[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 156 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6195-S6197]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Tax Reform

  Finally, Mr. President, on taxes, yesterday President Trump and 
Republican leaders laid out their tax plan, sharing the first sketchy 
set of details with the American people about what they want to change 
in our Tax Code. Any serious analysis of their proposal will leave you 
with one conclusion: President Trump and the Republicans have crafted a 
massive tax break for the very wealthy in our country.
  Welfare is supposed to take care of the poor. This plan takes care of 
the rich. Plain and simple, the Republican plan is ``wealthfare,'' the 
opposite of

[[Page S6196]]

welfare. It is designed to take care of the rich. It repeals the estate 
tax, which goes to so few people in such large amounts of money, 
slashes the corporate rate, creates enormous tax loopholes for wealthy 
hedge fund managers in the form of a rate cut on passthroughs, and it 
lowers the rate, amazingly enough, on the top bracket of the wealthiest 
Americans while raising the tax rate on those at the bottom of the 
income scale. Who would have thought?
  Secretary Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, and the President himself have said: We 
want to help the middle class. Then the first thing they come out 
with--again, we don't know all the details--lowers the top rate on the 
wealthiest and raises the bottom rate on the working families, which is 
the opposite of what they are saying.
  On the estate tax, the bottom line is that only people whose estates 
are above $10 million pay a nickel of estate tax--only those. It is a 
handful. We are compiling how many people in each State have paid the 
estate tax for the last 5 years. Everyone in their State will see how 
few people are affected. You know, if someone has a big farm and maybe 
it is $12 or $15 million and they don't want to sell it--pass it onto 
their kids--I am willing to make an exception for that. I think most 
people will, but that doesn't justify repealing the entire estate tax.
  Moving on to corporate taxes, there is a difference between the big 
corporations and small corporations. The big corporations right now are 
making record profits. Let's say the thousand biggest are making record 
profits. They have more money than they have ever had. According to a 
study--I believe it is by Goldman Sachs, which is hardly a leftwing 
think tank--they are paying the lowest percentage of their profits as 
taxes in a very long while. Big corporate America is flush with money. 
They are not using it to create jobs. Why in God's Name anyone thinks, 
after giving them more money through a tax break, all of a sudden they 
are going to start creating jobs when they are not doing it now is 
beyond me.
  It is different for small businesses. We Democrats understand that 
small businesses need a break. We will work with our colleagues to do 
it. But even this passthrough--the biggest benefit is going to be 
wealthy lawyers and hedge fund managers, who will then pay an 
individual tax rate of 25 percent while so many others who have much 
less wealth are paying more in taxes.
  So the President gets up and says this is a tax break for the middle 
class. I believe he said this morning that he will not benefit from it. 
Please, let's have some honesty here. If you really believe giving tax 
breaks to the wealthiest people and the biggest corporations is going 
to create jobs, then have the courage to say it. Don't fudge it.
  President Trump said that his plan would create a middle-class 
miracle. I think it would be a miracle if it helped the middle class, 
given the numbers I have seen. While the tax plan doubles the standard 
deduction--that is one of the points where they say they help the 
middle class--it eliminates the personal exemption. The standard 
deduction is $12,500; personal exemption is $6,000. Figure it out, my 
friends. If you are a family of three or more, you lose, not gain. 
Three times $6,000 is $18,000; that is opposed to a $12,500 standard 
exemption. It doesn't make sense.
  Oh, and how about this one: The personal exemption is not the only 
one gone. State and local deductibility--I predict that is going to be 
a downfall of this plan. I know the ideologues say: Let's go after the 
States that charge taxes. Let me tell you, there are 40 or 50 
Republican Congressmen from well-to-do suburban districts in high-tax 
States--New York, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, 
Maryland--whose constituents will be clobbered by removing State and 
local deductibility. They will be clobbered. The $12,500 they gain in 
the standard deduction, minus what they lose in the individual 
deduction, is far less than they pay in State and local taxes in those 
districts.
  We are going to be watching them like a hawk. I will tell my New York 
Republican friends from those well-to-do suburban and upstate 
districts: You are going to be hurting your constituents if you vote 
for a plan that gets rid of State and local deductibility. The eyes of 
America will be on you, and certainly the eyes of each State.
  How about this one: They eliminate the deduction for extraordinary 
medical expenses. If you have a child with cancer, it is hard to pay 
for it, and your insurance covers some, but you are not going to get a 
tax break for shelling out money for that extra medicine or that extra 
MRI scan--no.
  So the Republican game plan gives a few crumbs to the middle class--
and many in the middle class will pay more in taxes, a few hundred off 
taxes maybe--and at the same time gives a huge break to corporations 
and the superwealthy. The American people will not buy it. This is not 
2000 or 1982, my Republican friends. We have huge problems where the 
wealthy are doing great, and the middle class and the poor are doing 
badly.
  The American people will not buy tax breaks for the rich. They will 
not buy it. Seventy percent of Americans already think our system 
favors the wealthy, and the Republican tax plan drops an anvil on the 
scales of our tax system, tipping them even further in favor of the 
wealthy. The American people will not be for that.
  What about the deficit? We hear about deficits every time there is a 
new program. This dwarfs any spending program in terms of the deficit 
that we have enacted over the last several years--$5 to $7 trillion of 
deficit. What has happened to all the Republicans who talk about 
wanting to be deficit neutral when it comes to spending? Is that out 
the window? We will see.
  Let me tell you something that really got under my skin--sorry to my 
colleague from North Dakota. I am just agitated about this in a good 
way.
  This morning, the chief economic adviser to President Trump, Gary 
Cohn, said the administration believes it ``can pay for the entire tax 
cut through growth'' by using a dynamic scoring model. Gary Cohn comes 
from Goldman Sachs. If he used that funny kind of math at Goldman Sachs 
the way he is using it here in Washington, he would have been kicked 
out of that firm a long time ago. Gary Cohn should know better; Gary 
Cohn does know better.
  Let me repeat what I said yesterday: Dynamic scoring is fake math. 
Paying for tax cuts with growth is fake math. We know it is fake math; 
we have real-world examples. The 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts were 
promising they would pay for themselves through economic growth. It is 
the same thing you hear from the Club for Growth and some of my 
colleagues.
  Some dynamic scoring models at the time predicted the 2001 and 2003 
tax breaks would grow the economy so much it would nearly wipe out the 
national debt, but what happened? I heard the Club for Growth leader 
get on TV and say: Well, there may be a deficit in the short run, but 
after 10 years it will all be taken care of. Ten years after the Bush 
tax cut, CBO estimated the Bush tax cuts added $1.6 trillion to the 
deficit.
  How about the example of the great State of Kansas? Governor 
Brownback slashed the top rate. He exempted passthrough businesses. It 
was a real-life experiment in a Republican State, similar to what 
President Trump announced. Brownback's backers used dynamic scoring 
models to estimate that his tax cuts would generate $323 million in new 
revenue by 2018. Guess what happened. It added so much money to their 
deficit over 4 years that they have had to figure out ways to raise 
taxes now, just as Ronald Reagan did in 1986. So this idea that the 
administration can pay for a $5 to $7 trillion tax cut through growth 
is simply selling a bill of goods using fake, fake math.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to give my 
strong support and ask my colleagues to support the confirmation of 
Judge Ralph Erickson to fill the North Dakota vacancy on the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This is a seat that the U.S. 
Judicial Conference has deemed a judicial emergency, as it has been 
empty for almost 900 days. Being nominated to a seat on the U.S. 
circuit court of appeals is an honor and a privilege, virtually 
unmatched in the legal profession.
  After reviewing Judge Erickson's record and talking to his colleagues 
and the people who have worked with

