[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 13, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S890-S895]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          BROADER OPTIONS FOR AMERICANS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 2579, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 302, H.R. 2579, a bill to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the premium 
     tax credit with respect to unsubsidized COBRA continuation 
     coverage.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are in the midst of debate in the 
Senate on the issue of immigration. It is the first time in 5 years we 
have taken up this issue. There are many compelling reasons for us to 
get this right.
  On September 5, President Trump announced that he was going to end 
the DACA Program, a program created by an Executive order of President 
Obama's that protects 780,000 young people who are undocumented in the 
United States. The elimination of that program officially on March 5--
just a few weeks away--will mean that these young people and many just 
like them will be subject to deportation and no longer allowed to 
legally work in the United States.
  President Trump challenged Congress to do something about it, to pass 
a law. As you can see, more than 5 months have passed, and we haven't 
done that. But we have a chance this week to get it right. We have a 
chance to make this work.
  This morning, I come to the floor for a brief time to tell the story 
of two young women. The first one is named Tereza Lee. Tereza Lee is 
the reason for the DREAM Act, which is legislation I introduced 17 
years ago.
  Tereza was born in Brazil. Her parents were from Korea, but they 
traveled to Brazil first. She was brought to the United States at the 
age of 2 and made it to Chicago, IL.
  Her father wanted to be a Protestant minister and to start a church. 
That was his dream, and he worked at it. They were a poor family. They 
didn't have much money to start with, but he pursued his dream. He 
gathered some people together in church settings.
  Her mother went to work at a drycleaners in Chicago, which is not 
uncommon. The vast majority of drycleaning establishments in that city 
are run and owned by Korean families. It is a hard job, a lot of hours, 
but she was prepared to work to feed her family and to raise Tereza and 
her brothers and sisters.
  During the course of her father's ministry, Tereza started banging 
away at an old piano at the back of the church and fell in love with 
the instrument. Someone gave her family a discarded piano, and she 
spent hours each day practicing. She signed up for something called the 
Merit Music Program in Chicago, which is available for kids in public 
schools who can't afford lessons, and she developed her skill as a 
pianist. At the point she reached high school, she actually was playing 
with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. People took notice of it and said: 
Tereza, you have to go forward with this amazing skill of yours and 
apply to the best music schools. She did. She applied to the Juilliard 
School of Music and the Manhattan School of Music, and she was 
accepted.
  She did run into a problem. When it came time to fill out the forms 
to go to school, there was a section where she had to declare her 
nationality or citizenship.
  She said to her mom: What do I put here?
  Her mom said: I don't know. We brought you here on a visitor's visa, 
and we never filed any more papers.
  Technically, Tereza was an undocumented person in America. She didn't 
have legal status. So she contacted our office and asked what she could 
do. That was 17 years ago. We took a look at the law, and the law is 
pretty brutal for those who are undocumented in this country. It 
basically said to this 18-year-old girl: You have to leave the United 
States for 10 years and petition to come back in and apply for green 
card status and citizenship. Ten years? Brought here at the age of 2, 
she was banished by our laws in the United States and given no future.
  That is when I introduced the DREAM Act--for her initially but for 
many others in similar circumstances, kids who are brought here to 
America as infants and toddlers, young children, young teenagers who 
had no home, who had no country. They go to our public

[[Page S891]]

schools and pledge allegiance to the same flag we pledge allegiance to 
every morning, but there is no legal status for them.
  The story has a happy ending for Tereza Lee. Even though the DREAM 
Act is not the law of the land, benefactors stepped forward and paid 
for her education at the Manhattan School of Music, and she ended up 
with a Ph.D. in music. She ended up playing piano in Carnegie Hall. She 
is now married and because of that marriage has become a legal citizen 
of the United States and is the mother of two.
  That is the story of Tereza Lee, a Korean-American young woman who, 
in her way, with her musical skill, makes America a better nation.
  There is another Korean-American girl I would like to salute as well. 
Her face may be more familiar. In 1982, a Korean immigrant came to the 
United States. He didn't speak English very well. He carried a Korean-
English dictionary with him. He had a couple hundred dollars. He landed 
in California and decided he was going to make a go of it here in 
America, so he went off to school and obtained a degree in 
manufacturing engineering technology, and then he started to raise a 
family.
