again, but look, i don't blame them. i don't blame them. we are in a war. i didn't like it, but at the same time, when you are in a war and your captured, you can't expect, you know, to have tea. >> john mccain talks about the impact of the war on his life in the country. sunday at ex-pm in 10:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv unseats m3. >> the u.s. senate meet today to finish up work on the 2018 republican budget resolution and tax reform. a number of amendments likely throughout the day with lots of happened late tonight or early tomorrow morning. lawmakers may also take up the house passed faster relief bill that could come up later or tomorrow.

now to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

eternal savior, we thank you for the fellowship of your spirit and your consolations of love. may our lawmakers remember that you are their rock and refuge. lord, speak peace to their hearts in these turbulent times, guiding them along the path of your wisdom. reward their efforts with a joyful harvest, as they strive to build up and not tear down. raise them above discord and division, helping them to work together to keep america strong.

we are grateful for the favor you have given this nation and for surrounding us with the shield of your compassion mercy and love. strong deliverer, accept our grateful praise. we pray in your mighty name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the senate is taking the next critical step in passing the comprehensive fiscally responsible budget before us. it's pretty obvious that this is a good budget, and that's true whether you're looking at it from a fiscal per spick alternative or an -- perspective or an economic one. take the fiscal side first. it reins in government spending. it protects social security. it complies fully with the previous spending caps while also providing for an increase for defense resources if a bipartisan agreement can be reached. in short, it's a fiscally responsible budget that will help put the federal government

on a path to balance. on the economic side, this budget can help our country realize better and more sustained economic growth, which is critical given the last decade of missed opportunities for the middle class. one way this budget can help our economy is by providing legislative tools to advance tax reform. as i've said many times before, tax reform represents the most important thing we can do today to get our economy reaching for its true potential. tax reform is all about getting america going again and growing again. it aims to take more money out of washington's pockets and put more money in middle-class pockets. and it represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to replace a failing tax code that holds americans back with one that works for them. passing this budget is critical to getting tax reform done so we can strengthen our economy after years of stagnation you happener

the previous administration. i know members are eager to continue proposing amendments to this budget. we've already adopted some good ideas yesterday. for instance, the senate adopted an amendment offered by senator heller to provide tax relief to american families with children so they can have more money to make ends meet. we also adopted an amendment from senator collins to provide relief to small businesses which have been responsible for the creation of about two-thirds of the net jobs in recent years. that is according to statistics from the small business administration. both of these amendments reinforce the goals of the tax reform framework developed by the president, his team, and the tax writing committees here in congress. so today we'll consider more ideas from colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i want to particularly thank chairman enzi and members of the senate budget committee for their good work in getting us to this point. the budget they produced is important to our fiscal and our

economic future, and i look forward to passing it soon. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. underrer the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h. con. res. 71, which the

clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 245, h. con. res. 71, concurrent resolution establishing the congressional budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2018, and so forth. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 11:45 will be equally divided between the managers or their designees. mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i call up amendment 1302 as provided for under the previous order. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oregon, mr. wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 1302 to amendment numbered 1116. after section 2002, insert the following -- mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. mr. president and colleagues, later this morning, the senate will be voting on amendments that i am going to be offering to strike what's known as

reconciliation instructions from the budget proposal. and 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 reconciliation is an on ramp to the most partisan process around in the history of successful tax reform is working in a bipartisan way. that's, for example, 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, mr. president, to actually treat income from a

wage the same way as you would treat income from investments. so to send in one fell swoop a message that working class people would get a fair shake, that the tax law wasn't about the 1%. back then, it was about working class people, middle class drives 70% of the american economy. they weren't 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, educate kids, and pay for seengz. and what troubles me so much about these reconciliation instructions, which would allow for a $1.5 trillion net tax cut

is it's just the opposite of the kind of approach ronald reagan and democrats used in 1986. it's going to polarize us rather than bring us together. and i think it's particularly important right now, mr. president, given the meeting that was held at the white house yesterday that i attended, along with a number of my democratic colleagues, colleagues on the finance committee, because at that meeting, democrats made it very clear to the president of the united states we think the tax code is broken. it is a broken, dysfunctional mess. and we described the letter that we have sent laying out our principles that tax reform focused not on the 1%, on the middle class and not savage

