[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 187 (Wednesday, November 15, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7227-S7229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Republican Tax Plan

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Republican tax plan, even before 
yesterday, would exacerbate income inequality at a time when it is 
already spiraling out of control, helping the rich get richer and big 
corporations get bigger while the middle class is left stuck in 
neutral. Many millions of middle-class families would wind up paying 
higher taxes at the end of the day--13 million in 2019 and 20 million 
in 2027--under the Senate plan.
  That is the wrong approach for our economy. It betrays the American 
worker and the American family, who deserve tax relief, because it 
concentrates more of our country's wealth at the very top--just what 
the American people don't want, but so many of those who fund the 
Republican Party do. For most of my colleagues and most of the American 
people, that is reason enough to oppose the bill, and the American 
people do, by large numbers.
  But yesterday Republicans made two last-minute changes to their bill 
that make it even worse. First, Republicans decided to throw the mother 
of all monkey wrenches into the bill: repealing the individual mandate. 
My friend the majority leader called this provision ``helpful'' to the 
bill because it raises revenue. I would remind him and all of my 
Republican colleagues that

[[Page S7228]]

the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said it would lead to 13 
million fewer Americans with health insurance. So we are taking 13 
million people off of health insurance to give tax cuts to the wealthy.
  Also, according to CBO, it would lead to a 10-percent increase in 
premiums. Each year, they would be 10 percent higher than they 
otherwise would be. So the Republican bill says: Raise the premiums on 
average Americans' healthcare by 10 percent so we can give the wealthy 
a tax cut.
  This is the same thing they did in the healthcare bill until the 
public outrage forced them to back off, and, of course, it lost. Now 
they are doing it again because the Republican belief is to reduce the 
healthcare safety net for middle-class Americans so they can give more 
tax cuts to the wealthiest and most powerful amongst us.
  If Republicans had their way, younger, healthier people would flee 
the market, making the risk pool older and sicker. If you are 50 to 64, 
this is very bad news for you. That is why the AARP is against this 
bill and yesterday denounced the new change.
  I would remind my Republican colleagues that the provision raises 
$400 billion in revenues because it throws Americans off insurance, and 
$179 billion alone is saved because people wouldn't sign up for 
Medicaid. So the Republican bill takes $400 billion out of help for 
healthcare and gives it to the wealthy and the powerful for even more 
tax breaks. Does any American support that? A handful maybe, but it 
seems a lot of people in this Chamber might.
  So when the Republicans say this provision in their bill is helpful, 
they don't mean it is helpful to Americans. It may help Republicans in 
the Senate give a larger tax break to the rich, but it hurts millions 
of Americans seeking affordable health insurance. Many will lose 
insurance. Many more will pay an increase in their premiums, while our 
colleagues have always promised to make premiums lower.
  One other point. I have heard some on the other side say they would 
be willing to pass the bipartisan Alexander-Murray health compromise as 
sort of a salve after they repeal the individual mandate. I am here to 
tell my colleagues that won't work. You don't attempt to blow up the 
healthcare system and then say: We are going to make a few tweaks to 
make it better. We are not falling for that, and my Republicans friends 
shouldn't, either. They are completely contradictory ideas. Alexander-
Murray is meant to stabilize markets and lower premiums; the Republican 
plan destabilizes markets and raises premiums in a way that Alexander-
Murray could never repair.