  In that family was a young girl who showed at a very early age an 
interest in snowboarding. Her father, this Korean immigrant with no 
measurable skills and little proficiency in English, decided that he 
would help her, and he did. He made great sacrifices so she could 
develop her skills in snowboarding, and ultimately she became one of 
the best in the world.
  Yesterday at the Olympic Games in South Korea, she was awarded the 
Gold Medal because of her skills in snowboarding and the fact that she 
won this halfpipe competition against the others, some of the best in 
the world.
  This is Chloe Kim. Chloe Kim, this Korean-American girl, like Tereza 
Lee, developed an amazing skill. Today, all across this country and all 
across the world, we are saluting this amazing 17-year-old girl and the 
skill she developed. But let's remember that Chloe Kim's story is the 
story of immigration in America. Chloe Kim's story is the story of 
people who come to these shores determined to make a life. They don't 
bring wealth. Many of them don't even bring proficiency in English. 
They certainly in many cases don't bring advanced degrees. They only 
come here with the determination to make a better life for themselves 
and a better country for all of us.
  That is the story of immigration. It is the story of this Korean-
American girl, Chloe Kim. It is the story of Tereza Lee, another 
Korean-American girl who was a Dreamer and inspired the introduction of 
the legislation we are debating this week in the Senate.
  There is a difference of opinion among Senators about immigration. 
Several Senators have said: We have too many immigrants; we have to 
limit those who come to this country. Some of them have even said that 
we have to be careful that we select only the best and brightest to 
come into this Nation. Well, I am the son of an immigrant myself, and I 
can tell you for sure that my grandparents and my mother didn't come to 
this country with any special skills or proficiency. They came here 
with a determination to make a better life, and they did, for 
themselves and for me. That is my story, that is my family's story, and 
that is America's story.
  This week as we debate immigration, let's not only applaud Chloe Kim 
for her great achievement as a first-generation American, the daughter 
of an immigrant who came here with nothing, let's applaud Tereza Lee, 
too, who was determined against the odds to use her skills to make a 
better life for herself and a better country for all of us.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, last night the Senate took up a neutral 
bill on immigration to begin debate on legislation to protect the 
Dreamers and provide additional border security. It is a debate upon 
which the lives of the Dreamers depend. They were brought into this 
country as kids through no fault of their own. For many of them, 
America is the only country they remember. They learn in our schools, 
they work at our companies, they serve in our military, and they are 
stitched into the very fabric of our Nation.
  This week we have the opportunity to offer these Dreamers protection 
and the chance to finally become Americans, and this is supported in 
every State throughout the Nation. Eighty percent of Americans--a 
majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans all support 
allowing the Dreamers to stay here and become American citizens. We 
have an opportunity to improve border security, as well, which is 
something that also has broad support.
  Both Democrats and Republicans, in large numbers, have supported both 
helping the Dreamers become Americans and protecting our borders. That 
should be the focus of all our energies--finding a bipartisan 
compromise that would achieve those things and pass the Senate.
  We can put together a bipartisan plan here in the Senate and sell it 
to the Nation. I know that there are other forces swirling around. That 
was true of the budget deal, but Leader McConnell and I put together an 
agreement. The Senate voted for it in large numbers, the House passed 
it with significant support from both parties, and the President signed 
it. We can do the same thing on immigration. The Senate can take the 
lead once again in a bipartisan way that can get 60 votes and move the 
Nation forward.
  We all know Americans in every State--your State, Mr. President, my 
State, and every State--who ask: Why can't you work together and get 
something done? Well, this is a very difficult issue and we are all 
aware of that, but we can get something done. We are on the verge, but 
it is still hard. We are not there yet, but we can get something done. 
Let's work toward that.


               Infrastructure and the President's Budget

  Mr. President, on another matter entirely, the White House released 
its long-awaited infrastructure plan. After promising a trillion-dollar 
infrastructure plan to build ``gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, 
railways, and waterways all across our land,'' President Trump's plan 
turned out to be less than half a loaf. Instead of a trillion dollars 
or more of investment, the Trump infrastructure plan includes only $200 
billion in Federal investment, relying on State and local governments 
and private entities to pony up the rest of the cash.