medicare and medicaid and social security are essential retirement programs, and what was striking about the discussion is the president said i agree with you on all those things. he said tax cuts shouldn't go to 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, mr. president, i said, unfortunately there's a big gap between the administration's rhetoric on this and the reality of what is really on paper, and that's why it's so important that we strike these reconciliation instructions and make it clear from the get-go that we're going to get tax reform right, that we're not just going to kind of

utter these soundbites and rhetorical speeches and as discussion go out from various administration officials and we actually focus on what it's going to take to do bipartisan tax reform. the president agreed with the principles that democrats talked about yesterday, but it's very, 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 pass-throughs. it used to be that the pass-through was for a store or

restaurant or garage, you see them all over oregon and all over america. those are the people that we ought to be working to the to give a boost to. that's not what's on paper, mr. president. what's on paper is very different and it's 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 pass throughs and pay a much lower rate. it's a tax change that is deeply slanted toward what i call the top of the top, not just the 1%, but the top of the top. 88% of the benefits of this kind of pass-through rate cut would go to those at the very top,

according to recent analyses, the top 1% and those even more affluent. it opens the door for tax cheats to dodge paying into social security and medicare like every hardworking wage earner in america. this would leave a lot of those programs, and they are lifelines for working families, a lot worse off than they are today. and that too, mr. president, is something the president said he didn't want. now, next, apropos again of the most affluent the president said he didn't want to help is the estate tax. here there's 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 the estates worth more $11 million, $5.5 million for single

individuals. a tinily fraction of all the estates in the country, eliminating the state tax isn't a policy change or anything to do with helping the middle class. it's ten tirely about helping the -- entirely about helping the mega wealthy, exactly the people the president told us yesterday he didn't want to help. now 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 mega wealthy to avoid paying estate taxes. there's a could thage industry of crafty -- could the -- by engineering billion-dollar tax shelters for the 1%. 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's a common thread in these proposals, there's a common thread in this debate, mr. president, that's driven by partisanship and reconciliation, which is why i want to strike those instructions. what's actually on paper, not what's said in the speeches or soundbites and the like, what's on paper is the republican plan does enclose the most egregious loopholes, it enshrine them as permanent legislation in our tax law that the president said he wanted to do and it is not a tax recipe focused on the middle class. now, one of the individuals that has been most out in front of the cameras selling the trump tax plan to the public is the treasury secretary. now, a few weeks ago the secretary doubled down on the

failed experiment that tax cuts pay for themselves. now, forget the history that shows that isn't true. the secretary said, secretary mnuchin said, that the trump tax cuts won't just pay for themselves, they'll raise an additional $1 trillion in revenue on top of their own costs. the fact is, mr. president, there is no magical growth fairy, no unicorns that will somehow spring to life if this tax cut plan becomes law. but the secretary, secretary mnuchin, our treasury secretary, keeps going back to the unicorn, keeps going back to rainbow economics. what is striking, mr. president, is i asked the republican economists, the economists 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 economists chosen by the republicans on the finance committee, those republican economists acknowledged that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. and there have been some other whoppers about the republican plan, at least what is, again, written down on paper. secretary mnuchin said it's 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's very hard not to give tax cuts to the wealthy, and 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 mega wealthy, oh, boy, it's going to be tough times on wall

street. so 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's where the administration has trained its focus as for -- as far as tax reform is concerned, the middle class is in tough straits. in my judgment, this is another reason why 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 mentioned it already, the one initiated by president reagan, a big group of democrats, a

culmination of years of bipartisan work. what we saw was real bipartisanship, mr. president, 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 was debated in the finance committee and on the senate floor for months and was open to unlimited amendments and passed the senate by a vote of 97-3. that's the kind of bipartisan process we would like to see. democrats have made it clear, we made it clear again yesterday that we think the tax code is broken, that we heard the president's comments about how he wants to help the middle class and not the wealthy. he understands how strongly we feel about protecting social security, medicare, and medicaid, but the fact is,

mr. president -- and this is the heart of the challenge -- there's a big gap right now between what the president says his priorities are and what is actually written down on paper. that's the challenge and we're 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 that the key is helping the middle class, not more handouts for the top of the top, the 1%, that we're sensitive to long-term costs because we don't want to pass those off to our children, and 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, mr. president. the fact of the matter is what the president says when he speaks about this subject is in line with the principles in the democrats letter. what we 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's 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's why i urge my colleagues to support my amendment to strip

