fiscal year by $43 billion. As Members are aware, the resolution's
discretionary figures for this fiscal year are fully consistent with
the Budget Control Act spending limits. If they weren't, then the
resolution would be subject to a 60-vote point of order.
This year's resolution also includes Overseas Contingency Operations
funding at $77 billion. This amount is equal to the President's request
and is allowable under the Budget Control Act. The

[[Page S6624]]

members of the Budget Committee worked hard to craft a resolution with
levels that would put us on a better fiscal path, with $5.1 trillion in
spending reductions over the next 10 years. The resolution already
contains ample restraint to both discretionary and mandatory spending.
As the Appropriations Committee has reported many of its bills
already, this amendment could be detrimental to the appropriations
process as it stands today and the allocation this resolution will
provide.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague that there are no
recommendations on where these cuts are coming from. Do they come from
the programs that support our Nation's veterans, from the National
Institutes of Health--the cutting-edge cancer research it conducts? You
can't turn research on and off. Scientists don't hit pause.
Does it come from our transportation and infrastructure? If we really
want to make these cuts--and this, of course, would take us well below
the postsequester budget caps that are already $43 billion. If we want
to make cuts, have the courage to stand up and say ``This is the
program I want to cut''--not do something like this, where we don't
know if the cut will be for veterans, education, cancer research, or
anything else.
I oppose the amendment.
To reiterate, I oppose the Paul amendment and urge others to do the
same. The Paul amendment appears to mandate a cut of $43 billion from
nondefense discretionary programs in fiscal year 2018. This is an 8-
percent cut to the fiscal year 2018 postsequester budget caps, which
are already $3 billion below last year's levels. It could impact
defense as well.
Of course, Senator Paul provides no recommendations on who he wants
to hurt. Should it come from programs that support our Nation's
veterans? Should it come from the National Institutes of Health and the
cutting-edge cancer research it conducts? You cannot just turn research
on and off. Scientists do not hit pause. What if we take it from
transportation and infrastructure programs that help repair our
Nation's failing roads and bridges?
If those are unacceptable, perhaps we should cut or eliminate
programs that assist our Nation's farmers or help promote economic
growth in rural communities. I think we can all agree that is not going
to happen. It should not happen. We should be investing in our
communities to make sure they have the tools they need to grow and
flourish, not deserting them.
Members on both sides of the aisle have been calling for months for a
bipartisan budget deal. In speech after speech we have heard about the
devastating consequences that sequester has on both defense and
nondefense programs. If we are going to finish this year's
appropriations process, we need a bipartisan budget deal based on
parity that provides us relief from sequester. This amendment takes us
in the opposite direction. I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 5, nays 95, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]

YEAS--5

Daines
Flake
Lankford
Lee
Paul

NAYS--95

Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Strange
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
The amendment (No. 1298) was rejected.

Amendment No. 1430

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Lee amendment No. 1430.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I am offering amendment No. 1430 to repeal
ObamaCare regulations that are wreaking havoc on our health insurance
market. Healthcare costs are rising dramatically, unsustainably, and
unaffordably.
Healthcare costs are rising as a result of ObamaCare's despotic
regime of aggressive healthcare regulations. Countless working families
are treading water just to try to stay afloat. A good chunk of these
costs also can be pinned directly on the burdensome ObamaCare
regulations.
According to one HHS study, ObamaCare regulations caused premiums in
the individual market to spike an astounding 105 percent, and a study
by Milliman showed that the guaranteed issue regulation alone caused
health insurance premiums to rise by an average of 45 percent. This
amounts to $106 per month. That is thousands of dollars per year for
working families. That is money that they could be spending on
groceries, on housing, on braces, or on their child's education.
Congress has done very little in the last few years to alleviate the
burdens faced by these working class families. I urge my colleagues to
act now by supporting this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Republicans have now put forward proposal
after proposal to rip protections away from Americans with preexisting
conditions. This amendment is yet another example of Republican efforts
to increase costs for people who need healthcare the most. It would put
insurance companies back in charge. It would allow them to deny
coverage to people with preexisting conditions or discriminate against
them by charging higher premiums.
This repeals the essential health benefits, rips away access to
critical services like maternity care, mental health, and substance use
disorder treatment, and repeals the requirement that coverage be
available to dependents under the age of 26.
Americans have rejected this crass partisan proposal. It is long past
time to focus on bipartisan proposals like the one that Senator
Alexander and I announced today that actually protects people with
preexisting conditions while bringing down premiums for patients and
family.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
seconds.
Mrs. MURRAY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 67, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 237 Leg.]