  There is a great irony that on the same day the President put out the 
$200 billion infrastructure plan, the administration's budget slashed 
well over $200 billion in existing infrastructure investments that we 
do make every year. While the Trump infrastructure plan gives with one 
hand, the Trump budget takes more away than is given. That doesn't show 
much of a commitment to do infrastructure. That shows sort of a 
schizophrenic administration.
  Even on the side where they try to give, the Trump infrastructure 
plan has a lot of flaws. Already cash-strapped State and local 
governments would likely have to raise taxes on their constituents to 
fund new investments. Meanwhile, private entities will seek projects 
with the quickest return on investment. If you have a big, large resort 
with a lot of wealthy people going there, yes, a private person might 
build a road, but if you have a bridge in Shreveport or in Rochester, a 
middle-sized city or anywhere else in the country, no private investor 
is going to invest in that. There won't be any money for it. Large 
parts of the country will be left out. And who will be left out most? 
Rural America, which lacks the population or traffic to attract 
investment, would get shut out. They have a set-aside for rural 
America, but it is not close to enough--not close to enough.
  Worse, the Trump infrastructure plan would mean a slew of tolls--
Trump tolls--from one end of America to the other. Large developers are 
going to want to make a quick buck on new investment, and who is going 
to pay for

[[Page S892]]

it? The average, middle-class, working-class American who drives and 
pays the tolls.
  These companies--let's face it; everyone knows this--are not going to 
lend money to build a road and not get any return. When the Federal 
Government puts money into roads, they don't ask for a return, other 
than jobs created building the roads and jobs created because new 
companies, new housing, and other new things will locate alongside the 
road. It does pay for itself through what the economists would call 
external costs--externalities. But the companies that invest, the big 
financiers who invest will want an immediate return, and that means 
tolls--tolls, tolls, and more tolls. More tolls may not sound like a 
big deal to the bankers and financiers who put together Trump's plan, 
but they sure mean a lot to working Americans who commute on these 
roads every day.
  I would remind people that the Federal Government has invested in 
roads and infrastructure for centuries, not decades. Henry Clay, a 
Whig--the predecessor party of the Republican Party--first proposed it 
in the 1820s and 1830s. Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, 
expanded our Federal highway system dramatically with huge positive 
effect in large parts of America. Ronald Reagan never cut 
infrastructure. He cut a lot of other things, but not infrastructure. 
He knew it was important. So why are we making this 180-degree, hairpin 
turn right now? It doesn't make sense.
  There are other problems with the Trump plan. What about ``Buy 
American''? Everyone says they are for ``Buy American.'' The Trump 
infrastructure plan unwinds ``Buy American'' provisions. If we are 
going to rebuild American infrastructure, let's do it with American 
steel, American concrete, and American labor.
  This is the kind of plan you would expect from a President who 
surrounds himself with industry insiders, financiers, people in Wall 
Street who look at infrastructure as an investment to be made by 
corporations. But infrastructure has always been something the 
government invests in because the benefits aren't immediately apparent 
to business. A road might not generate short-term profits unless it is 
dotted with tolls, but a factory might locate nearby and bring new jobs 
to the area. The private sector might not build high-speed internet all 
the way out to the house at the end of the road if there isn't a 
profit, but that family is just as deserving as every other family in 
America to be part of the internet, which is a necessity these days, 
just as electricity was in the thirties when Franklin Roosevelt 
proposed connecting all rural homes to the electric grid. The private 
sector then and the private sector now should not pick and choose. It 
will leave large parts of America out. That is why the Trump 
infrastructure plan falls short.
  For almost our entire history, the consensus in Congress and the 
White House was that the government should lead the way on 
infrastructure. As I have mentioned, Republicans Henry Clay, Dwight 
Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan believed that we need investment in 
infrastructure. Democrats still believe it.
  I hope that our mutual desire to fix the Nation's crumbling 
infrastructure without shifting the burden onto taxpayers and local 
governments motivates us to put the President's proposal to the side, 
as we did with the budget, and come up with one ourselves.
  Mr. President, yesterday, the Trump administration delivered a budget 
to Congress that will drastically slash funding for education, 
environmental protection, transportation, Medicare, and Medicaid. Yes, 
folks, despite the President's promise that he would never cut 
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, he is cutting two out of the 
three in this budget--or so he proposes.
