[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 170 (Monday, October 23, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6703-S6707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIP ACT OF 2017

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 2266, which 
the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany H.R. 2266, a bill to amend title 
     28 of the United States Code to authorize the appointment of 
     additional bankruptcy judges; and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the bill.
       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the bill, with McConnell 
     amendment No. 1568, to change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 1569 (to amendment No. 1568), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell motion to refer the message of the House on the 
     bill to the Committee on Appropriations, with instructions, 
     McConnell amendment No. 1570, to change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 1571 (to (the instructions) 
     amendment No. 1570), of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 1572 (to amendment No. 1571), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 
p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let me just speak for a few minutes on the 
emergency supplemental appropriations for disasters.
  No one in this Chamber is immune from disaster. Six years ago, I 
remember, in Vermont, Marcelle and I watched as communities around 
Vermont felt the devastating impact of Tropical Storm Irene. That storm 
washed away entire communities in our State, tearing down homes, local 
landmarks, and bridges alike. I watched the devastation from a 
helicopter with the Governor and the head of our National Guard the day 
after the storm hit. I saw bridges washed away. The only way we could 
get into the towns was by helicopter because all of the roads were gone 
that led into them. I saw homes that had been on the north side of a 
river that were now upside down and destroyed on the south side of the 
river.
  Do you know the one thing that occurred to me as I traveled around 
the State of Vermont? It is that I had heard from my fellow Senators, 
both Republicans and Democrats, saying that they would help us rebuild. 
I had heard the same thing from the President of the United States. 
They stood by Vermont's side to help us rebuild--again, Republicans and 
Democrats alike--because that is who we are as Americans. We lift each 
other up in times of disaster. We are one country.
  Today, in California and across the West, families are returning to 
the charred ruins of their homes--those who were able to get out alive. 
In Florida and Texas, communities are trying to put their lives back 
together after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma--again, those who were able 
to get out alive. In Puerto Rico, hundreds of thousands are still 
without potable water, electricity, cell service, or adequate medical 
supplies following Hurricane Maria. The Virgin Islands are also facing 
devastation that I can never remember. Millions of Americans all over 
the country, as well as the Americans in Puerto Rico and the Americans 
in the Virgin Islands, need us to work together to help lift them up, 
just as we have seen in past disasters. This is not a Republican or a 
Democratic issue; this is an American issue. This is who we are as a 
country. We hold together.
  I have been privileged to serve here since the time of President 
Ford. In times of disaster, I have seen every single President, 
Republican and Democrat, work to help Americans and do it out of 
concern for Americans, not for themselves. That is why it is so 
disappointing that President Trump

[[Page S6704]]