YEAS--32

Barrasso
Boozman
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Flake
Graham
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johnson

[[Page S6625]]

Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sullivan
Thune
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NAYS--67

Alexander
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Isakson
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Portman
Reed
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Strange
Tester
Tillis
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Cochran

The amendment (No. 1430) was rejected.

Amendment No. 1277

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Paul amendment No. 1277.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, across the country, Republicans promised to
repeal ObamaCare. They promised to repeal all of ObamaCare, root and
branch. Not one Republican promised to keep and block grant ObamaCare.
They promised to repeal ObamaCare.
Tonight I present another chance. My amendment will provide budget
reconciliation instructions so Republican Senators can fulfill their
promise; so they can actually repeal ObamaCare, root and branch, as
they promised.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this amendment provides reconciliation
instructions to three Senate committees for the purpose of repealing
and replacing the Affordable Care Act; in effect, rerunning the same
bad movie the Senate has now seen three times. By now, Americans
understand what these partisan Republican healthcare bills have in
store for the middle class: higher premiums, worse healthcare, and a
safety net in tatters.
I will close by saying that there is now a desire on both sides of
the aisle to set aside this my-way-or-the-highway approach to
governing. Bipartisanship is about taking each other's good ideas, and
I believe the Senate can work together to lower people's premiums.
This amendment is a vote to look for more partisan ideological
trophies when the Senate ought to be working together to find common
ground.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 66, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]

YEAS--33

Barrasso
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Paul
Portman
Risch
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Wicker
Young

NAYS--66

Alexander
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Isakson
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Reed
Roberts
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Strange
Tester
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Cochran

The amendment (No. 1277) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendments Nos. 1553, 1428, 1404, 1429, 1552, 1301, 1561, and 1167 to
Amendment No. 1116

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Udall amendment
No. 1553, Lee amendment No. 1428, Paul amendment No. 1404, Lee
amendment No. 1429, Fischer amendment No. 1552, Cantwell amendment No.
1301, Enzi amendment No. 1561, and Perdue-Whitehouse amendment No.
1167.
I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate now vote in relation
to these amendments in the order listed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments en bloc by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for himself and
others, proposes amendments numbered 1553, 1428, 1404, 1429,
1552, 1301, 1561, and 1167 en bloc to amendment No. 1116.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 1553

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
provision of full, permanent, and mandatory funding for the payment in
lieu of taxes program)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROVIDING
FULL, PERMANENT, AND MANDATORY FUNDING FOR THE
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES PROGRAM.

amendment no. 1428

(Purpose: To modify a deficit neutral reserve fund relating to public
land and the environment to address making payments under the payments
in lieu of taxes program equivalent to the property tax revenue that
would be due to a State or local government if the State or local
government owned the land)

On page 57, line 19, insert ``, including rewriting the
formula for payments under the program'' after ``program''.

amendment no. 1404

(Purpose: To ensure that all Americans receive a tax cut, keeping more
of their hard earned money, and enjoy the benefit of tax reform)

On page 47, line 6, strike ``$1,500,000,000,000'' and
insert ``$2,500,000,000,000''.

amendment no. 1429

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting Federal regulation of entirely intrastate species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
CLARIFYING FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO
INTRASTATE SPECIES.

[[Page S6626]]

amendment no. 1552

(Purpose: To provide tax relief to American workers, families, and job
creators in a manner which maintains the progressivity of the tax
system by maintaining or raising the share of taxes paid by high income
taxpayers)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO TAX
REFORM WHICH MAINTAINS THE PROGRESSIVITY OF THE
TAX SYSTEM.

amendment no. 1301

(Purpose: To strike the reconciliation instructions for the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate to prevent oil and gas
development within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge)

In section 2001, strike subsection (b).

Amendment No. 1561

(Purpose: To provide other enforcement provisions related
to the House of Representatives.)

