[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 194 (Wednesday, November 29, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7367-S7369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 
165, S. 1519.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 165, S. 1519, a bill to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
     construction, and for defense activities of the Department of 
     Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such 
     fiscal year, and for other purposes.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, during the last decade, hard-working 
American families have tried to get ahead, but they too often faced 
insurmountable barriers. The economy was sluggish, paychecks were 
stagnant, and jobs and opportunities stayed literally out of reach. The 
people we represent deserve a whole lot better than that, and it is 
time for us to deliver. It is time to take our feet off the brakes and 
get our economy going again and growing again. We could do that through 
tax reform.
  Every American who has ever interacted with the IRS already knows 
that our Tax Code is broken. Rates are too high, deductions and 
loopholes are too complex to understand, and it is too easy for well-
connected elites to take advantage. Passing tax reform is the single 
most important thing we can do right now to shift the economy into high 
gear and deliver much-needed relief to American families.
  The Senate Finance Committee has developed a bill that is the result 
of literally years of work, dozens of hearings, and a full committee 
markup. I once again commend Chairman Hatch for his leadership of this 
committee and thank him for producing legislation to unleash the 
potential of our economy, to create jobs, and to keep them right here 
in America.
  Throughout this process, we have kept middle-class families at the 
center of our efforts. We want to make their taxes lower, simpler, and 
fairer. That is why our plan would give the typical family of four with 
a median income a tax cut of close to $2,200 a year. A single parent 
raising his or her child on a modest income could also see a tax cut of 
nearly $1,400. These are real savings that can help families plan for 
their future and actually get ahead.
  The Finance Committee's tax reform proposal also provides substantial 
relief to small businesses. We want to make it easier for them to grow, 
to invest, and, of course, to hire. The bill also will remove 
incentives for corporations to ship jobs and investments overseas.
  Finally, our tax reform proposal delivers relief to low- and middle-
income Americans by repealing ObamaCare's individual mandate tax. For 
too long, families have suffered under an unpopular tax from an 
unworkable law. Repealing this ObamaCare tax will help those who need 
it most.
  Yesterday, the Senate Budget Committee, under Chairman Mike Enzi's 
leadership, reported out a bill, including our proposal to reform the 
Tax Code. I thank Chairman Enzi and the members of the Budget Committee 
for their outstanding work to get us to

[[Page S7368]]

this important moment. They have been strong advocates for tax reform, 
and I appreciate their efforts. The committee's report also included 
Chairman Murkowski's plan to further develop Alaska's oil and gas 
potential in an environmentally responsible way. Her legislation, which 
has the support of her Alaska colleague, Senator Sullivan, was designed 
to create good jobs, provide new sources of energy, and strengthen our 
national security. Now they will both advance to the Senate floor.
  Today, the Senate will take the next important step toward fixing the 
Tax Code and helping middle-class families keep more of their hard-
earned money. Members will vote to begin debate on this once-in-a-
generation opportunity to reform our Tax Code so it works for the 
middle class. I encourage any Member who thinks we need to fix the 
problems of our outdated Tax Code to vote to proceed to this 
legislation. Anyone who thinks that rates are too high or that 
loopholes are too prominent should vote to begin debate. To Members who 
have ideas about how to make the bill better, I would urge them to vote 
for the motion to proceed and offer their amendments. I believe my 
mandate from the people of Kentucky is to vote yes, and I certainly 
intend to do so.
  The bottom line is this: We must vote to begin debate because once we 
do, we will be one step closer to taking more money out of Washington's 
pocket and putting more money into the pockets of the hard-working men 
and women we represent. This is our chance. This is our chance to 
deliver relief for the people who sent us here, and the way we can do 
that is by voting to proceed to the bill. Every Member will have the 
opportunity later today to answer the calls of American families by 
voting to begin debate. I will vote yes on the motion to proceed, and I 
would urge all of my colleagues to do the same.