these reconciliation instructions when we vote on my amendment later in the morning. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent to use leader time. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent to use leader time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: well, mr. president, first on health care, my two good friends, senators alexander and murray, have constructed a good, fair, bipartisan agreement that gives us a way forward on health care. it will offer stability to the markets. it will help lower premiums. and we've 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's for the bill one day, against it the next. that's not uncommon. the president sometimes is for

and against something in the same sentence. we can only hope he comes around and grasps what's in the bill. the alexander-murray bill is not a bailout to the insurance companies at all. it's the opposite. we've taken pains to ensure that insurance companies do not reap any benefits from this program. that's what alexander and murray have done. they have had explicit provisions in the bill to ensure that the cost-sharing program does what it's intended to do: lower premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs for americans who can least afford them. i was reading an article this morning where they interviewed a retired manufacturing worker in pennsylvania who was upset by the president's decision. it seems like he's trying to hurt the middle class, the man said. he, president trump, says he's going to make it better for everyone. how does a premium increase make it better? that's the question the president should ask himself. ending cost sharing hurts people, mr. president, not insurance companies. restoring cost sharing will help

people, not insurance companies. senators alexander and murray have made sure of it. i've worked -- i've talked to them about their language. it's good language. well-intended that maybe we can make it better. if the president has a suggestion, we welcome it. but as it is, it's pretty strong. well-intentioned members on both sides i hope will sign their names on to this bill. it has significant support in my caucus. and if leader mcconnell put it on the floor of the senate, it's pretty certain it would pass. so, i'd urge my republican colleagues to take a 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. so it was truly bipartisan, and it's a good way for us to go forward and set a metaphor, a metaphor for future bipartisanship. now, on the budget, today the senate will vote on amendments, more amendments to the g.o.p. budget resolution which increases deficits by $1.5 trillion, slashes medicare and medicaid by $1.5 trillion, and sets up this awful, same partisan process that our republican friends used in health care. democrats could have offered an unlimited amount 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. so here is somewhat what we're doing. we're going to make our colleagues say they want to vote to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion. after eight 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've heard that for the last eight years. whenever a spending program comes about, i know our side says spending programs grow the economy. their side says tax cuts grow the economy. but if there's going to be a deficit, an actual deficit, we should vote for it. put your convictions where your votes are. we're also, we're going to also make our republican colleagues vote to whether they want to raise taxes on the middle class. the president claims his tax plan will cut taxes, but it actually will raise them on millions of hardworking families. today our republican colleagues will decide whether they want to support those tax increases or

protect the middle class from paying more taxes. and we're going to make our republican colleagues vote on their specific proposal to eliminate the state and local deduction. nearly a third of all taxpayers take the deduction, red states, blue states, everyone in between. as the chairman of the finance committee knows, 35% of utahans 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 their taxes are lower. the elimination of state and local deductibility is the surest sign that the g.o.p. tax plan does not favor the middle class. in fact, a.p. reported yesterday, according to experts, the g.o.p. tax plan may still allow corporations to claim state and local deductibility but not individuals. did you hear that? corporations can claim it. individuals can't. isn't that backward? what the g.o.p. plan -- it

shouldn't be taken away from either one. what the g.o.p. plan takes away from individuals and families, it makes sure it 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 amendment that's incredibly vague. leaves the door open. doesn't say it will but leaves it open. so a coalition of groups -- the national governors association, the u.s. conference of mayors, and organizations representing firefighters, teachers and sheriffs -- have 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.

now, finally, every morning i hear my friend, 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. the economy isn't working the way it should for american families. now i agree with that assessment. we need to do more to grow the economy, create jobs, raise wages, 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 in the top 1%, repeal the estate tax which only goes 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're talking about? it's the same game they played with health care. 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 health care system needs to be improved, tax cuts for the rich. it's entirely divorced from the real problems in our economy and our society. our qi suffers from massive -- our economy suffers from massive inequality which is growing, concentration of wealth at the apex of our country's elite. the rich are doing well in america. god bless them. i'm glad they are. but 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 g.o.p. 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 are getting a clearer picture of what the republican budget and tax plan is about. now there's still a chance to turn back from this budget and the one party legislating that has stymied this congress and been such folly. i urge my colleagues on the republican side, reject this budget, come work with democrats, and we can produce real successful, bipartisan tax reform. i yield the floor. yield the floor.

the presiding officer: if no one yields time, the time will be charged equally to both sides.