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')

amendment no. 1167

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
significantly improving the budget process)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVING THE BUDGET PROCESS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
significantly improving the budget process by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2018 through
2022 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2018 through
2027.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we expect
to have this series of votes and then move to passage of the
resolution. That means there are hopefully approximately eight votes
left. Some of them may be voice votes.
Mr. President, I yield to the leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to colleagues, the consent
agreement that was just entered allows us to see the light at the end
of the tunnel. If Senators will stay in the Chamber, we will do these
10-minute rollcall votes and wrap it up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. We
completely agree on this issue. We hope Members on both sides will stay
in their seats so we can finish quickly, without going through the
ridiculous vote-arama that we have done in previous years.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1553

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Udall amendment No. 1553.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, this amendment calls for legislation to
fully and permanently fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program.
Senator Heinrich and I have long called for this solution. Rural
counties in New Mexico and other States across the West and across the
country have large amounts of Federal lands within their boundaries.
These counties rely on funding from the PILT Program to provide better
schools, maintain roads and bridges, and support thousands of local
jobs.
We currently fund PILT year by year. I have fought for this funding
as a member of the Appropriations Committee, but we need to do more. We
need to pass permanent funding to ensure that local communities can
count on our resources being there every year to provide basic
services. I urge support for the Udall-Heinrich amendment and yield
back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment, reluctantly. I have always fought to make sure the rural
communities can keep the lights on. Approximately half of the land in
my home State of Wyoming is under Federal control, and counties,
therefore, are unable to obtain property tax revenue from a large part
of the State.
Payment in lieu of taxes isn't a giveaway to these counties. It is
compensation for the money they lose because they are unable to tax
Federal lands within their borders, even though they are required to
provide services on those lands. However, this resolution already has
the reserved funds for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. I find
this amendment to be duplicative and unnecessary. Furthermore, the
vote-arama isn't the correct forum to contemplate making any program
permanent and mandatory, even one I have long supported.
I look forward to working with my colleague from New Mexico and with
other interested Members from Western States on fiscally responsible
legislation to provide fairness and equity for America's rural counties
and their communities.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. UDALL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 239 Leg.]

YEAS--58

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Risch
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--41

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Cruz
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Cochran

The amendment (No. 1553) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I request that everybody sit in their seat,
and we could do these votes in 7\1/2\ minutes. If everybody wanders off
and comes back in, we could be here half the night. There should only
be about seven votes left, and some of those could be by voice vote,
like the next one.
Mr. SCHUMER. Our side was in early.
Mr. ENZI. I appreciate the way those on that side have taken their
seats and voted.

Amendment No. 1428

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to a vote in relation to Lee amendment No. 1428.

[[Page S6627]]

The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment to pay back
western communities for the loss that occurs to them as a result of the
widespread ownership of Federal public land.
As I have long stressed, Federal land is often a bad bargain for
State and local governments, like those in Utah, where almost two-
thirds of the land is owned and controlled by the Federal Government,
thus prohibiting local governments from taxing that land. Not only does
Federal ownership reduce economic opportunity on that land, not only
does it rob local residents of local control, but it also shrinks the
property tax base that Utahns rely on to fund essential community
services.
The Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program, or PILT, was designed to
address this very inequity by paying States for the property tax
revenue they lost as a result of Federal land ownership, but the
current formula for PILT does not adequately compensate local
governments for this loss. In fact, it doesn't even come close. My
amendment offers these predominantly rural communities a revisited,
revised, and improved PILT formula to compensate them for these very
losses.
I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I request a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, there is wide support for PILT from both
Democrats and Republicans, as witnessed by this last vote. What we need
to do now is to make sure that it works fairly for counties and is not
done arbitrarily.
The CRS found that taking the approach in Senator Lee's amendment
would break the PILT Program. Not only would calculating each county's
payments be nearly impossible, the program would not be fair. In fact,
the CRS cited a 2010 study that found that the approach in Senator
Lee's amendment would result in two-thirds of all of the counties that
receive PILT funding receiving lower payments than they do now.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 240 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 1428) was rejected.