                       Nomination of David Stras

  Now on another matter, Madam President, our colleague Senator 
Grassley has done an outstanding job of processing the Senate's 
judicial nominees, beginning with the President's selection of Judge 
Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. Chairman Grassley and 
members of the Judiciary Committee continue their important work today 
as the committee holds a hearing for three more of the President's 
judicial nominees, including two well-qualified nominees to our circuit 
courts, Justice David Stras and Mr. Stuart Kyle Duncan.
  The committee's hearing today is particularly important because it 
means that one member of this body--in this case, the junior Senator 
from Minnesota--cannot singlehandedly block the committee from 
considering an extraordinarily well-qualified nominee to serve on our 
circuit court. That nominee is Justice David Stras of the Minnesota 
Supreme Court.
  Justice Stras is an extremely qualified and widely admired member of 
Minnesota's highest court. He was raised by a single mother. He is the 
grandson of a survivor of the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz.
  Justice Stras graduated first in his class from the University of 
Kansas Law School. He clerked on the court of appeals and the U.S. 
Supreme Court. He worked for several years in private practice until he 
joined the faculty of the University of Minnesota Law School. He was 
appointed to the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2010, and in 2012, 
Minnesota voters elected him to a full term on their highest court.
  His reputation in the Minnesota legal community is impeccable. It is 
no wonder that the American Bar Association--hardly a rightwing 
organization--gave him its highest rating, unanimously ``well 
qualified.''
  Nevertheless, the junior Senator from Minnesota does not support 
Justice Stras receiving so much as a hearing. That approach is 
untenable in light of the recent actions of our Democratic colleagues. 
A little more than 4 years ago, they eliminated the supermajority 
requirement for ending debate on lower court nominees. They did so, 
they said, because they believed that a minority of the Senate should 
not be able to prevent the confirmation of a nominee who enjoyed the 
support of a majority of this body.
  Perhaps our Democratic colleagues now feel buyer's remorse over the 
change to the Senate rules they jammed through this body, but they 
should not be allowed to use the committee's blue-slip courtesy--which 
is neither a committee rule nor a Senate rule--as another way to block 
the consideration of nominees with majority support. As Chairman 
Grassley has pointed out, that approach is not the way the blue-slip 
courtesy was first used, nor is it the way the vast majority of the 
Judiciary Committee chairmen have used it.
  After Senate Democrats have changed the Senate's rules to prevent 41 
Senators from stopping a nominee, our Democratic colleagues surely 
cannot now think it is tenable to give just one Senator absolute power 
to do so. They decided that 41 Senators ought not to be able to stop a 
nominee. How can they now argue that one Senator should be able to, in 
effect, block all the nominees?
  In this case, the junior Senator from Minnesota acknowledges that it 
is ``undeniably true'' that Justice Stras is a ``committed public 
servant whose tenure as a professor at the University of Minnesota 
underscores just how much he cares about the law.'' Yet our colleague 
objects to the committee even considering his nomination. Why does he 
want to block a widely respected and accomplished State supreme court 
justice from his own State whom his constituents actually support? 
Because our colleague doesn't agree with the U.S. Supreme Court 
Justices whom the nominee admires, one of whom the nominee happened to 
clerk for.
  I applaud Chairman Grassley for not allowing the blue-slip courtesy 
to be abused in this fashion, and I look forward to learning more about 
Justice Stras's views from today's hearing.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                          Republican Tax Plan

