[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 193 (Tuesday, November 28, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7350-S7351]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Tax Reform

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I know we are scheduled for a vote in a few 
minutes. We will have plenty of time to talk about this in the days to 
come.
  I think one of the core things that I hope tax reform will be about 
is empowering the American worker. By ``the American worker,'' I mean 
the people whom they don't make Netflix series about and we don't see 
movies about too often anymore. There was a time when the American 
worker was a hero in our country. People looked up to the American 
worker and idealized them. Today, obviously, entertainment focuses on 
other professions. There is nothing wrong with that, but we have 
forgotten about their hard work and the millions and millions of 
Americans across this country who truly remain the backbone of our 
economy and our Nation.
  There are hard-working men and women who are struggling to get by, 
not because they are not working hard but because everything costs 
more--something you quickly find out as your family begins to grow. 
That is why I have spent so much time talking about the child tax 
credit. A lot of people confuse that with the childcare credit, which 
is important as well.
  The child tax credit takes into account the reality that raising 
children is an expense. It is a blessing, but it costs money. At the 
end of the day, it doesn't always matter only how much you make; it 
also matters how much you spend. And when you are raising children and 
raising a family, the costs are often out of your control, and they 
increase substantially every single year. So perhaps the best way to 
illustrate to my colleagues the impact that tax reform has on working 
families is to talk about real people and their real lives--how much 
money they make and what tax reform would mean for them.
  I want to start with a real family, a particular family my staff has 
been communicating with; that is, the Starling family, Richard and 
Emily, a very young family from Jacksonville, FL. They have a 2-year-
old daughter, and they are expecting their second child in March. 
Richard is a pastor, and he works part time at Starbucks. He makes 
about $25,000 a year. His wife Emily stays home and cares for their 
daughter while he is at work.
  Because of their income, the Senate tax bill's nonrefundable child 
tax credit increase would actually be worth very little to them. A lot 
of people have said to me: Well, we have increased it to $2,000. Isn't 
that great? It is. But what it means that people don't understand is, 
if the majority--if all the taxes you pay are payroll taxes, it doesn't 
help a lot.
  I, frankly, get offended when I hear people say: These are Americans 
who don't pay taxes. They do pay taxes--not income tax, but they pay 
payroll taxes. They take it out of your check every month. Trust me, it 
is a tax. It is less money than what was supposed to be there after the 
tax.
  So the tax credit, while we increased it to $2,000--and that is great 
for a lot of people--it does nothing for them. The total effect is only 
about $115 for the family. That is how much they will be saving in 
their taxes from the current year--$115.
  But here is where it gets worse. The Senate bill--which I am largely 
supportive of, but I just want to tell my colleagues what the numbers 
are so we can see where the changes need to be--the Senate bill would 
actually increase taxes in March when they have a child. You say: How 
can that be? Well, for some families in their income range, the 
nonrefundable increase for the child tax credit is less valuable than 
the current lost personal exemption. So we take away the personal 
exemption and we put in this additional child tax credit, but it is 
nonrefundable. They can't get to that tax credit because they are not 
paying income taxes, and the result is that if they make $26,000 
instead of $25,000, the Senate bill would actually take away $15 from 
their per-child tax cut.
  So these families work hard and pay their taxes, they raise children, 
they are contributing an extraordinary amount to our country, and they 
need our help more than ever before.
  There are a couple other examples, and I will go to the first chart. 
Let's take for example a tire changer and a preschool teacher with two 
children in Gainesville, FL--the home of the university in Florida, the 
finest learning institution in the Southeast--an editorial thing, but 
it is a matter of fact. But I digress. Let me get back to chart No. 1 
and talk about this family.
  The husband, as I said, works at a local auto shop as a tire changer. 
His wife is a preschool teacher. According to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, with these two jobs, their combined income would be 
$28,300. Because the increase to the child tax credit is 
nonrefundable--the extra money we put in--this family wouldn't nearly 
have enough income tax liability to take advantage of the full credit. 
So the bill as it is currently written gives them a tax cut of $200--
about $50 per person.
  But what if we did what Senator Lee and I are proposing, which is to 
make the child tax credit fully refundable, even against payroll tax. 
Well, then their tax cut would not be $200, it would be $1,570. Trust 
me when I tell you that for a family making $28,000 a year, a $1,500 
pay increase in real cash matters. It matters. It doesn't solve all of 
their problems, but it helps.
  Here is another one. Take this example. The husband is a private in 
the Army National Guard, and his wife is a waitress at a local 
restaurant. They have three children. He is on Active Duty at Camp 
Blanding in Starke, FL. She works full time. They have a combined 
income of $33,832, according to the National Guard base pay.
  Because the increase, again, is nonrefundable in the child tax 
credit, they don't have enough income to take full advantage of the tax 
credit. The bill as currently written cuts their taxes by $388. The 
proposal that Senator Lee and I have outlined would cut their taxes by 
$2,100. So a $2,100 pay increase for this working family in cash will 
matter. It will matter. It doesn't solve all of their problems but, 
trust me, $2,100 for this family, more than what they have today, will 
help them a lot, and it rewards the work they are doing.
  What about a single mother. Let's say she is a childcare worker. She 
has one child and is living in Miami, FL, where I live. She works full 
time. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median wage for 
that job is $14,800 a year. She gets a tax cut under the current bill 
of about $100. If we do what Senator Lee and I are talking about doing, 
she will get a $1,000 tax cut. I am not telling you that $1,000 solves 
all of her problems, but a $1,000 pay increase for a single mother 
making $14,800 a year will matter.
  How about a loading dock worker and a cashier in Northwest Florida 
after having two kids. Here is what we point to: a glaring blind spot 
in the way this is structured. Again, for many working families, 
because the child tax credit is nonrefundable, it will actually be less 
valuable to parents than the dependent exemption and the existing child 
credits are under current law today. I think