Amendment No. 1404

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). There will now be 2 minutes of
debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to Paul amendment
No. 1404.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, rather than bicker over raising taxes on
some people and lowering taxes on other people, we should cut
everyone's taxes to make sure we get a middle-class tax cut across the
board. The best way to do that is to give the tax committee a mandate
that is larger, a mandate for a bigger tax cut.
My amendment provides budget reconciliation instructions to increase
the tax cut to $2.5 trillion. If we were to believe this budget, it
claims to save over $6 trillion over 10 years--more than enough to go
bigger, better, and bolder on cutting taxes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Paul
amendment. In the budget we are debating today, my Republican
colleagues have required the Finance Committee to increase the deficit
by $1.5 trillion over the next decade. This budget would pave the way
for massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid in order to provide the
wealthiest people in this country with incredibly large tax breaks.
Senator Paul thinks that doesn't go far enough. His amendment would
allow the Senate to increase the deficit by $2.5 trillion, allowing for
even greater cuts to Medicare, to Medicaid, and even bigger tax breaks
for the Koch brothers and their friends.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 7, nays 93, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 241 Leg.]

YEAS--7

Cruz
Daines
Heller
Lee
Paul
Perdue
Sasse

NAYS--93

Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Strange
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
The amendment (No. 1404) was rejected.

Amendment No. 1429

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to Lee
amendment No. 1429.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, our constitutional structure puts in place a
Federal Government with powers that James Madison described as ``few
and defined'' and those reserved to the States as ``numerous and
indefinite.'' Among other things, the Constitution gives powers to the
Congress to regulate interstate commerce, trade or commerce between the
States, with foreign nations, and with Indian Tribes. It does not give
the Congress the power to regulate any and every activity occurring
intrastate. Yet, for the last few decades, under the Endangered Species
Act, this very power has been abused to regulate species that exists
only in one place, only within one State, never crossing State lines,
never forming any part of any channel or instrumentality of interstate
commerce. This is wrong, it is unconstitutional, and it eviscerates and
circumvents the meaning of the 10th Amendment. We need to liberate this
country from the dictates of a few bureaucrats in Washington, DC, who
have overextended their authority under the Endangered Species Act. My
amendment fixes that, and I urge my colleagues to support amendment No.
1429.

[[Page S6628]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Utah.
Why is this an important amendment vote? Just listen to this. More
than 1,000 listed species, 77 percent of all listed species, including
the polar bear, the Florida panther are found in one State--one State.
Seventy-seven percent of all listed species, including the polar bear,
the Florida panther, and many more are found only in one State, and for
an island State like Hawaii, all of its species would lose protection.
I urge you to join me in opposing this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 242 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NAYS--51

Alexander
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 1429) was rejected.

Vote on Amendment No. 1552

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to
Fischer amendment No. 1552.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield back all time and ask for a voice
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1552) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1301

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to
Cantwell amendment No. 1301.
The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is
one of the most pristine areas of the United States, and we have been
protecting it for decades for a reason. The notion that tonight, after
60-plus years, we would give up what is a biologically important area,
that is a critical habitat for polar bears, a breeding ground for
caribou, migratory birds, and over 200 species--for what? For oil that
we don't need.
We have had record oil production in the last 10 years--a 77-percent
increase. The oil that we would get, we wouldn't get until 10 years
from now, and it would supply oil for only 1 year in the United States.
It is not worth it.
As Representative Mo Udall said in 1980: ``If we have to drill at the
White House or Arlington Cemetery or the Capitol grounds for oil, we
might have to drill in the Arctic Refuge. But let us go there last.''
We don't need this oil. We have plenty of supply. The Interior
Secretary is trying to open a billion acres, including on-shore and
outer continental shelf waters. Vote no and protect a unique special
place that has been protected for 60 years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to soundly reject
this amendment. Those who support this amendment will deny us the
opportunity to do something constructive in this country when it comes
to our opportunities to produce energy, to produce wealth.
We need to be expanding our energy development in our Federal areas.
This helps us reduce our deficit, build new wealth in this country,
strengthen our national security and our competitiveness. We can and we
must do more as a nation to responsibly develop our resources, our
energy resources providing economic security, energy security, and
national security. The Energy Committee is prepared to meet this
instruction to raise a billion dollars over the next decade.
I urge Senators to reject this amendment, which would deprive us of a
substantial opportunity to benefit our country at the same time that we
care for our environment.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 243 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--52

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
The amendment (No. 1301) was rejected.