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, before I get to my main issue of 
taxes, I just heard the majority leader talk about taking away the blue 
slip. We hear the other side professing they want to work in a 
bipartisan way, but every step they take takes away bipartisanship. 
Reconciliation takes away bipartisanship. Getting rid of the blue ship 
takes away bipartisanship. Unfortunately, the majority leader has taken 
many steps this year to remove any hint of bipartisanship--most 
notably, reconciliation on this major tax bill.
  This is the first time we are doing tax reform in 36 years, but then, 
it was done in a bipartisan way. The product lasted, and people, in 
retrospect, were proud of it. Because this bill is being done in such a 
partisan and narrow way and the idea--I even heard my friend from Utah 
say this: Join us. You don't put together a bill in the dark of night 
with just Republicans and then say: Come join us. That is not how tax 
reform was done in 1986. That is not how major, bipartisan efforts in 
this body have ever been done. It is a group from both parties sitting 
down and coming up with a plan. And to offer amendments and then to 
have them all defeated or ruled out of order and then say that is 
regular order? Who are we kidding? Who are we kidding?
  This has been a very partisan bill. That is why it is not a great 
product. That is why the other side is rushing it through. This is not 
a proud day for this Chamber, and history will show that. History will 
show that.
  Now I would like to talk about the specific plan, although we are 
still not sure what the plan will be. According to reports, Republicans 
are, right now, furiously debating changes in the bill, and who knows 
when they will put the bill on the floor. A bill like this deserves 
weeks of debate on the floor. At most, we will get 20 hours of debate--
and maybe not that--depending on when the leader puts the new 
substitute bill on the floor. That is so wrong. That is so against the 
better angels of this Chamber and the history we have had for 
centuries. It is against the best practices that my dear friend from 
Utah, the chairman of the Finance Committee, has exhibited throughout 
his career. So I hope we can, even at this late moment, change that.

  But we are only 1 day away, unfortunately, from a final vote on the 
bill to rewrite the entire U.S. Tax Code, and significant parts of the 
Republican bill

[[Page S7369]]