[[Page S6197]]

him and appeared before him back in North Dakota, I am very proud to 
come to the floor this morning and offer my strong support for his 
nomination to the Eighth Circuit. When Judge Erickson was nominated and 
confirmed to his current seat on the U.S. District Court for North 
Dakota, it was with the support of our two great former Senators and my 
good friends, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad. Judge Erickson has 
certainly upheld their faith and trust in his abilities as a district 
court judge, and I am confident he will uphold my faith and my trust in 
his ability as he moves to the Eighth Circuit.
  Judge Erickson has a long history of commitment to the legal 
profession and the State of North Dakota, first through his service on 
the State court and, since 2003, as a judge on the U.S. District Court 
for the District of North Dakota. Very few lawyers can make such a 
long-term commitment to public service, and his record certainly 
reflects his belief that when a lawyer is called to serve for the 
greater good, they should answer that call. I hope Judge Erickson is 
able to instill this sense of commitment to public service in aspiring 
young lawyers whom he will come to meet and whom he will be able to 
influence through his example.
  A nominee for the North Dakota seat on the Eighth Circuit must have 
experience in working with Indian Country, given the number of Tribes 
and the Indian land that are contained within the jurisdiction of the 
Eighth Circuit. During his career and at his hearing before the 
Judiciary Committee, Judge Erickson has shown an in-depth understanding 
of Tribal sovereignty issues and a recognition of the challenges and 
disparities in the treatment of Native Americans under the law when 
they are arrested and charged for crimes in Indian Country.
  Judge Erickson has been an advocate for equal treatment of Native 
Americans under the law. He also serves as the chair of the U.S. 
Sentencing Commission's Tribal Issues Advisory Group. I have no doubt 
that Judge Erickson will bring this knowledge and understanding of 
Tribal issues, sovereignty, and treaties with him to the Eighth 
Circuit.
  The best judges always have been people who can truly understand and 
bring to the bench a sense of empathy. Judge Erickson has used some of 
his own struggles and challenges during the course of his life to 
inform his own views and to give counsel to those who come before him 
as he uses his own personal struggles as an example. It takes a really 
big person to recognize and learn from their failings and to use them 
to help others. I admire him greatly for that.
  During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, Judge Erickson showed an openness and frankness in 
responding to questions and discussing his past struggles. That was 
refreshing, illuminating, and honestly all too rare here. I believe he 
impressed my colleagues on that committee greatly with his willingness 
to be so forthcoming and so honest. That is why they unanimously 
reported his nomination out of the committee.
  It is a tremendous honor to be on the floor of the U.S. Senate before 
Judge Erickson's confirmation vote. I am here today to give my highest 
recommendation in support of his nomination to the U.S. Circuit Court 
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. I, again, urge all of my colleagues' 
thoughtful consideration and evaluation and favorable endorsement of 
his confirmation.
  Thank you so much.
  I yield the floor.