  Even with all those cuts, though, the Trump budget actually increases 
the deficit. Even in the realm of budgetary magic, the Trump budget 
pulls a trick so absurd that it would even make Houdini blush: Cut 
Medicare, cut Medicaid, and yet increase the deficit. How the heck did 
that happen? Only in the world of President Trump and his budgeteers.
  Just weeks after jamming through a partisan tax bill that would 
greatly benefit big corporations and the wealthy while adding $1.5 
trillion to the deficit, the Trump administration is now proposing a 
massive curtailment of the programs that help almost everyone else in 
America and, at the same time, increasing the deficit--a bad magic 
trick, very bad.
  After an entire campaign's worth of promises to protect Medicaid and 
Medicare, President Trump proposes to cut deeply into both of them. 
After calling education the civil rights issue of our time in his first 
address to the Congress, President Trump proposes a 10-percent cut in 
education funding. Ask your school boards throughout America how they 
feel about that. Alongside his long-delayed infrastructure plan, 
President Trump proposes to cut transportation funding by nearly one-
fifth--a decrease so large it would result in a net cut in 
infrastructure funding even if you add in the President's new 
infrastructure bill.
  On the heels of a massive corporate tax cut, this budget is the very 
inverse of economic populism. It cuts back from nearly every program 
that helps the middle class and those struggling to reach it. The Trump 
budget is the encapsulation of an administration that promises populism 
but delivers plutocracy where the rich and powerful get the tax cuts, 
but everyone else just gets cut out.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
about 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            False Claims Act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to address, as I do often on 
the floor, problems with the False Claims Act. As author of the False 
Claims Act of 1986, I want to say upfront, before I talk about some 
problems, that this is a piece of legislation that has brought into the 
Federal Treasury $56 to $57 billion of fraudulently taken money.
  Each year, the Department of Justice updates the amount of money that 
has come in under the False Claims Act, about $3 billion to $4 billion 
a year. We are talking about a piece of legislation I passed more than 
30 years ago, that had been good for the taxpayers, to make sure their 
money is handled the way the law requires. Obviously, if it is taken 
fraudulently, it isn't handled the way the taxpayers would expect.
  With that introduction, I want to bring up some problems with the 
False Claims Act. Today, there are some troubling developments in the 
courts' interpretation of the False Claims Act. To understand these 
developments, I want to review a little history.
  In 1943, Congress gutted the Lincoln-era law known as the False 
Claims Act. At that time, during World War II, the Department of 
Justice said it needed no help from whistleblowers to fight fraud. The 
Department of Justice said, if the government already knows about the 
fraud, then no court should even hear a whistleblower's case. In 1943, 
Congress amended the False Claims Act to bar any whistleblower from 
bringing a claim if the government knows about the fraud.
  Looking back at World War II, we know what they did to the False 
Claims Act was a big mistake because the bar led to absurd results that 
only hurt the taxpayers. It basically meant that all whistleblower 
cases were blocked, even cases where the government only knew about the 
fraud because of the whistleblower. In other words, whistleblowers are 
patriotic people when they are reporting fraud, but it didn't make any 
difference because of the way the law was amended in 1943.
  In 1984, the Seventh Circuit barred the State of Wisconsin from a 
whistleblower action against Medicaid fraud. Even today, Medicaid fraud 
is a major problem. We have ways of getting at it now, but in 1984 they 
didn't. In this case in Wisconsin, that State had already told the 
Federal Government about the fraud because it was required to report 
that fraud under Federal law. Because of the so-called government

[[Page S893]]

knowledge bar enacted in 1943, whistleblower cases went nowhere and 
neither did prosecution of wrongdoers.
  Getting back to what I was involved in, in 1986, I worked with many 
of my colleagues--particularly a former Democratic Congressman from 
California by the name of Mr. Berman--to make it possible for 
whistleblowers to be heard again. In other words, these patriotic 
Americans just want the government to do what the law says it ought to 
be doing and money spent the way it ought to be spent. They want people 
to know about it so action can be taken.
  In 1986, for whistleblowers to be heard again, that included 
eliminating the so-called government knowledge bar. Since then, what 
the government knows about fraud has still been used by defendants in 
false claims cases as a defense against their own state of mind. Courts 
have found that what the government knows about fraud can still 
undercut allegations that defendants knowingly submitted false claims. 