seems more concerned with claiming credit for a job well done than the 
actual situation on the ground deserves, particularly in Puerto Rico. 
President Trump has given himself a 10 out of 10 as though this were a 
game show for the administration's response to the devastating 
hurricane, but let's look at some numbers that really matter for the 
people who have lost everything.
  It has been 48 days since Hurricane Irma made landfall in Puerto Rico 
and 34 days since Hurricane Maria tore through the island. These storms 
wreaked havoc on those who live there. They destroyed houses and killed 
at least 49 people. Yet, 48 days later, nearly 80 percent of the island 
is still without power, and 30 percent of the population is without 
clean drinking water--some having to resort to drinking contaminated 
water. Roads are impassable. Bridges are down. The few hospitals that 
are operating are operating on generators.
  Frankly, the administration was slow to respond to the disaster. So 
to claim that it gets a 10 out of 10 for its response is to ignore the 
facts, especially the facts that the people who have been hit know so 
well. As I said before, this is not a reality TV show. It is not where 
the participant with the highest score advances to the next round. This 
is not fiction. These are people's lives--real people. They are 
people's homes. This is the hard part of governing. This is where we 
roll up our sleeves and dig in for the long haul. We stop patting 
ourselves on the back. Instead, we use that hand to give a hand to the 
people who are hurting.
  Today we are going to advance a disaster package that contains $36.5 
billion in additional emergency relief. It includes $18.7 billion for 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, Disaster Relief Fund, 
$16 billion for the National Flood Insurance Program debt forgiveness, 
$1.2 billion for nutrition assistance, and $576.5 million to address 
these devastating wildfires in the western part of the United States.
  As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I support this 
bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the 
same. If we do not act, the Disaster Relief Fund and the Flood 
Insurance Program will run out of resources in a matter of days. This 
money, if we pass it, will help FEMA, the Department of Defense, the 
Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies to continue their work in 
all of the devastated communities and to start catching up with the 
work that needs to be done and to help families begin to rebuild their 
homes and their lives--those who did not die in the disaster. This is 
just the next step. This is a multistep process. This is the next step 
on the road to recovery.
  Last week, I met with Governor Ricardo Rossello, of Puerto Rico, and 
his staff. I have been to Puerto Rico many times, in happier times, but 
here he detailed the unique challenges that face Puerto Rico. He was 
telling us what is happening to our fellow Americans. The electric grid 
was almost completely destroyed. Its infrastructure, itself, was 
demolished. Houses were flattened. At the same time, Puerto Rico faces 
a fiscal situation that will make it nearly impossible for it to 
provide the Federal match that is required for most disaster assistance 
programs. It faces a Medicaid funding crisis that may leave nearly 1 
million people without healthcare in just a matter of months, assuming 
that we restore their healthcare.
  This tells us that our response cannot be business as usual. We need 
to tailor disaster assistance to meet Puerto Rico's unique challenges. 
We may need to consider legislation to address its unique needs. Most 
importantly, we need to think long term. To simply replace and repair 
what was destroyed would be shortsighted. We have to help our fellow 
Americans who are in Puerto Rico to recover, to rebuild, and to be more 
resilient and better prepared. We should invest in the 3.4 million U.S. 
citizens in Puerto Rico and invest in their infrastructure so that the 
next disaster is not a humanitarian issue and crisis.
  Some like to say that the situation is unique in Puerto Rico. It is 
not. We have to acknowledge that historic-sized storms are now annual 
occurrences, and we have to respond accordingly. Even with the help 
from our own citizens and from the U.S. Government, we are just now 
fully rebuilding in Vermont, and we were not hit as badly as these 
other places were. Across the country--from wildfires in California to 
the flood damage in Florida, Texas, the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as 
what I said about Puerto Rico--we can invest in technology, and we can 
invest in conservation and infrastructure. That would mitigate further 
damage.
  Do you know what? It would also make these communities more resilient 
because we cannot speak about ``once in 100 years'' storms. Sometimes, 
as we have seen this year, they have been ``once in 2 months'' or 
``once in 3 weeks'' storms. This requires a commitment from the U.S. 
Government. It is not measured by days or weeks or months but in 
years--a commitment that does not waver, a commitment that does not 
depend on whether you live in Texas or Florida or Puerto Rico or the 
Virgin Islands.
  Today, I urge all Senators to support this emergency supplemental 
bill that will provide much needed assistance for disaster relief 
across the country, but it is still just the next step on the path to 
recovery. The Trump administration is committed to putting forward a 
third, more comprehensive disaster package in the coming weeks. As vice 
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I intend to hold the 
administration to that commitment.
  In conclusion, even in the years since Irene, this Vermonter still 
takes comfort in the number of Republican and Democratic Senators who 
called me during that storm and pledged support and, along with the 
pledge, came through with the support.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                       The Budget and Tax Reform

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last week, the Senate took an important 
step for the fiscal and economic future of our country with passage of 
the budget for fiscal year 2018.
  The comprehensive, responsible budget we passed marks out a clear 
vision for the future. It will put the Federal Government on a path to 
balance, and it sets out a new course after the long years of the Obama 
economy, when paychecks stagnated, steady work became harder to find, 
and retirement for many slipped further away. The budget we passed 
isn't just about getting our fiscal house in order--though it is 
certainly about that--it is also about getting our economy going again 
and growing again.
  Perhaps the most important way it does so is by authorizing 
legislative tools to advance tax reform, and passing tax reform is the 
most important thing we can do today to get our economy reaching for 
its true potential.
  Tax reform is all about helping the middle class succeed. It is about 
making it easier to create jobs in America and keep them right here. To 
summarize the effort in one phrase, it is this: Tax reform is about 
taking more money out of Washington's pocket and putting more in 
yours--more for workers, more for small businesses, and more for the 
middle class. After all, as the President wrote over the weekend, ``we 
are not talking about the government's money--we are talking about your 
money, your hard work.''
  If you look back a few months, many doubted our ability to get a 
budget done or to advance tax reform. They didn't see the path forward. 
Those skeptics underestimated our resolve. The Senate has delivered on 
the budget, and we will soon have the tools to deliver on tax reform.
  We now look forward to our House colleagues' continued consideration 
and passage of the budget. Once they do so, we can move forward with 
tax reform for American families.
  For Americans who have suffered through years of uncertainty--
everything from a recession to outsourcing to unemployment--we are 
ready to deliver for you. For those who watched opportunity recede 
while the personal wealth of coastal elites grew beyond comprehension, 
help is on the way. We want to put more money in your pocket, we want 
to make retirement a reality for you, we want to get this economy 
moving the way it should, and tax reform is the key to helping us get 
there.
  I would like once again to thank Chairman Enzi and the members of the 
Budget Committee for their important work to get this budget resolution 
passed.

