[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 59 (Thursday, April 4, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2247-S2249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Tax Reform

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, under President Obama, our economy 
languished. Recovery from the recession was historically slow and 
economic growth for his last year in office was an anemic 1.6 percent. 
Of course, all of that meant reduced economic prospects for American 
families. Wages were stagnant, and jobs and opportunities were often 
few and far between. Republicans knew that if we wanted to improve life 
for American families, we needed to get our economy going again.
  As soon as we took office in 2017, we got right to work. We knew the 
biggest thing we had to do was overhaul our outdated Tax Code, which 
was acting as a major drag on economic growth. The Tax Code has a huge 
effect on economic growth and the kinds of jobs, wages, and 
opportunities available to American workers.
  A small business owner struggling to afford a heavy tax bill is 
unlikely to have the money to hire a new worker or expand her business. 
A larger business is going to find it hard to create jobs or improve 
benefits for employees if it is struggling to stay competitive against 
foreign businesses paying much less in taxes.
  Prior to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code was 
not helping American workers. It was taking too much money from 
Americans' paychecks. It was making it difficult for businesses to grow 
and create jobs. So we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to put more 
money in Americans' pockets, to spur economic growth, and expand 
opportunities for American workers. We cut tax rates for American 
families, doubled the child tax credit, and nearly doubled the standard 
deduction.
  We lowered tax rates across the board for owners of small- and 
medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. We lowered our Nation's 
massive corporate tax rate, which up until January 1 of last year was 
the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.
  We expanded business owners' ability to recover the cost of 
investments that they make in their businesses, which frees up cash 
that they can reinvest in their operations and in their workers, and we 
brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century so 
American businesses are not operating at a competitive disadvantage 
next to their foreign counterparts.
  I am proud to report that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is doing exactly 
what it was supposed to do. It is growing our economy. It is creating 
jobs, and it is expanding benefits and opportunities for American 
workers. Economic growth from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth 
quarter of 2018 was a strong 3 percent. The unemployment rate dropped 
to 3.8 percent in February, the 12th straight month that unemployment 
has been at or below 4 percent. That is the longest streak in nearly 50 
years.
  The Department of Labor reports that the number of job openings has 
exceeded the number of job seekers for 11 straight months. The economy 
has added more than 5.3 million jobs since President Trump was elected. 
Job growth has averaged 209,000 jobs a month over the past 12 months, 
exceeding the 2017 average by 30,000 jobs a month.
  Wage growth has accelerated. Wages are growing at a rate of 3.4 
percent, the seventh straight month in which wages have grown at a rate 
of 3 percent or greater. Median household income is at an alltime high. 
Business investment is up, which means more jobs and opportunities for 
American workers. U.S. manufacturing is booming; small business hiring 
recently hit a record high; and the list goes on.
  So what is the Democrats' response to tax reform success--continue or 
expand the policies that have made life better for American families? 
Well, the answer is no. Instead, Democrats are proposing policies that 
would result in massive tax hikes on just about every American.
  Consider Democrats' Medicare for All proposal, which would strip 
Americans of their private health insurance. The pricetag for this 
program is estimated at $32 trillion over 10 years. To put that number 
in perspective, the entire Federal budget for 2019 is less than $5 
trillion. Democrats are talking about increasing Federal spending by 
more than 70 percent. One Medicare expert estimates that doubling the 
amount of individual and corporate income tax collected in this country 
would not be enough to cover the cost of Medicare for All. I don't know 
about my Democratic colleagues, but I don't know too many working 
families who would be able to afford to have their tax bill double.
  While $32 trillion is an insane pricetag, it is dwarfed by the 
pricetag for Democrat's comprehensive, socialist fantasy, the Green New 
Deal. An initial estimate suggests that the Green New Deal would cost 
$93 trillion over 10 years--$93 trillion. That is more money than the 
2017 gross domestic product for the entire world. It is more money than 
the U.S. government has spent in its entire history.
  Democrats like to talk about taxing the rich to pay for various 
initiatives, but the fact is, there aren't enough rich people in 
America to even come close to paying for the Green New Deal, even if 
you taxed every one of these people at a rate of 100 percent.
  Democrats' socialist fantasies would be paid for on the backs of 
working families. Families would face huge tax hikes that would 
permanently lower their standard of living, but that is not all. 
Families would also see a steep decline in the jobs and opportunities 
available to them. Tax reform has enabled and encouraged businesses to 
invest in and grow, which is resulting in better wages and benefits and 
increased opportunities for American workers. None of the growth we are 
seeing from businesses would last under the tax hikes businesses would 
face to pay for Democrats' socialist fantasies. Instead of thinking 
about expanding, companies would be thinking about how they could 
shrink their workforces or move jobs and investments overseas. Instead 
of raising wages or improving benefits, companies would be avoiding 
wage hikes and looking to trim their benefit packages.
  Under Democrats' socialist fantasies, American families would face a 
double economic blow: huge tax hikes, fewer jobs, lower wages, and 
reduced economic opportunity.
  There is no one in Congress who doesn't want to make life better for 
American families. Socialism and the massive tax hikes it would bring 
is not the answer. Socialism would reduce opportunities for Americans, 
not expand them; it would decrease Americans' standard of living, not 
improve it; and it would rob Americans of their choices and many of 
their freedoms.
  Republicans will continue to fight to expand economic opportunity for 
American families, and we will do everything we can to ensure that 
hard-working Americans never have to live under the miserable reality 
of Democrats' socialist fantasies.
  I yield the floor.