The theory goes something like this: If the government knows about the 
defendant's bad behavior and the defendant knows the government knows, 
then the defendant did not knowingly commit fraud. That doesn't make 
sense, does it? Once you wrap your head around that logic or puzzle, I 
have another one for you.

  In 2016, the question of what the government knows about fraud in 
False Claims Act cases began to take center stage once again. In 
Escobar, the Supreme Court rightly affirmed that a contractor can be 
liable under the ``implied false certification'' theory. That means a 
contractor can be in trouble when it doesn't make good on its bargain. 
And it doesn't matter whether the contractor outright lies--a 
misleading omission of its failures is enough.
  Unfortunately, parts of the Court's ruling are getting some 
defendants and judges tied in knots. Justice Thomas wrote that the 
false or misleading aspect of the claim has to be material to the 
government's decision whether to pay it. Justice Thomas said that one 
of several ways you can tell whether something misleading is also 
material is if the government knows what the contractor is up to and 
pays the claim anyway. That is a good way for people to commit fraud. 
At first glance, I suppose that kind of makes sense. If someone gives 
you something substantially different in value or quality from what you 
asked for, why would you pay for it? But if the difference really isn't 
that important, you might still accept it.
  Even if that is true, the problem here is that courts are reacting 
the way they always have. They are trying to outdo each other in 
applying Justice Thomas's analysis inappropriately or as strictly as 
possible, to the point of absurdity. In doing so, they are starting to 
resurrect elements of that old government knowledge bar that I worked 
so hard to get rid of in 1986. And remember, that government knowledge 
bar goes back to the big mistake Congress made in 1943 by eliminating 
it from the False Claims Act.
  Justice Thomas actually wrote:

       [I]f the Government pays a particular claim in full despite 
     its actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated, 
     that is very strong evidence that those requirements are not 
     material. Or, if the Government regularly pays a particular 
     type of claim in full despite actual knowledge that certain 
     requirements were violated, and has signaled no change in 
     position, that is strong evidence that the requirements are 
     not material.

  Justice Thomas did not say that in every case, if the government pays 
a claim despite the fact that someone, somewhere in the bowels of 
democracy might have heard about allegations that the contractor may 
have done something wrong, the contractor is automatically off the 
hook. Think about that. Why should the taxpayer pay the price for 
bureaucrats who fail to expose fraud against the government? That is 
why the False Claims Act exists--to protect taxpayers by rewarding 
whistleblowers for exposing fraud.
  Justice Thomas said that the government's actions when it has actual 
knowledge that certain requirements were violated are evidence of 
whether those requirements are material. What does it mean for the 
government to have actual knowledge? Would it include one bureaucrat 
who suspected a violation but looked the other way? Would that prove 
the requirement was material? Courts need to be careful here.
  First, this statement about government knowledge is not the standard 
for materiality. The standard for materiality is actually the same as 
it has always been. The Court did not change that definition in 
Escobar. Materiality means ``having a natural tendency to influence, or 
being capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or 
property.'' The question of the government's behavior in response to 
fraud is one of multiple factors for courts to weigh in applying the 
standard.
  Second, courts and defendants should be mindful that Justice Thomas 
limited the relevance here to actual knowledge of things that actually 
happened. There are all sorts of situations where the government could 
have doubts but no actual knowledge of fraud. Maybe the government has 
only heard vague allegations but has no facts. Maybe the rumors are 
about something that may be happening in an industry but nothing about 
a particular false claim by a particular defendant. Maybe an agency has 
started an inquiry but still has a long way to go before that inquiry 
is finished. Maybe someone with real agency authority or responsibility 
hasn't learned of it yet. There are a lot of situations where the 
government might not have actual knowledge of the fraud.
  Third, even if the government does pay a false claim, that is not the 
end of the matter. Courts have long recognized that there are a lot of 
reasons why the government might not intervene in a whistleblower case. 
There are a lot of reasons why the government might still pay a false 
claim. Maybe declining to pay the claim would leave patients without 
prescriptions or lifesaving medical care. Paying the claims in that 
case does not mean that the fraud is unimportant; it means that in that 
moment, the government wants to ensure access to critical care. That 
payment cannot and does not deprive the government of the right to 
recover the payment obtained through fraud.