[[Page S6705]]

  I also would like to thank the cloakroom staff, the Parliamentarians, 
the clerks, the pages, and the officers of the U.S. Capitol Police who 
worked into the evening to make sure, as they always do, that the 
Senate runs smoothly.
  Thanks also to Chairman Hatch and the members of the Finance 
Committee. We now look forward to their continued good work on 
development of the kind of tax relief that will get our economy truly 
moving again.
  Mr. President, on another matter, the Senate remains committed to 
doing its part to support the ongoing hurricane relief efforts, and, to 
that end, today we will take a vote to advance the administration's 
most recent supplemental funding request. These resources will ensure 
that FEMA and the rest of the administration have the ability to 
continue their crucial support to help those impacted by devastating 
storms.
  Like many colleagues, I have been engaged on this issue from the very 
start. Through several meetings with leaders from Puerto Rico and the 
U.S. Virgin Islands, I have had the opportunity to hear firsthand how 
the government can support their relief efforts. I met with Puerto 
Rico's Governor last week to get another update on the funding request 
and to hear about the continuing recovery.
  In addition, I have continued working with the administration as it 
responds to these storms. For instance, after the devastation of 
Hurricane Harvey, I met with the Department of Homeland Security's 
Acting Secretary to learn more about what would be needed. I also met 
with President Trump's eminently qualified nominee to lead that 
Department.
  The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a supplemental 
funding request with strong bipartisan support, and now it is our turn 
to act. As we all know, the administration will continue to actively 
review hurricane relief and recovery needs. As it does, we can expect 
the transmittal of additional supplemental requests for our 
consideration in the near future.
  The victims of these hurricanes continue to count on our support, and 
I look forward to the Senate continuing to do its part to help.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                              Nominations