mr.sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr.sullivan: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is not. the senator is recognized. mr.sullivan: thank you, mr. president. so i know you and all of our colleagues, and those watching, know that we are focused on the budget resolution. it is a very important document for the country, senate, for the

congress. one issue i wanted to talk about this morning, mr. president, that relates to the budget document, and actually to be perfectly frank, relates to a number of the speeches that my colleagues other side of the aisle have been coming down to the floor relates to energy, really important for america, the environment, also very important for america, and, a little bit to my surprise, all these experts coming down on the floor, alaska -- alaska, my state. so i'm going to say a little bit more about that, some of what my colleagues have been talking about my state. there seem to be a few experts on alaska from oregon and other states. i want to talk a little bit about it, a senator from the state, and not from the senators

who don't know a lot about what they are talking about. one thing you're seeing, mr. president, it's for sure there is kind of an issue on the debate here on the floor when you see talking points that are just stale. talking points, that if you took a speech from 30, 40 years ago, same talking points, stale talking points from the other side of the aisle that has been used for decades that haven't been updated or reflect what really is happening in the country in terms of technological advantages and 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. some of my colleagues other side of the aisle don't even like to

talk with it -- about it, energy, we don't produce that in america. oh, yes, we do. oh, yes, we do. we're doing it really, really well, and it's benefiting millions and millions and millions of americans in every state -- every state in the country. now, mr. president, the budget resolution that we're debating has a provision in it, real simple. i bet if you polled it with every american, democrat, republican, people watching on tv, probably 90% approval. simple instruction in the budget resolution that says congress needs to look at ways to increase federal revenues by increasing american energy production. what could be wrong with that -- increasing american energy production. that provision that we're

debating right now should be very bipartisan. who is against that? who could be against that? and why is this so important? why is the american energy renaissance so important? mr. president, as you know, since your state is certainly involved in it, the energy renaissance 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, more renewables than any other place in the world. that's really good for the country. that's really good for the country. that's the renaissance. that's really a revolution in energy production, and it is something that you would think on the senate floor should be

completely bipartisan. fortunately -- unfortunately, it isn't. let me talk a little bit about how this energy renaissance and what's in the budget resolution to produce more energy for america, by -- for america by americans 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, energy security. with the increase in natural gas, we're seeing the drop of prices for natural gas for homes, manufacturers, increasing manufacturing enormously important to -- important for our nation. 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. and when you look at the weak economic growth over the united states over the last ten years, the one sector that's actually driving growth has been in the energy sector. how about the trade deficit? how about the trade deficit? big problem. everybody talks about it. the president is very focused on it. we are talking about exporting natural oil and natural gas. my state has been exporting natural gas for decades. it helps our trade deficit. and then when you look at the federal budget deficit, energy is a huge impact positively on the federal budget deficit, and that's what the budget resolution asks the congress to do in terms of policy. hey, let's produce more energy so we can produce more revenue for the federal government.

that's a good idea. nobody should be opposed to that. and then, mr. president, as you know, when we're the world's energy super power again, 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. you know, i was in a meeting last year at the munich security conference with the great senator from arizona, and many of my colleagues, bipartisan, by the way, and senator mccain led that he codel. we met with a very prominent russian dissident who had been fighting and battling against vladimir putin.

at the end of the meeting we asked, what more can we do in the united states to help somebody like you who is battling against really a dictator who doesn't have our interest at heart. you know what this very smart russian official said, courageous man? he said america needs to produce more energy. that's how you take down the leadership in the kremlin, more energy. this is national security. and let me say one more thing, mr. president, that doesn't get talked about a lot. it's not just helpful in all of these areas when the united states of america is producing energy, it helps the global environment. now, some people say, well, wait a minute. a rot of the -- a lot of the colleagues on the other side of the aisle come to the floor and

insinew the way that when our -- insinuate that when our country produces energy, it hurts the environment. when the united states produces energy it helps the global environment. why is that the case? let me pause for a minute. like i said, a lot of my colleagues have been coming down on the floor talking about alaska, energy, the environment, again, not with a lot of knowledge. stale talking points, yes, they've been using for 40 years. literally i think one of my colleagues over here has been in the congress plus or minus 40 years and uses the same talking points on this. as someone who came to the senate previously as the job as attorney general and commissioner of natural resources and energy in alaska, i know a little bit about this topic and i can tell you, mr. president, two important