  Can you imagine if that were the rule? Can you imagine if providers 
could avoid all accountability because the government decided not to 
let someone suffer? Then fraudsters could hold the government hostage. 
They could submit bogus claims all the time with no consequences 
because they know the government is not going to deny treatment to the 
sick and the vulnerable. That is just not what the False Claims Act 
says. Courts should not read such a ridiculous rule into that statute.
  Fourth, courts should take care in reading into the act a requirement 
for the government to immediately stop paying claims or first pursue 
some other remedy. There could be many important reasons to pay a claim 
that have nothing to do with whether the fraud is material. Further, 
there is no exhaustion requirement. The False Claims Act does not 
require the government to jump through administrative hoops or give up 
its rights. And that would be an unreasonable burden on the government, 
in any event.
  We have decades of data showing that the government cannot stop fraud 
by itself--hence the importance of whistleblowers; hence the importance 
of the False Claims Act. I also know from many years of oversight that 
purely administrative remedies are very time-consuming and often 
toothless.
  The government should be able to decide how best to protect the 
taxpayers from fraud. The False Claims Act is the most effective tool 
the government has. The government should be able to use it without the 
courts piling on bogus restrictions that are just not law.
  I started with the importance of the False Claims Act. It has brought 
$56 billion to $57 billion into the Treasury since its enactment in 
1986. Each year, the Department of Justice updates the law, usually 
reporting $3 billion or $4 billion coming in under that act in the 
previous year.
  I hope the courts understand that every bureaucrat in government has 
to have the opportunity to report what is wrong so that we make sure 
the taxpayers' money is properly spent.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S894]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Cruz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for months, Senators have been 
clamoring for a floor debate on DACA, border security, and other urgent 
issues pertaining to immigration. We have certainly had ample time to 
prepare.
  The week we set aside for this debate has arrived--the week my 
Democratic colleagues insisted that we dedicate to this issue. The 
clock is ticking, but the debate has yet to begin. That is because our 
Democratic colleagues have yet to yield back any of their postcloture 
time so we can begin this important debate. If we are going to resolve 
these matters this week, we need to get moving. In my view, the 
proposal unveiled yesterday by Senator Grassley and a number of other 
Senators offers our best chance to find a solution.
  I have committed that the amendment process will be fair and both 
sides will have the opportunity to submit ideas for debate and votes. 
For that to happen, our colleagues will have to actually introduce 
their own amendments, rather than just talk about them.
  My colleague, Senator Toomey, for example, has done just that. He put 
forward an amendment to address one of the most glaring aspects of our 
Nation's broken immigration system--sanctuary cities. I see no reason 
to further delay consideration of this and other substantive proposals. 
Let's start by setting up a vote on his amendment and an amendment from 
my Democratic colleagues--an amendment of their choosing, not mine, 
with their consent. With their consent, we can start the debate and 
have the first two amendment votes.
  Mr. President, consistent with that, I ask unanimous consent that at 
2:15 p.m. today, the motion to proceed to H.R. 2579 be agreed to. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Toomey, or his designee, be recognized 
to offer amendment No. 1948 and that the Democratic leader, or his 
designee, be recognized to offer an amendment; further, that the time 
until 3:30 p.m. be equally divided between the leaders or their 
designees and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the 
Senate vote on the amendments in the order listed, with 60 affirmative 
votes required for adoption, and that no second-degree amendments be in 
order prior to the votes; finally, that if any of the amendments are 
adopted, they become original text for the purpose of further 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I 
appreciate the process the majority leader agreed to this week, but the 
proposal he just offered does not address the underlying issues of this 
debate and why we are here. It does not address Dreamers, nor does it 
address border security.
  As I said this morning, the Senate must focus on finding a bipartisan 
solution that addresses those two issues--Dreamers and border security. 
Rather than the partisan proposal offered by the Republican leader, I 
suggest we consider two proposals inside the scope of the debate, one 
for each side. Let the Republicans offer the President's plan, in the 
form of legislation carried by the Senators from Iowa and Arkansas, 
which the leader supports, and the Democrats will offer the bipartisan 
Coons-McCain bill--narrow legislation that protects the Dreamers, 
boosts border security, and adds resources for immigration courts.