[[Page S7351]]

this is the opposite of pro-family policy.
  Let's look at this example. He works as a freight mover at a lumber 
warehouse, and she works as a cashier. They both work and live full 
time in Live Oak, FL. Their average combined income is about $28,650. 
Under the current Tax Code, the way the law is today, if they have two 
kids, their tax cut would be $2,776. That is what they would save. 
Under the current bill, their tax cut would be $2,656. So, in essence, 
under the way the bill is structured now, they would be getting $120 
less--or keeping $120 less--than what they would under the law today, 
for a family making $28,000 a year.
  We can fix it, because under the proposal Senator Lee and I will 
have, they are going to see a tax cut of $4,000 for having that 
additional child. That is $1,200 greater than the current law. That is 
a raise of $1,300 more than would happen under the bill as it is 
currently structured.
  I don't think this is an intended consequence. But this is a working 
family. They work. They pay payroll tax. They make $28,000, $29,000 a 
year. Trust me when I tell you this money will matter. It won't solve 
all of their problems, but it will help. It is a pay raise.
  Last but not least, I live in West Miami, FL. I have lived there 
since 1985. It is a working-class neighborhood. According to the 
census, the average family income in West Miami, where I live, is 
$38,000--let's say $39,000. That doesn't mean that West Miami is poor. 
I know the people there. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They 
raise their children well. They go to work 5 days a week for 8 or 9 
hours a day, sometimes on the weekends. But because it is a working-
class town, the nonrefundable increase we put in for the child tax 
credit doesn't do much.
  As an example, based on the census data for West Miami, for that ZIP 
Code that I live in, more than 2,500 children in this ZIP Code--meaning 
more than half of the total number of children living in that area--
would be receiving less than the full credit than they would otherwise 
be eligible for. Why? Because for their parents, their primary tax 
liability is the payroll tax. And you cannot help working families with 
a tax cut if you do not allow the cut to apply to the payroll tax. It 
is as simple as that.
  We have to do that. If we want to help people in this country, if we 
really want to help them have a little bit more in their pocket, then 
let's implement the proposal that Senator Lee and I have put forward.
  By the way, I hear these economists and other people say: Well, it 
won't do anything for growth.
  You really don't understand how working Americans live. Someone who 
makes $38,000 a year or $35,000 a year basically spends every penny 
they make. They have to. If you make $38,000 a year, with two kids, you 
are spending every penny you make and then probably having to put the 
extra on your credit card, unfortunately. This proposal will drive 
consumer spending. It will allow them to pay for some things they can't 
buy now. These kids outgrow their shoes so fast. The bookbags don't 
make it through a year. There are so many things we could be helping 
families with, and our tax reforms should do that.

  Everybody in this town has a trade association, has a lobbyist, has 
newspapers that write about them. Who writes about them? Who writes 
about these working Americans--working Americans, not people asking for 
anything from the government. They go to work. They work hard. They 
work every day. Who fights for them? Who talks about them? Who 
represents them? That is supposed to be us.
  If we are serious about representing them, then let's prove it. Let's 
amend this bill and change it so we can give working Americans the 
raise they deserve, and that they need, to strengthen our country and 
strengthen our families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Katsas nomination?
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 283 Ex.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--48

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Corker
     McCain
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with 
respect to the Katsas nomination, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________