points when my colleagues talk a little bit about alaska, the environment, and energy. first, senator senator murkowsk, we care a lot more about the environment, the wildlife, the pristine wilderness in our great amazing state than any other member of this body. so i don't need senators coming down from places like massachusetts, oregon, washington, vermont, rhode island talking about alaska's environment. thanks. don't need it. i care way more than any of you. and with all due respect, know a heck of a lot more about it than any of you. and i also know this. in my state, and i believe most of the country, but particularly in alaska, democrats, republicans, alaska natives, nonnatives, we certainly support the highest standards on the

environment, but we also support responsible resource development, and here's the key issue, mr. president. we know that we can do both. we can protect the pristine amazing alaska environment and you can respondably develop our resources. so let's talk about how we do this. let's talk about how this applies to alaska, but 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, our energy anywhere in the world and we have some of the most technologically advanced sustainable ways to develop resource in the energy sector, and that allows us to do what i just mentioned, protect the environment and develop our

resources. so here's a really important point that a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle miss. they come down here, and 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? as i mentioned, mr. president, i was attorney general in the d.n.r. for almost six years during the obama administration. it was all about how to shut it down in alaska and 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 one issue that's 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 provides capital, that drive development to places -- investment to places like russia, iran, and brazil whose standards are so much lower than ours. russia in the arctic, on the tundra? they don't care anything about the environment in my state and in the rest of america we do. you know, i don't need to remind people, but russia and iran right now are certainly our adversaries. and 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 iranians can take

the capital and produce energy. they don't 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 for the american people with the highest standards in the world? let me provide a few examples, mr. president. but first, what i want everybody here to be aware of, don't believe these doomsday scenarios. don't believe the misinformed commentary. when my democratic colleagues come down to the floor with very little knowledge of what is really happening in this sector, don't believe it. when they come down and talk about a state like mine --

alaska -- about which they know next to nothing, don't believe it. let me just give you one infamous example. in the 1970's, 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 two million barrels a day from americans, in america. well, the people who are against it came down and said oh, no, the central arctic caribou herd is going to be decimated, these beautiful animals that we care so much about in alaska, if you do this. those were the arguments right here on this floor.

so what happened to these central arctic caribou herd? again, we care about these animals way more than anybody else does in this body. in 1975 about 5,000 caribou. today 66,000. i don't think the herd was decimated. you haven't heard that from anybody because they don't know. but this is the kind of thing. you hear the doomsday scenarios from people with no knowledge. and then when it doesn't happen, they never come down to the senate floor and say, oh, by the way, we were wrong about that. so 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, the one thing you do is you explore. so in alaska, again, highest standards in the world. a lot of other places in the united states have these standards. but in the arctic we have what's called no-impact exploration.

okay, what does that mean? it means we literally do everything to make sure there is no impact on these great species, like the polar bear. we care a lot more about our animals than my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. so what does that mean, no-impact exploration? well, we undertake exploration required by state standards -- these aren't federal standards -- where we essentially have what's called ice roads and ice pads. so let me show you what that means. so we only allow for exploration in the winter on the tundra, and then when an exploration group comes out, they have to build an ice road. it's a road made of ice over the tundra. and they do -- this is an example of an ice road. and 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 four months to do it. and then they're done. and then they leave. so what does the tundra look like after that exploration on ice? right here. that's just one capped well, an exploration well. it says nobody was even there. literally zero impact. these are alaska standards. highest in the world. they're expensive, yes. but we do it because we care so much about the environment. that's the exploration phase. how about production phase? what's 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 you actually put together a production pad, has shrunk dramatically. you look at here, this is

prudhoe bay in the 1970's. the other developments in alask, liberty. what happens is the surface footprint has shrunk dramatically, 11, 12 acres now. and yet the ability to horizontally drill extends the reach of these wells underneath the ground where you can reach resources in an incredibly vast manner without impacting the environment at all. if there was a rig set right here on the capitol building, in terms of horizontal drilling, it could extend out to andrews air force base in southeast, silver spring, maryland, to the north, and well into fairfax county. miles and miles and miles. and yet the surface footprint, the impact on the environment is minimal. that's what we do. that's what we do. you don't hear about it from the

other side of the aisle, but it's really important as we debate these issues that all americans know this. more energy for the country is really positive. so, mr. president, in conclusion, tonight the budget resolution is not just going to be a vehicle for tax reform, but there's also, as i mentioned, going to be an instruction to increase revenues for the country through more american energy production. simple, it's 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 more -- 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. and decreased federal budgets and trade deficit 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's a lose-lose-lose scenario to me, mr. president. but that's what's at stake tonight. and later this afternoon when we debate that amendment, and i

