 Well, the fact that they're presenting it as a tax break for the middle class, I just got a report from the Minnesota Tax Commissioner shows that 450,000 Minnesotans are going to get a middle class, Minnesotans are going to get a tax increase, 320,000 taxpayers are going to lose the deductibility for the interest on their student loans. There's another 900,000 that are going to pay increased taxes for losing the deductibility of their state and income and sales taxes. So the Congressional Budget Office concluded that anybody making $70,000 or less is going to get a tax increase. So if you're in the middle class, you might have said there might be someone in the middle class that's going to get a break, but if they do it would be enough to buy the hubcap on Mercedes Benz. Meanwhile, the upper 1% is getting a $1.5 trillion tax cut and they don't need it. As one of my colleagues said, you know, this ain't trickle down economics, this is just give me the cash, give me the money. And they're running away with it and they're passing a terrible, terrible equal amount of debt onto the future generations. It's unconscionable and it's a bad, bad public policy and I think will ruin the day that it was ever passed and hopefully it won't be passed by the time we're all done with all the considerations here. Well, you know, almost all of the good legislation that's occurred in America, whether it be Social Security that lifted more people out of poverty than perhaps anything that's ever done or Medicare which brought health care to seniors and doubled our life experience. Those are all bipartisan and when one party, you know, because they have a majority and sits on their way, it's usually not very good and that's just the history of these things and business has been doing just fine under the existing tax laws. We're seeing the accumulation of wealth unparalleled anywhere in human history. The economy is going along nicely. The only thing that's wrong with it is that, as one person said to me, that's a good thing that new economies created millions of jobs because you need two or three of them to make a living and historically here, you know, in our generations, you could make a good living with one job. And that's what we need to get back to. People put in eight hours, 40 hours a week, maybe a little over time from time to time, they should be able to have an income from that or allow them to live modestly comfortably and to be able to not have to worry about health care and pension benefits and that's what we've got to get back to. I got involved in the pension issue with regard to the Central State's multi-employer pension plan of which a significant number of Minnesotans were involved with. There were 16,000 companies and over 470,000 retirees involved in that plan. And they entered into contracts where the workers agreed to pay an X number of dollars. The companies agreed to pay an X number of dollars. The workers' contributions came out of every paycheck. So they honored every dollar that they agreed to contribute to their pension plans. The businesses could be counted on at some point later to put their share in. Guess what, 13,000 of the 16,000 companies never put their money in. So the fund is short and the congressional solution was to just gut and cut the pensioner's funds. That's not right. They played by the rules, they put their money in, they were counting on that. At 65 or 70, it's a little late to change your careers. And what's so egregious and important about this is this is just the eye of the storm. There are hundreds of other pension funds that are in the same kind of trouble because businesses, counties, cities, states didn't put in the money that they had contracted for. So there are literally millions of people who thought they had a pension or counting on a pension who aren't going to have one unless we fix this. And that's what this legislation is. It's a legislation to make sure that every pensioner gets every dollar that they had contracted for in their pension plans in their retirement years. Well, I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful. It's got good support. I know among the various sponsors of it, Senator Jared Brown from Ohio and Bernie Sanders and myself and others over on the House side. We're certainly going to push very, very hard for this resolution. And it's really not going to cost the taxpayers. Our solution is to put together a bonding program where the pensioners could be able to get their pensions and then with the hope that growth in the economy will get the funds back up to where they need to be during the interim period of time. And if necessary, we'll have to put some treasury funds into that. We spend six trillion in just Iraq and in Afghanistan. And for a small portion of that, we could fix the pensions in this country. For a small portion of that, we could retire all the student debt in this country. For a small portion of that, we could find cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, or diabetes. So we still have four or five trillion dollars left over for debt reduction. Well, first of all, I belong to a problem solvers bipartisan caucus and we've advanced a number of proposals that we think would be helpful in fixing things that are need fixing under the Affordable Care Act. Senator Murray and Senator Alexander, one a Democrat and the other Republican are working with that on the Senate side. And we're hopefully hopeful we can put some fixes in there for that. But the simple truth with regard to the bill that was passed by the House of Representatives is that it would put 25, 30 million people on the streets without insurance. And by the way, they had a Rose Garden celebration with the president, Trump, when that was passed and then the next day he came out and called it a mean bill. Why? Well, because it's going to put 25, 30 million people on the streets without insurance. So with pre-existing conditions, it put people into bankruptcy because of health cares and policies that have limits on how much they have to pay. And what the president is saying, and what they're saying is we're going to give everybody a cheap policy, but then the bills they're producing eliminates the requirement for essential services. Essential services under the law include hospitalization, pharmaceuticals, emergency room care, preventive care, care for pre-existing conditions, removing the limits on how much insurance company could pay. Well, yeah, if your insurance policy doesn't cover any of that, you can get a hell of a cheap policy and all the little cover of the insurance company executive salaries. But you better not get sick or have an accident because you don't cover anything. Well, I think at the moment we're feeling pretty good about it. I had served in the 70s, took a little 32-year hiatus and I've been in the last three election cycles and you know when the wind is in your face and the wind is at your back. I think the tax policy that the Republicans have pursued is very egregious and people are going to be aware of that. The budget policies and spending policies they pursued are very egregious. They've called for getting a funding of everything from the municipal waste treatment facilities to funding for the National Institute of Health, the sciences, the arts, infrastructure and then their effort to throw 30 million people out of the streets on insurance. People are aware. They are much more active and wanting to do something about it than I've seen in a long time. Now things can change between now and next November but I don't see them changing much because these tax policies, spending policies, healthcare, they run deep and people are deeply concerned and the polling shows that the Democrats have a pretty substantial lead when people are asked who they intend to vote for in the next election. I think that's a good decision on his part for a wide variety of reasons. He acknowledged in his statement that the Democrats have better candidates and that the Republicans have a bad message and weak candidates and it's not a good time for Republican to be running for public office. Well a couple things. First is sexual harassment and sexual assaults cannot be allowed or tolerated under any circumstances and I'm glad that he's apologized for that behavior and I'm glad that he's called for a congressional investigation so that is number one. Beyond that I think there's a bill in the Congress now, I don't think there is a bill in the Congress now to require mandatory sexual harassment training for members of Congress and for their staff. The simple truth is that culture and times and things change and in this case the change and the need for change is profound and everybody has to realize and understand you know how important this is. I'm the father of two young women and I have a number of female grandchildren and I don't under any conditions or any circumstances while I tolerate any sexual harassment of them and God forbid the perpetrator of an aggressive sexual act against them. Neither one of them are allowable or tolerable and we have to do everything we can to stop it.