  Each is the opening foray--one for Democrats, one for Republicans--
and can start the process and let us know where we stand. Our 
legislation is ready to go, and we would be happy to vote as soon as 
the Republicans have their proposal drafted and ready for an amendment 
vote.
  To begin this debate as the Republican leader suggests would be 
getting off on the wrong foot--unrelated to DACA and very partisan. 
Respectfully, I suggest we move to the bills offered by Senator 
Grassley and Senator Coons instead. Let's get this debate started on 
the right foot.
  So I object to the leader's request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from South Dakota.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, when we set out to do tax reform, we had 
two big goals we wanted to achieve for the American people.
  First, we wanted to provide them with immediate relief on their tax 
bills, which we did, by lowering tax rates across the board, doubling 
the child tax credit, and nearly doubling the standard deduction. 
Thanks to lower rates and the new withholding tables, Americans across 
the Nation will start seeing bigger paychecks this month. Yet our 
objective went beyond tax cuts, as important as that relief is to the 
American people.
  We wanted to create an economy that would produce the jobs and 
opportunities that would provide Americans with security and prosperity 
for the long term. Before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code was 
not helping to create that kind of an economy. In fact, it was working 
against it. Businesses, large and small, were weighed down by high tax 
rates and growth-killing tax provisions and all of the regulatory and 
compliance burdens that went along with them, and our outdated 
international tax rules left America's global businesses at a 
competitive disadvantage in the global economy. That had real 
consequences for American workers.
  A small business owner who struggled to afford the annual tax bill 
for her business was highly unlikely to be able to hire a new worker or 
to raise wages. A larger business that struggled to stay competitive in 
the global marketplace, while having paid substantially higher tax 
rates than its foreign competitors, too often had limited funds to 
expand or increase investment in the United States.
  So, when it came time for tax reform, we set out to reform the 
business side of the Tax Code to benefit American workers. We knew that 
for American workers to have access to good jobs and opportunities, the 
American economy had to thrive, and that meant American businesses had 
to thrive, so we took action to lessen the challenges that faced 
American businesses.
  We lowered tax rates across the board for the owners of small- and 
medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. We expanded the ability of 
business owners to recover the investments they make in their 
businesses, which will free up cash that they can reinvest in their 
operations and their workers. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate 
tax rate, which, up until January 1, was the highest corporate tax rate 
in the developed world. We also brought the U.S. international tax 
system into the 21st century by replacing our outdated worldwide system 
with a modernized territorial tax system so American businesses would 
not be operating at a disadvantage next to their foreign competitors.
  The goal in all of this was to free up businesses to increase 
investments in the U.S. economy, to hire new workers, and to increase 
wages and benefits. I am happy to report that is exactly what they are 
doing. Even though tax reform has been the law of the land for less 
than 2 months, businesses are already announcing new investment, new 
jobs, better wages, and better benefits for workers.
  Tech giant Apple announced that thanks to tax reform, it will bring 
home almost $250 billion in cash, which it has been keeping overseas, 
and invest it in the United States. It also announced it will create 
20,000 new jobs. Fiat Chrysler announced it will be adding 2,500 jobs 
at a Michigan factory in order to produce the pickups it had been 
making in Mexico. Nexus Services is hiring 200 more workers. JPMorgan 
Chase is adding 4,000 new jobs and opening 400 new branches. Boeing is 
investing an additional $100 million in infrastructure and facilities 
and an additional $100 million in workforce development. Regions 
Financial Corporation is investing an additional $100 million in 
capital expenditures. FedEx is investing $1.5 billion to expand its 
FedEx Express hub in Indianapolis. ExxonMobil is investing an 
additional $35 billion in the U.S. economy over the next 5 years--and 
on and on.
  We are starting to see similar results, not just from larger and 
medium-sized companies but from smaller companies too. For example, 
Jones Auto and Towing in Riverview, FL, is putting two new tow trucks 
into service,

[[Page S895]]

which means new jobs for local workers.
  There are all of the companies that are boosting their base wages: 
Bank of Hawaii; Charter Communications, Incorporated; Berkshire Hills 
Bancorp; Rod's Harvest Foods in St. Ignatius, MT; Walmart; Cigna 
Corporation; Great Western Bancorp in my home State of South Dakota; 
Webster Financial Corporation; Capital One; Humana. The list keeps 
going and going and going.