certainly would 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're going to have an opportunity to do that. thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. 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 united states allies and the nation of iran. national security is about military power, but there's more 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 ?efd arrows of war signifying america would always use diplomacy first. in modern times it has been flawed and under this administration diplomacy is under assault and that is why i rise today. we see a decimated state in us aide budget. we see efforts to undermine publicly american diplomats engaged in negotiations and we see the refusal to even nominate key state department diplomatic appointees. as of last week the administration did not put forward a nominee for approximately 52% of high-level positions at the state department that require approval by the senate. 32 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's been nominated for assistant secretary of arms control, for assistant secretary for international security and nonproliferation, for assistant scare for near east affairs, for assistant secretary for east asian and pacific affairs. how serious can the administration be about nuclear threats with no ambassador to south korea or no am boss doarl nomination for the key state department official around nonproliferation and the president repeatedly undercut his secretary of the's diplomatic efforts with north korea. president trump's most recent action, recent attack on diplomacy is his 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 u.s. made with the global community that is clearly working, the president is publicly undercutting diplomatic

negotiations and he's setting us on a road where military options become increasingly more likely. i'll state it bluntly. if you weaken diplomacy, you raise the risk of unnecessary war and that's 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. intelligence was politicized. 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 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 that they had

revived a nuclear program that they had shelved in the 1990's. but the bush administration would not accept that claim. it did not fit with the narrative that 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 regional stability but especially in american lives, to prevent iraq from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. we went to war and it turned out that the scientists and the technicians in the iaea were right. iraq didn't have a program of weapons of mass destruction, but the politicians who tried to undermine the credibility of the international agencies were wrong. the consequences of that decision are significant. ironically you can claim, i believe, there is strong evidence that that decision in 2003 has today led to greater influence in iraq and the region and proliferation of extremist

groups that didn't exist before. we're now hearing the trump administration make claims that iran may soon have a nuclear weapons program, that the iaea can thought be trusted, iran supports al qaeda and from a republican colleague,, quote, the policy of the united states should be regime change in iran. and from secretary of the tillerson, we need a, quote, peaceful transition of the iranian government. so 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 u.s. toward another preventable war in the middle east? second, while threatening to unilaterally terminate the deal at any time president trump wants to revisit the terms of the deal to address what he sees as its flaws. this isn't new. since the deal was announced, some critics argued we could get a better deal or push for some alternative. i wasn't then or now interested in the world of hypotheticals. i'm interested in the world of facts. and the fact is that the deal was working and it's

dramatically better than the status quo for at least 15 years and 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 now get to 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 could renegotiate the deal just on our side and the other side wouldn't seek a renegotiation is magical thinking. world war i 100 years ago -- the u.s. entrance 100 years ago started with miscalculations and most nations do. a miscommunication, a misunderstanding, another step, another step, and you're at war. we should be very, very wary. i, mr. president, and all of us are very willing to go after iran on the nonnuclear front.

it was just two 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, for violating u.n. security council resolutions on their missile program. the president should use the sanctions power that we just gave him to go after iran's activity that violates international norms and makes america less safe. but when the iaea and our allies and the head of the joint chiefs of staff and 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 u.s. cannot be trusted in good faith to follow a deal. third, mr. president, 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, what iran might be able to do in year eight or year ten or year 15. let me tell you about something i'm worrying about this month. that's the north korean nuclear program. mr. president, we have been in briefings and we hear the secretary of defense and secretary of state say to us and say to the world the u.s. will always push for a diplomatic solution. we're 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'd say that they are 20% at best. they're not zero, but they're not high either. but don't we owe it to the american public and don't we owe it to our troops that if there is any chance of a diplomatic negotiation and a diplomatic end to this program, that we would seek to exhaust and explore it? of course we do, and 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, and i would argue that stepping back from the iran deal sends an unmistakable signal to north korea. if i'm right and there is even a small chance of a diplomatic resolution, that the message we send to north korea is the u.s. will back out of a nuclear deal even when it's being complied with, i think we drive the chances of a diplomatic resolution in north korea down to zero, and we should not do that. mr. president, there is significant evidence that this deal, 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 p-5. when i visit israel and speak to national security and intelligence leaders such as the equivalent of the 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. secretaries dunford and general mattis have said the same thing. the deal, it gives us more intelligence because we have inspections that we didn't have before. we have gotten more inspections and we know more about the 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 that they have made by stepping back ourselves when the deal is working? and finally, the deal gives us a coalition. our partners around the world who signed onto 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's been us alone among the partners who have walked away from the table? what coalition could we expect if we are the one that walks away from the table? if we say we're not interested in diplomacy? and later, if we need to take military action against iran after we have walked away from a deal, could we expect a coalition to support us in that? mr. president, i just want 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 only done one thing that scares me, and it's this. i think together with defunding the state department and pouring cold water on diplomacy and not feeling key posts, this leads us closer to n a 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 united states senate,