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I just want to address very briefly one 
other issue that surfaced last week.
  Press reports indicate there are multiple nominees of President Trump 
awaiting Senate confirmation, but even though they haven't been 
confirmed--there has not been a vote maybe even in committee, I 
understand; certainly they have not been confirmed by the Senate. Yet 
they are engaged in the very duties of the positions for which they 
have been nominated. That includes nominees showing up to work, even 
though they are not yet confirmed. It means they attend White House 
meetings, even though they are not yet confirmed. They show up for 
photo ops, even though they are not confirmed. This includes officials 
with at least three different agencies.
  If accurate, this is nothing but an end run around our constitutional 
system. It directly flouts the Senate's constitutional role to check 
and balance the enormous power wielded by the executive branch. It is 
our obligation to advise and ultimately consent, vote up or down, the 
appointment of high-level agency officials. Their decisions impact 
millions of Americans. I hope that all of us--both Democrats and 
Republicans--will speak up and defend the prerogatives of the Senate if 
the Trump administration continues to insist it is above the law.
  I have been here a half dozen times when Democrats were in the 
majority and a half dozen times when Republicans were in the majority. 
We have always insisted that these kinds of nominees await a vote 
first. Back in my time during the Ford administration, the Carter 
administration, the Reagan administration, the Bush administration--the 
first Bush administration--the Clinton administration, the next Bush 
administration, the Obama administration, we actually followed the law 
and the Constitution. It was something that both Republican leaders and 
Democrat leaders insisted on, and I agreed with it. Although I may have 
hated to wait sometimes, we insisted on it. So I raise that point.
  It raises a real question. I am told that it may be a violation of 
the law. It certainly raises a question if they make decisions based on 
their responsibilities in a position that requires confirmation and 
they haven't been confirmed. We may be facing lawsuits--taxpayers 
paying to defend lawsuits--when all they have to do is wait a few days.
  Republicans are in charge of the Senate. They can bring up these 
nominees. Bring them up and vote on them, but don't just pretend the 
Senate is not here. Let's not pretend the advice and consent part of 
the Constitution doesn't exist.
  Let's actually obey the law and the Constitution. It can be 
refreshing to do things the way the law and the Constitution requires. 
In the long run, the country will be better off.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, first, on the issue of healthcare, since I last 
addressed this Chamber, the bipartisan agreement reached by Senators 
Alexander and Murray has amassed enough cosponsors to guarantee its 
passage. It now has 12 Republican cosponsors and 12 Democratic 
cosponsors. That is as bipartisan as it gets. I believe all 48 Members 
of my caucus will support the agreement, which means it has the 
necessary 60 votes. Even Leader McConnell has made it clear that he 
will put the Alexander-Murray bill on the floor as soon as President 
Trump supports it.
  Let me make a direct appeal to the President.
  Mr. President, come out and support the Alexander-Murray bill. You 
called it ``a very good solution'' already. Announce that you will 
support it, and it will pass through the Senate soon after.
  The President's only stated concern was that the Alexander-Murray 
bill ``bails out insurance companies.'' I can assure the President that 
Senators Alexander and Murray took great pains to make sure the 
insurance companies would not get one extra penny from this deal. I 
have read the language. I have worked with them. It is good. It is 
strong. They have included provisions in the bill to prevent insurance 
companies from double dipping on the cost-sharing program and ensure 
that the money goes precisely where it is intended: to keep premiums 
and other out-of-pocket costs down for low-income Americans.
  If the President wants even greater assurances, we can work to move 
back the start of enrollment 1 month. He may be able to do that 
administratively, but if not, that is something both Senator Alexander 
and Senator Murray wanted to do, which would ensure that there would be 
new applications, and the rates would be looked at as if cost sharing 
were happening, but the White House blocked it. If the White House and 
the President want to make it even stronger--I think it is strong 
enough already--then we can do that. From what I understand, the 
President might be able to do that administratively.
  This idea that the President isn't supporting this because he doesn't 
want the insurance companies to make money on this--well, it is wrong. 
There is some other reason he doesn't want it done. Maybe he doesn't 
want a bipartisan bill. Maybe it is because he wasn't involved. Maybe 
it is because on issue after issue the hard-right Freedom Caucus people 
say don't do it, and he is afraid, because he is not showing much 
leadership when they stand up to him.
  The only reason the President shouldn't support this bill is that he 
wants to continue intentionally hurting Americans. He has talked about 
that. He almost seems gleeful: ObamaCare will fail--even though he is 
trying to make it fail.

[[Page S6706]]

  The President should know that premiums have shot up 30 percent in 
Pennsylvania because of the President's decision to end cost sharing. 
Premiums for silver plans will rise 20 to 25 percent if cost sharing is 
not restored. It is time for the President to stop the sabotage. He 
created the problem by for the first time not renewing cost-sharing 
payments. Now we have a solution that will renew them, but Democrats 
will have to give. Copper plans have never been our favorite. He should 
go along with the good compromise.
  The President has told me repeatedly that he wants to work in a 
bipartisan way. He told me that he wants to work in a bipartisan way on 
healthcare. Well, on this one, I am from Missouri. Shows us. Show me.
  It is time, Mr. President, to turn the page on healthcare and pass 
the Alexander-Murray bill. We have other pressing healthcare issues to 
grapple with. For the first time in history, again due to lack of 
leadership from that White House, the authorization for the Children's 
Health Insurance Program has expired. That must be reauthorized, too, 
and soon. Kids across America are depending on it.
  President Trump, please stop the games. Stop the zigging and zagging. 
You are for it one day and against it the next. Stop coming up with 
fake excuses. Declare your support for this bill so we can move forward 
in a bipartisan way to improve our Nation's healthcare.