are still up in the air. By the time we vote, no one will have a 
definitive analysis of how the bill would impact the economy--no one. 
No one will know how the last-minute provisions Republicans add will 
affect American taxpayers and businesses.
  If this bill should pass--and I sure hope it doesn't, for the sake of 
America and for the sake of the middle class--my Republican friends 
will regret rushing it through in such a brazen way. There will be 
unintended consequences. The rush to get something--anything--done will 
haunt my Republican colleagues in years to come and, I dare say, in 
November of 2018.
  I would understand the rush if the Republicans were sure they had a 
great tax bill, but they are not sure. I know so many of my colleagues 
have expressed real misgivings about this bill. They say that it is 
better than nothing, but that is not the alternative. It is not either 
this bill or nothing. We Democrats are ready to sit down and work on a 
bipartisan bill--it will take a couple of months--and come up with a 
much better plan that will get 70 or 80 votes on the floor of this 
Chamber, of which we can all be proud.
  Every independent analysis has shown that millions of middle-class 
people will get an increase in taxes. The Tax Policy Center estimates 
that 60 percent of middle-class families will see a tax increase at the 
end of the day, while folks making over $1 million will get an average 
cut of $40,000. Do millionaires need a tax cut at all? Are they doing 
so poorly? Is there any study that shows this kind of tax cut will make 
them work harder or create more jobs? No. No. None. So the individual 
side here, which reduces the top rate by 1 percent, if that is still in 
the bill they are going to put before us, is misguided.
  Corporations will get permanent breaks while individuals' will expire 
after only a few years. For estates, right now the only estates that 
pay any tax are worth over $11 million, and they will get a tax break 
while 13 million fewer Americans--middle income, low income--will get 
health insurance. Why rush to pass a bill like that?
  It is no wonder the bill is so unpopular with the American people. In 
every survey that I have seen and in every State survey that I have 
seen, the numbers who dislike the bill exceed--in most cases, by a 
lot--those who like the bill, just like healthcare.
  Now, corporate profits are at an all-time high. Companies are flush 
with cash. The richest 1 percent of Americans receive 20 percent of the 
overall national income. The richest 1 percent get 20 percent of the 
income. God bless them. I don't like that percentage, and that 
percentage hasn't been matched in nearly a century since the roaring 
twenties. But do they need a tax break? Come on.
  Corporations and the wealthy are doing great right now. God bless 
them. They don't need a tax cut. To lavish them with huge tax breaks 
and ask the middle class to bear so much of the cost--that gets it 
backward. That is not a bill anyone in this Chamber can be proud of, 
whether your views are for tax cuts or not.
  The main argument my Republican colleagues use to counter these 
damning facts--what I say is the core argument of their tax plan--is 
that a massive corporate tax cut would grow the economy and make it 
easier for companies to invest in their workers. The argument that a 
massive corporate tax cut leads to more jobs and higher wages is a 
flimsy house of cards that falls down under the slightest scrutiny.
  Just yesterday, Bloomberg published an article citing the CEOs of 
major companies like Cisco and Coca-Cola, who said, according to the 
report, that ``they'll turn over most gains from the proposed corporate 
tax cuts to their shareholders, undercutting the President's promise 
that his plan will create jobs and raise wages for the middle class.''
  We have seen similar quotes by major corporate leaders on earnings 
calls over the past several months. They admitted that this big 
corporate tax break will go, in large part, to stock buybacks, 
dividends, which we all know go to the wealthiest people in America. 
The preponderance of it goes to the wealthiest people in America. The 
additional profits from corporate tax cuts will not go to new 
investments or higher wages but to CEO bonuses, stock buybacks, and 
dividends.
  Perhaps the most compelling testimony was given to top White House 
economic adviser Gary Cohn himself, who spoke at the Wall Street 
Journal CEO Council earlier this year. The gathering of business 
leaders was asked to raise their hands if they planned to invest the 
money they got from corporate tax cuts into their companies.
  Gary Cohn had to ask: Why aren't there more hands up?
  Again, you say: Well, they were afraid to say so. They didn't want to 
reveal their plans. Well, corporate executives are revealing their 
plans in their earnings calls. And when reporters ask them, so many of 
them say: I am not going to invest this in jobs; I am going to invest 
it in dividends and stock buybacks, send it back to the shareholders.
  The harsh fact of the matter is that tax cuts don't result in the 
kind of economic growth and job growth my Republican friends predict. 
It didn't happen after the Bush tax cuts. It didn't happen in Kansas, 
where there were so many promises: If we cut taxes in Kansas, there 
will be huge growth and new jobs. Well, it was a dramatic flop, what 
happened in Kansas, that our Republican colleagues are repeating. They 
are not learning from history. Kansas's job growth last year was much 
lower than the national average, despite all the big tax cuts they 
gave.
  I am afraid my Republican colleagues and friends are willing to paper 
over their serious reservations with this bill in order to say that 
they got something done. They are willing to look past the fact that 60 
percent of middle-class families will see tax increases by the end of 
the day, that healthcare premiums will rise 10 percent, that 13 million 
fewer Americans will have health insurance, and that the tax bill will 
exacerbate inequality in an economy that is already perilously 
unequal--all in the name of deficit-busting corporate tax cuts that 
will not create the kind of economic growth and job growth they are 
predicting.
  I heard the majority leader speak a minute ago and say: The focus of 
this bill--these are his words, in effect; I don't know his exact 
words, but they are like this. He said: The focus of this bill is on 
the middle class.
  It is only on the middle class if you believe in trickle-down 
economics, that giving money to the wealthy corporations and giving 
money to the wealthiest of people will create jobs--trickle-down. It 
has never worked. According to a recent poll, 77 percent of Americans 
don't believe that big corporations should get tax breaks. They don't 
believe in trickle-down. The only people who believe in trickle-down 
seem to be the Members of this Chamber and the big corporation leaders 
who will get the benefits. Nobody else seems to believe it. Trickle-
down is wrong. This bill could be entitled ``the trickle-down tax 
bill.'' Let's hope and pray, middle-class people, that when we give 
most of the breaks to the wealthiest and biggest corporations, you 
might get a few crumbs. Nobody wants that. We could do much better, 
working together in a bipartisan way.
  In conclusion, I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, particularly those who aren't sold on this bill: We can create a 
better product by working together. Democrats and Republicans agree on 
many principles in tax reform. We both want to lower rates and close 
loopholes. We both want to reduce burdens on the middle class and small 
businesses and simplify the code. I think many on the other side agree 
with us that it should be deficit-neutral. This bill is none of those 
things.
  If we start over and pursue tax reform in the right way, the 
bipartisan way, the open way, the sunlight way, I genuinely believe we 
can find a product that both sides can be proud of and one that will be 
much, much better--and much better received--by and for the American 
people.
  I yield the floor.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.

                          ____________________