  Furthermore, Alexander-Murray would not survive under the rules of 
reconciliation. Too many of its provisions are under the HELP 
Committee, not the Finance Committee, so anyone who thinks they can 
justify the changes the majority leader has said he will put in the 
bill by saying: OK. We will then pass Murray-Alexander, is wrong on the 
substance and wrong on the politics because it will not pass.
  When Alexander-Murray was negotiated, it was in good faith by the 
chairman and ranking member of the HELP Committee as a compromised 
healthcare bill. Republicans cannot expect to pass their own separate 
ideological healthcare provision and then turn around and ask Democrats 
to vote to pass Murray-Alexander. Again, you can't create major injury 
to the healthcare system and hurt millions, and then say: Please give 
us a bandaid. That is not what is going to happen. That is not the 
right thing to do.
  Any Republican Senator who thinks they can pass the individual 
mandate and then turn around and get Murray-Alexander passed is dead 
wrong. It is clear the dark tradeoff at the center of the Republican 
policy agenda is back--cutting healthcare in order to fund tax 
giveaways to the very wealthy and very powerful. Democrats will not go 
for it. So that is one reason this provision is a bad one.
  The second change the Republicans made to their tax bill was to have 
many of their tax provisions for individuals expire while corporate tax 
breaks remained permanent. With this new proposal, Republicans have put 
themselves between a rock and a hard place. The provisions that help 
individuals--and not enough middle-class folks were helped--expire by 
2025. The corporate tax cuts to the wealthiest of corporations above 
all are permanent.
  Why did our colleagues do this? For one, they favor the big 
corporate, powerful interests over the middle class, but the second is, 
they had a huge deficit problem. They had to figure out where to reduce 
the deficit, and so they took it out on the crumbs they gave to the 
middle class in the earlier years in this bill.
  One of two things will happen. Some of our Republican colleagues are 
saying, ``Don't worry. We will extend the middle-class tax cuts after 
2025,'' but that will create a huge deficit. So I say to my 
colleagues--particularly the deficit hawks--you can't have it both 
ways. You cannot say we are going to protect the middle class after 
2025, and we are going to reduce the deficit. This bill is a deficit 
budget buster. We all know what will happen. We all know the deficit 
will skyrocket after 2025. We can't allow the sort of tricks that are 
put into this bill to dissuade us from the fact that this bill 
dramatically will increase the deficit.
  There are two problems with this tax bill. One is inside the confines 
of the bill, and one is with the public after the bill passes--should 
it pass, which I think it will not. Inside the bill, as I mentioned, 
Republicans are stuck between raising taxes on millions of middle-class 
families or busting the deficit. There is no choice. You can't have it 
both ways. The bill is a dramatic exposition of being between a rock 
and a hard place. There are two choices the bill gives people: raise 
taxes on the middle class or dramatically increase the deficit.
  Outside the bill, with the public, Republicans have a dilemma as 
well. If they don't pass the bill, they look feckless and unable to 
govern--and that is what is motivating most of my colleagues--but if 
they pass the bill, there is going to be public outrage, and they are 
going to pay a real price in 2018. They know it.
  Outside the bill, the Republicans have two bad choices too. Outside 
the confines of the bill, in broad-brush strokes, our Republican 
colleagues can fail to pass the bill and look unable to govern or they 
can pass the bill--dramatically unpopular--and pay a price at the 
polls. These are not enviable choices. They are a Gordian knot that my 
Republican friends will not be able to slip out of. If they pull on one 
part of the knot, they tighten another part of it.
  The reason my colleagues are caught in this lose-lose situation is, 
they have elected time and time again to eschew bipartisanship. Passing 
legislation of this magnitude with the votes of one party is divisive 
and demanding. A small number--say the Freedom Caucus--can demand 
almost all the tax breaks go to the very wealthy or they will not vote 
for the bill. That gives the rest of the Republicans a difficult 
choice: hurt the middle class or blow a hole in the deficit.
  On the other hand, if our Republican colleagues had worked with us, 
that Freedom Caucus would have no say. They wouldn't have the votes to 
kill the bill because there would be lots of Democratic support.
  Passing legislation of this magnitude, with votes of only one party 
is divisive and demanding. It has meant Republicans have produced 
legislation that appeals to only a small number of Americans, and, 
probably in their heart of hearts, even a minority of Republicans. We 
are a fiercely divided country. Legislation that is crafted to appease 
the extremes of only one political party is never going to be broadly 
popular with the American people and, frankly, will not work.
  That is why we should pursue bipartisan legislation, both parties 
accepting the credit of success and the blame of failure. The American 
people are clamoring for us to work together in such a fashion, and 
working together doesn't mean a bill crafted behind closed doors under 
reconciliation, which basically says to Democrats: Take a hike. We 
don't need you.
  I say to my Republican friends, there is a way out of this mess, and 
it is simple: reject your Faustian bargains and come to work with 
Democrats on a real bipartisan reform bill. You will not have to choose 
between blowing up the deficit and hurting the middle class. You will 
not have to choose between unpopular legislation and legislative

[[Page S7229]]

failure. Just like Alexander-Murray proved, we can produce legislation 
on the thorniest of issues that will receive bipartisan support and 
improve the conditions of working and middle-class Americans.
  Why don't we give this a try on tax reform as well--because the 
choices you are giving yourself now, you will regret.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.