both as a member of the senate foreign relations committee. i have been a security councilman and a mayor and a lieutenant governor and a governor. casting a war vote is different than any vote that you ever have to cast, any vote that you ever have to cast. and i have got a son in the military, and that makes that vote different than any vote i have cast in 23 years in public life. and i may have to cast other votes to go to war as a member of congress against other nations, whether it's against non-state terrorist groups or whether it's against a nation like north korea or 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's an obligation that we owe to the public and we owe to our troops. we have to exhaust diplomacy. and then there may come a time

when that eagle cannot just face the olive branches of diplomacy but we have to insist on military strength in order to keep order in the world and protect americans. but if we turn to 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's 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. with that, mr. president, thank you, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you very much. i'd like to take a few minutes here to support the effort to pass the f.y. 2018 budget resolution. i'm on the budget committee, i'm pretty familiar with the document.

it provides a pathway to balance. it actually has $197 billion surplus in 2027. it allows for tax cuts. to those republicans and democrats, too, you're welcome to join, the only way we're ever going to meaningfully get a tax cut is 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 you don't pass this budget, we can't cut taxes unless you get 60 votes. our friends on the other side, it's going to be hard to get any democrats, i think, for meaningful tax cut. they are not bad people. they just see things differently. when they spend money, they think that's good. they don't worry about the deficit. when we cut taxes, the deficit is the most important thing. my belief is not only will we -- we will not have a deficit, we'll 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 you could just grow the g.d.p. number by 1%, that's trillions of dollars of revenue. and to those who are interested in this, we're growing it at about 1.9% of g.d.p. per year over the last eight years, right around two. sometimes under, sometimes a bit over. the historical average since world war ii is 3.2%. if we could get back to 3.2% g.d.p. growth, it would be trillions of dollars coming into the treasury, and i believe we can. president trump is trying to deregulate america after eight 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've learned a lot about alaska. there are 750,000 people living in a state twice the size of texas. as beautiful as it can be. environmentally, you are very sensitive. that's one of the qualities of alaska you want to preserve, but

god has blessed alaska with a lot of natural resources. it would be good for the people of alaska and the united states as a whole. every leader of gas -- 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 your guts. we're 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, good for our economy, but 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 exploration 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, 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,

and there is nothing in this budget that allows for more defense spending. the overseas contingency operation account is money set aside for our military and state department to deal with the wars that we are fighting. they 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're talking about. if you looked at the details of the budget, you would find out it cuts spending by $5.1 trillion and actually has a $197 billion surplus ten 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 are going to do everything we can to give the military more resources to fight wars we can't afford to lose, so 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 smart to have an army 1940 size given what's going on in the world? having fire squadrons grounded not because the enemy has shot us down but because the congress has shot us down. we're spending about 3.2% of g.d.p. 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, giving them the capability they need to keep the enemies at bay and not fight wars with one hand tied behind their back. 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 of about

520,000 versus 420,000. the number-one job of the congress and the federal government is to defend the nation. so that's a different debate. that's 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. so 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. so to those of you on the republican side who have been claiming we need tax cuts in a simpler tax code, this is your chance. if we don't succeed now, we're going to fail for the next -- the entire term of president trump. that will be the end of us as a party, because if you're republican and you don't want to simplify the tax code and cut taxes, what good are you to anybody? our friend 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 we're going to cut the corporate tax rate, i hope, to make us competitive. we're going to double the standard exemption so that working people will have more money in their pocket. we're going to clean up some of the deductions and exemptions for the few at the expense of the many, but we could only do that if we pass a budget resolution. final thought. from a party point of view, from the republican party point of view, we have got the house, the senate, and the presidency. we have got nobody to blame in this exercise but ourselves. and if you are a republican and you're 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's dying to grow, but we have to help ourselves. if we can't muster the votes necessary to pass this budget resolution to cut