  Then there are the companies that are increasing their 401(k) 
matches, boosting wages, creating or expanding parental leave benefits, 
and improving health benefits.
  Tax reform is already working for American workers, and as the 
benefits of tax reform accrue, we can expect more jobs, more benefits, 
higher wages, and more opportunities for American workers in the 
future. That is what tax reform was designed to do--to unleash the 
entrepreneurial spirit in this country and provide incentives for 
American businesses to expand and grow their businesses. In doing that, 
they will create those better paying jobs, those higher wages, and a 
better standard of living for American workers and American families. 
It is having the desired effect, and we are seeing it every single day 
in this country.
  This is not only a short-term thing; this will have a long-term 
effect and be a change that will be good for the American economy and 
American workers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, about 20 minutes ago, our majority 
leader, Senator McConnell, tried to move debate along on an immigration 
bill, and I am puzzled that our minority leader, Senator Schumer, 
objected. The reason I am puzzled is, for a long period of time--maybe 
10 years--some of the Senators on the other side of the aisle and even 
some Senators on our side of the aisle have been advocating for giving 
certainty to the young people who have been brought here by their 
parents whom we call either Dreamers or DACA people. They have been 
advocating for giving them legalization.
  The majority leader, 2 weeks ago, promised the minority an 
opportunity to have a debate on that issue--the first debate on 
immigration since 2013, I believe. The majority leader, today, tried to 
carry out that promise and get this bill moving, and we had this 
objection. It is very puzzling.
  I think it is legitimate to ask the minority leader, in his objecting 
to a unanimous consent agreement, why the objection is coming with 
regard to the very debate that he has, on his side of the aisle, been 
demanding of the majority for a long period of time. Hasn't the 
minority leader and the entire Democratic Party been asking for this 
debate? Yes, they have been.
  Leader McConnell has honored his commitment and allowed us to have an 
open, fair immigration debate this week. The key words are an 
``immigration debate,'' not a DACA-only debate, not an amnesty-only 
debate but an immigration debate. An immigration debate has to include 
a discussion about enforcement measures. An immigration debate has to 
include a discussion about how to remove dangerous criminal aliens from 
our country. A real immigration debate has to include discussions about 
how to protect the American people.
  The leader has asked unanimous consent to allow us to start debating 
these issues, and the Democrats are refusing. Puzzling, I say it is, 
because they have been the ones to demand this debate. Why don't they 
want to debate things like sanctuary cities, as one example, which was 
asked for? Are they unprepared to discuss the vital public safety 
issues or is it more likely they are worried that some bills on 
enforcement on this side of the aisle could actually pass? Maybe that 
is the case, but it is no reason not to allow this body to start debate 
on this very important issue.
  The American people deserve a real immigration debate about the four 
pillars we agreed to at the White House and not just a debate about the 
Democrats' preferred policy preferences. Yes, DACA is an important part 
of that discussion, but it is only one part. If the Democrats are 
insisting that we debate their preferred policies only, that is not a 
real debate at all.
  We have filed an amendment that takes into consideration the four 
pillars that were agreed to at a bicameral, bipartisan meeting at the 
White House, with the President presiding on January 9. Those four 
pillars include: legalization and a path to citizenship, border 
security, the elimination of chain migration, and, fourthly, the 
elimination of the diversity visa lottery. Those all fit in, maybe not 
in detail and exactly the way the President might want it, but they fit 
into the four pillars as to which he said he would sign a piece of 
legislation.
  I suggest to my other 99 colleagues that there is a provision that 
can pass the U.S. Senate, pass the House of Representatives, and be 
signed by the President of the United States because he has said he 
agrees with those principles. Other people have bills but not bills 
that can become law based upon what the President will sign or not 
sign.
  Again, I think it is very puzzling that the Democratic leadership 
will not allow this debate to go forward, for it is something they have 
been asking for. More importantly, maybe it is quite the surprise that 
the majority leader would allow this debate to move forward, but that 
is how a consensus was met about 2 weeks ago on the issue of opening up 
government and having this debate and moving forward to a budget 
agreement. Those things have been done. Now the leader is carrying out 
his promise. I hope the other side will agree to move ahead.

                          ____________________