                       The Budget and Tax Reform

  Now, Mr. President, on taxes, last week the Republican majority 
jammed through one of the worst budgets in history. That is not 
hyperbole; this is one of the worst budgets in history. They should 
hang their heads in shame. It increases the deficit by $1.5 trillion, 
slashes Medicare and Medicaid by $1.5 trillion, and sets up the same 
partisan process the Republicans used for healthcare.
  Now it goes to the House for their approval, where many conservative 
House Republicans will have to rationalize voting for a bill that 
dramatically increases deficits. For many in the conservative wing of 
the House Republican caucus, the debt and deficit have been their No. 1 
focus in Congress, their raison d'etre. Many campaigned on the singular 
promise--made with almost religious fervor--to lower our Nation's debt 
and deficit. They rhapsodize fiscal responsibility. They hold 
themselves up as the guardian of preventing the debt from being passed 
on to our grandchildren. They evangelize constitutional amendments 
requiring a balanced budget. They were willing to risk default on our 
Nation's credit for a spurious talking point.
  The budget resolution will be a true test of the principles the 
Freedom Caucus and the hard right in the House have espoused about the 
evils of deficits for the better part of the last decade, because those 
same Members of the Freedom Caucus must now vote to approve a budget 
that increases the deficit by $1.5 trillion. The House bill didn't do 
that. The Senate bill clearly does. Yet, so far, we haven't heard a 
peep from the Freedom Caucus. The most scolding deficit hawks have 
morphed into deficit doves, eschewing principle for political 
expediency.
  With respect to the deficit, any economist will tell you that a 
dollar less in revenue due to a tax cut is the same as a dollar less in 
spending. Yet the Freedom Caucus and deficit hawks only harp on the 
deficit when it is about spending cuts: Get rid of Medicare. Get rid of 
Medicaid. Slash them--programs every bit as popular and as important as 
any.
  As Representative Walker, a conservative of the House, lamented, 
``[The deficit] is a great talking point when you have an 
administration that's Democratic-led. It's a little different now that 
Republicans have both houses and the administration.'' Really? So you 
are a deficit hawk only when it is politically expedient, 
Representative Walker?
  Well, the Freedom Caucus still has a chance to change the course of 
their budget when we vote this week. When the Freedom Caucus came out 
against the Republican healthcare bill, the Republican majority was 
forced to make concessions to them. If they were real deficit hawks, 
honest deficit hawks, consistent deficit hawks, nonpolitical deficit 
hawks, they would do the same thing here.
  Let's see how Representative Walker and his fellow Members of the 
House Freedom Caucus vote on a GOP budget to increase the deficit by 
$1.5 trillion.
  Another point on the GOP tax plan. The Republicans are so wedded to 
their desire to give a massive tax break to big corporations and the 
superrich--which will blow up the deficit even in their fake math 
models--that they are searching for new ways to sock it to the middle 
class to make up the difference.
  First, Republicans debated eliminating the mortgage deduction, then 
they included the provision to eliminate State and local deductibility, 
and recently there have been reports that some Republicans want to cap 
Americans' pretax contributions to their 401(k)s. That is one of the 
few provisions we have to encourage middle-class families to start 
saving for an early retirement. President Trump tweeted this morning 
that we are not going down that road. The fact that Republicans were 
even considering raiding American's retirement savings to pay for giant 
tax cuts for corporations shows just how backward their plan is.
  The Tax Policy Center estimated that while the wealthiest 1 percent 
of America would reap 80 percent of the benefits under the GOP plan, it 
would also raise taxes on nearly a third of middle-class workers. That 
statistic reveals the rotten core at the center of this tax plan: The 
Republicans are so eager to give tax cuts to the rich, they are willing 
to explore many different ways of raising taxes on the middle class to 
pay for them. Each time, they bring up different methods--mortgage 
interest deductions, State and local deductibility, capping pretax 
401(k)s--and then back off when they see the political and popular cost 
to each proposal. That shows you the dilemma they are in.
  The fact is, there is no way the Republicans can avoid raising taxes 
on a good number of middle-class families if they are going to cling to 
such massive tax cuts for the rich and powerful and still make the 
numbers work, even with fake math.
  Instead of capping middle-class deductions or pilfering retirement 
savings, how about Republicans drop their proposal to repeal the estate 
tax? Repealing the estate tax would cost the government hundreds of 
billions. Why are Republicans looking at middle-class deductions 
instead of merely scrapping the estate tax repeal, which goes only to 
estates of over $5 million--only to estates over $5 million. The number 
who benefit is tiny. It is in the thousands. Their estates get huge, 
huge benefits. Get rid of that instead of hurting the middle class. The 
logic is confounding, and our Republican colleagues will not even talk 
about it.
  This plan is so rotten at its core that it has our Republican 
colleagues turning themselves into pretzels and jumping through hoops, 
and they can't really say what they believe--trickle down works. The 
only rationale for this entire plan is that if you give tax breaks to 
the wealthy and the big corporations, there will be a lot of job 
growth. It didn't happen when George Bush's tax cuts occurred. It 
didn't happen when Kansas dramatically cut its taxes. The Koch 
brothers' center, Kansas--they did just what the Koch brothers wanted. 
It was a disaster. Growth was much less than the national average even 
though the taxes were slashed. Although they don't state it, it is 
contrary to what our Republican colleagues believe.
  I respect the Republican Member who comes up and says: Trickle down 
works; that is why we are doing it. Tax cuts for the very wealthy is 
what would fuel the economy.
  No one else believes it anymore. History disproves it. It is fake. It 
is a fig leaf so that they don't have to admit what they want to do--
give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest of their contributors, the people 
who have sort of set up the sinew of this Republican Party with their 
think tanks and op-eds and so many other things, the Koch brothers 
network.
  The American people should know that the money to pay for that giant 
tax cut for the rich is coming from somewhere, and it is likely to be 
coming from their pocketbooks.