Amendment No. 1561

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to Enzi
amendment No. 1561.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank everybody who
has gotten us to this point. There is this vote, and I hope there will
be one voice vote after it and then final passage.
I am urging my colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment
offers technical and conforming changes that are needed for the House
of Representatives to be able to enforce the budget resolution. This
amendment will help maintain fiscal discipline in the House so both
Chambers can continue to work and put America on a more sustainable
footing. What is also important for my colleagues to know is that these
provisions apply to the House only. The Senate enforcement remains
unchanged.
I hope you will support me on this amendment.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, Chairman Enzi suggests that this is just
a ``technical corrections amendment.'' Actually, that is not quite
accurate.
At a time when the United States spends more on defense than the next
12 countries combined, amazingly, this

[[Page S6629]]

amendment paves the way for a $91 billion increase in defense spending
in fiscal year 2018.
This amendment would renew the Republican effort to repeal the
Affordable Care Act and throw up to 32 million Americans off of the
health insurance they currently have, increase premiums for older
workers, and make even more harmful cuts to Medicaid.
This amendment includes a provision requiring the use of so-called
dynamic scoring, or what President George H.W. Bush appropriately
referred to as voodoo economics, allowing the Republicans to claim that
their massive tax breaks for the rich will pay for themselves.
At a time when the cost of college education is skyrocketing, this
amendment calls for dramatic cuts to student financial aid.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. ENZI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 244 Leg.]

YEAS--52

NAYS--48

Amendment No. 1167

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to the
Perdue-Whitehouse amendment No. 1167.
The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I have great news. This is the last
amendment and the only bipartisan amendment tonight, and after this we
will vote on the entire bill.
The purpose of this amendment is to declare this process--the vote-
arama--utter nonsense. It is part of a budget process that both parties
have perpetrated and persisted with for 43 years. It has only worked
four times; to fund the Federal Government, according to the Budget Act
of 1974, four times in our history. We are supposed to appropriate 12
bills a year to fund the Government. We have averaged 2\1/2\.
I urge all of my colleagues to make clear to the American people that
we recognize this budgeting process is broken and we are committed to
fix it.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am pleased to urge all of my
colleagues to give a strong bipartisan voice vote in support of the
amendment by the Senator from Georgia. The current budget process does
not produce a meaningful budget, does not control the debt or the
deficit, and does not contribute to bipartisanship or compromise. What
it does produce is a meaningless, partisan vote-arama. If you believe
we can do better than a vote-arama, if you believe we can have an
improved and meaningful budget process, voice vote aye.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1167) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I know of no further amendments to the
resolution.

Amendment No. 1116, as Amended

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1116, as amended.
Mr. ENZI. That is the substitute. I yield back time on that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this is not a bad budget bill. It is a
horrific budget bill, an extremely cruel bill, and the most unfair
budget ever presented in the modern history of our country.
At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, this budget
provides $1.9 trillion in tax breaks for the top 1 percent. At a time
when millions of working families are struggling to keep their heads
above water, this budget cuts Medicaid by $1 trillion. Fifteen million
Americans could lose their health insurance.
This is a budget that poll after poll shows the American people do
not want. Let us defeat it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am tempted to debate that, but we will get
to do that as we do the provisions of this after it is all voted on.
I hope everybody will adopt the substitute by voice, and then vote on
adoption of the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any further amendments?
Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1116, as
amended.
The amendment (No. 1116) in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on adoption of H. Con.
Res. 71, as amended.
Mr. ENZI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 245 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NAYS--49

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 71), as amended, was agreed
to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, tonight we completed the first step
toward replacing our broken Tax Code by passing a comprehensive,
fiscally responsible budget that will help put the Federal Government
on a path to balance. The budget also gives us the tools we need to
strengthen our economy after years of stagnation under the previous
administration.
We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to replace a failing tax
code that holds Americans back with one that actually works for them.
To middle-class families across America, we have a very simple message.
We want

[[Page S6630]]

to take more money out of Washington's pockets and put more in yours.
With this budget, we are on a path to delivering much needed relief
to American individuals and families who have borne the burdens of an
unfair tax code for entirely too long. I want to particularly thank
Chairman Mike Enzi and the members of the Budget Committee and the
staff for their extraordinary work on this budget.

____________________