[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2242-S2243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Tax Reform
Finally, Mr. President, I would like to speak again about tax day,
which, of course, was yesterday. I know so many Texans are saying:
Thank goodness it is over.
We heard a collective groan across the country as people jumbled
together all the paperwork and mailed their returns or delivered them
to the IRS.
The good news is that the worst is behind us. As the majority leader
wrote recently, there is ``a silver lining--simply put, it is `out with
the old and in with the new.' ''
Yesterday is the last time American families will have to file under
the unfair, convoluted, and outdated Tax Code that Congress and the
President got rid of a few months ago.
Unfortunately, none of our Democratic colleagues supported the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act--none. All of them voted no in lockstep. Every single
Democrat in the House and every single Democrat in the Senate voted to
block tax cuts for working families. They voted against doubling the
standard deduction. They voted against doubling the child tax credit.
They voted to maintain the U.S. corporate rate as the highest business
tax rate in the industrialized world--all to our detriment and all to
contribute to slow economic growth and a lack of hope for so many
people looking for work and hoping to pursue their dreams.
Well, some of our colleagues yesterday met on the stairs out in front
on the Capitol, and they said that not only did they vote no when it
came to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but now they want to repeal those
tax cuts. That is right. They came together unanimously and said: We
want to raise your taxes, killing the nascent economic recovery we have
seen, which has gotten people so excited and has caused consumer
confidence to be at an all-time high.
We have seen what has happened to the stock market and to people's
401(k)s, pensions, and retirement savings. People have a spring in
their step once more when it comes to their job prospects and bringing
home more take-home pay.
Our colleagues across the aisle voted against a $2,000 tax cut for a
family of four making $73,000. They simply have ignored the fact that
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the standard deduction, making sure
that for a married couple, their first $24,000 of income earned was tax
free. They ignored the fact that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the
child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000, allowing many more parents to
claim it and helping working families.
Our Democratic colleagues who voted no ignore the fact that the law
eliminates the individual mandate tax, which disproportionately hits
low-income families. Worst of all, our colleagues who insist on voting
no to
[[Page S2243]]
these reforms seem so driven by ideology and by a devotion to big
government that they aren't actually listening to the American people.
Well, I have listened to my constituents, and every time I do, I
learn something new. Every week I hear from Texans who explain how they
are putting the new savings from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to good use.
One retired and disabled soldier named William Alderman says he lives
on a fixed income and has seen it go up under the changes made to the
Tax Code. He said he thinks the law will have ``lasting impact,'' and
he said ``thank you.'' He said: ``God bless Texas and America.''
Another Texan, a retired Air Force colonel from Brownsville named
David Teigen said the benefits sure felt like a lot more than just
``crumbs'' to him.
A third, Donnie Connell, from San Antonio, my hometown, said the tax
law will result in close to $4,000 worth of savings this year. Donnie
is trying to make a better life for his family, and he called the
reforms a ``HUGE DEAL.'' When he said ``HUGE DEAL,'' it was in all
caps, I might add.
Our Democratic colleagues are so quick to dismiss or ignore normal,
hard-working people like Donnie with the same old tired talking points
and ideology because doing so is easier than actually doing the hard
work of coming together on a bipartisan basis and passing legislation.
When they do this, they like to talk about corporations. According to
their rationale, the 505 companies that have announced pay raises,
bonuses, 401(k) match increases, cuts to utility rates, and other
benefits aren't really helping the average worker; they are just
somehow lining their own pockets. They seem to ignore that our old Tax
Code ranked among the highest in the developed world and was an
impediment to investment and the return of money earned abroad here to
create new jobs and to build companies here so people could work and
provide for their families and pursue their dreams. Instead, they say
that stock buybacks, for example, which some companies have opted for,
in part, reward corporate executives and well-off shareholders rather
than workers.
The Senator from New York, the minority leader, has made those
comments a number of times, which reflects a basic misunderstanding.
Our colleague from Massachusetts has said that buybacks ``create a
sugar high for corporations.'' But none other than Warren Buffett--one
of the most famous investors in the world and a Democrat--disagrees. He
and others understand that it is oftentimes irresponsible for companies
to sit on large amounts of cash. They need to put it to work for their
shareholders, grow the business, improve stock values.