[[Page S6707]]

  



               Steel and Aluminum Imports Investigations

  Finally, one final topic: steel and aluminum. Recently and 
shockingly, Commerce Secretary Ross has said he is waiting for the 
Republican tax plan before completing critical investigations into how 
steel and aluminum imports are impacting the capacity of steel and 
aluminum U.S. producers to supply our defense needs. I am not sure why 
the Republican tax plan has anything to do with this national security 
investigation, which could finally lead to some relief from the 
predatory trade practices from China and other countries. The two are 
entirely unrelated.
  Secretary Ross's comments smell like an excuse for further delays--
and a bad one at that. I would like to see him explain his decision to 
the thousands of steelworkers whose jobs are on the line because their 
companies aren't competing on a level playing field because China 
repeatedly subsidizes, doesn't play by the rules, and cheats.
  It is another classic example of the Trump administration promising 
one thing and doing another. President Trump has promised many times to 
crack down on China, and still, 10 months into his administration, his 
Commerce Secretary is once again needlessly delaying a preliminary step 
in that effort.
  I have known him for 30 years. He is a New Yorker like I am. Every 
time I see Secretary Ross, I say to him: When are we going to do 
something on China?
  Oh, we are going to do something tough.
  Each time, there is a different excuse. This should have happened in 
the first 2 months of the administration. It hasn't.
  Because of the Republican inaction, because of the President's 
unfulfilled and rapidly becoming broken promise on being tough with 
China, Senate Democrats will be sending a letter to President Trump and 
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross demanding that the administration keep 
its promise to crack down on China's unfair and predatory trade 
practices. We are asking that they continue these investigations and 
expeditiously complete them. These trade investigations have nothing to 
do with tax reform, and there is no need to delay them.
  One more thing on China. Today I read that Tesla--our great car 
manufacturing company--will be relocating to China.
  When you want to sell cars and many other advanced products in China, 
you have to do one of two things: set up a joint ownership company 
which lets them steal our intellectual property or face huge tariffs. 
That is based on the fact that the WTO was poorly negotiated and China 
was regarded as a developing country. That was the fault of President 
Bush and President Obama; neither did enough to stop China.
  Based on his campaign rhetoric, one would think President Trump would 
be tougher as China steals our family jewels. It is no longer clothing 
and furniture; it is our best industries. They steal our intellectual 
property by these joint ventures. Sometimes they do it by cyber theft--
a lot of times they do it by cyber theft--and it is hurting the good-
paying jobs that might be available to our children and grandchildren. 
Based on campaign rhetoric, one would think President Trump would be 
tougher on China, but so far it has been a lot of talk and not very 
much action, and the delay in these investigations is another example.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________