If companies buy back stock, shareholders can then go and invest the
money in another company that might have had something better to do
with it, a company that has something greater to build or innovate and
needs money to get the project off the ground. As one economist said,
when it comes to buybacks, the money ``doesn't go into a black hole. It
goes into a financial market somewhere . . . [and then] a chain of
events'' leads to higher wages and higher productivity.
So as we hear and continue to spread the true stories about tax
reform, let's remember men and women like Donnie Connell for whom the
savings are literally a huge deal, and let's ignore the delusional,
ideological arguments that have already been disproved. Let's keep
finding ways to make the economy stronger and more dynamic, one
characterized by more jobs, higher wages, and falling unemployment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Muniz
nomination occur at 4:30 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my
colleagues to vote against the nomination of Carlos Muniz to be the
Department of Education's general counsel.
The Department of Education's primary responsibility is to help
schools educate our students and prepare them to be successful in life.
A good education can open doors of opportunity for children who may not
have thought that their dreams were possible, and a good education can
lift millions of families out of poverty and into the middle class.
That is certainly what a good education did for me and for my family.
As many working families are struggling today, we should be working
to make sure every child can attend a good public school in their own
neighborhood. We need to do more to ensure that every student who wants
to attend college can afford it, graduate, and find a good-paying job
and is not saddled with a mountain of debt. It is critical that every
student, no matter what age, learn in a safe environment, free from
discrimination, harassment, and violence.
This should be at the core of our Nation--that everyone has the right
to a high-quality education, no matter where they live or how they
learn or how much money their parents make.
As general counsel to the Department of Education, Mr. Muniz would be
responsible for providing legal advice and assistance to Secretary
DeVos. Her first year in office has shown how much she needs it.
Secretary DeVos continues to push her extreme privatization agenda
even though millions of students, parents, and teachers have stood up
and rejected it.
Despite bipartisan agreement in Congress on our Nation's K-12 law,
the Every Student Succeeds Act, Secretary DeVos is approving State
plans that do not comply with all of ESSA's guardrails--guardrails that
were agreed to by Republicans and Democrats in Congress to help ensure
that no student falls through the cracks.
Secretary DeVos has rolled back protections for students and student
loan borrowers, making it easier for predatory, for-profit colleges to
take advantage of students.
Time and again, she has failed to uphold civil rights protections for
students. She has tried to scale back the Office for Civil Rights,
opened the doors for schools to once again discriminate against
transgender students, and rolled back guidance for schools on how to
investigate campus sexual assault. Especially in this moment when more
and more women are coming forward and sharing their stories of
harassment and assault, there is no excuse for those in power to
attempt to sweep their stories under the rug. By rolling back this
guidance, Secretary DeVos allowed schools to put the burden back on
survivors. By making it harder for them to trust they will be believed,
I am concerned that fewer women will come forward.
Mr. President, it is clear that Secretary DeVos needs an independent
general counsel who will stand up to her when laws are being bent or
broken. I am afraid Mr. Muniz has failed to convince me that is the
kind of general counsel he would be.
He worked for a for-profit college company that preyed upon students
and cheated them out of their education and their savings. He has a
record of putting politics before students. He worked for the Florida
attorney general, who came under fire for accepting a political
donation from President Trump at the very time she decided against
investigating Trump University--a sham university that defrauded
countless students by promising them everything and leaving them with
nothing.
Although Mr. Muniz and the Florida attorney general didn't stand up
for students who were misled and defrauded by President Trump, many
other States sued. Just last week--8 years after Trump University
closed its doors--the $25 million settlement the President agreed to
pay to his victims was finalized, meaning some of those cheated by the
President will now start seeing relief. However, Mr. Muniz's
involvement in the Trump University case gives me great concern that at
the Department of Education, he will once again not stand up for
student loan borrowers defrauded by other predatory for-profit
colleges.
I am afraid Mr. Muniz at the Department of Education will only be
more of the same. For those reasons, I will be voting against his
nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.