                  Recognition of the Minority Leader.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 268

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, rather than spend time yesterday on a 
terribly destructive rules change, Leader McConnell could have focused 
the Senate on an urgent matter that this Chamber has failed to act on: 
disaster relief.
  In a few moments, Senator Leahy and I will ask unanimous consent to 
have a vote on a new version of the emergency disaster relief that 
couldn't get through the Senate earlier this week. Our new amendment 
offers this Chamber a path forward from this week's impasse. It is a 
plan that meets everyone's needs. It doesn't say only aid this or only 
aid that; it recognizes

[[Page S2248]]

all American citizens deserve to be helped when disaster strikes.
  The amendment Senator Leahy and I will offer provides $16.7 billion 
in relief for Americans struck by natural disasters last year and in 
the last 2 years. It includes $2.5 billion in new funding--funding that 
the bill from the Republican side that failed, offered by Senators 
Shelby and Perdue, did not have--$2.5 billion in new funding for the 
recent flooding in Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri. We all agree these 
communities need assistance now. This amendment also crucially includes 
aid for our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico and other territories. It 
doesn't say to pick one or to pick the other. It says to do both.

  All of us in this Chamber should agree that we must do something now 
to help all Americans in need. This amendment offers our Republican 
friends--those who have said we need aid in the Middle West--the 
opportunity to do just that. So, if this Chamber wants to help families 
in Nebraska, in Iowa, in Missouri and if we want to help the families 
of Texas and of Florida, this amendment is the path forward. It is the 
key to moving forward. This is the solution that has the ability to 
pass the House. This is the option that has enough support to reach the 
President's desk. The Speaker of the House has said the original 
Republican bill wouldn't even have been put on the floor. This bill 
will.
  Now, some will say and, I know, my dear friend from Alabama--and he 
is my good friend--will say that the President will not sign this. 
Well, I have something else to say. If my colleagues on the other side 
pass this measure, the President will dare not veto it. That is my 
prediction. We all know the President has huffed and puffed about 
vetoing bills in the past. He has said he would veto ``this,'' and he 
has said he would veto ``that.'' Yet, in most instances, when the 
Republicans in the Senate have stood up, he has caved. In this case in 
particular, he will not want to veto legislation that helps Nebraska 
and Iowa and Missouri and Texas and Florida. So let's not play this 
game.
  We all know what happened. There was a bipartisan agreement. 
President Trump went to the Republican lunch and said: No aid for 
Puerto Rico. That is why we are in this mess, but we can change that. 
It is time to call the President's bluff. Elections have consequences. 
There is a Democratic House. The time has come for the Republicans of 
this Chamber and for the Republicans in the House to have a frank 
conversation with the President about what can and cannot pass the 
Congress.
  If the President cares about farmers in Iowa and Texas and Missouri 
and all American citizens who have been affected by natural disasters, 
he will not veto this bill. We know that. The measure we are presenting 
today isn't some solution that has been cooked up out of left field; it 
is a simple proposal. We need disaster relief for all Americans, plain 
and simple.
  Senators Leahy and Shelby worked in good faith earlier this year, as 
they always do, and I appreciate the great relationship our 
Appropriations Committee chair and ranking member--vice chair--have. It 
would have worked had the President not gone to that lunch. Who knows 
why, where, or when he pounded the table and said: No aid to Puerto 
Rico. He said that, OK? The only problem is when we are at the brink of 
a compromise, all too often, President Trump torpedoes things, and then 
the Republicans act powerless. They don't act.
  If Leader McConnell and the Senate Republicans will not support this 
measure--a measure that notes the needs of all affected Americans--then 
what is their plan that can pass the House and pass the Senate and go 
to the President's desk?
  If this measure just had aid to Puerto Rico and not to the Middle 
West, the President might veto it, but he is not going to veto a bill 
that gives aid to the Middle West nor should he.
  So, if an ``all of the above'' solution will not work, what on Earth 
will?
  So far, the answer from this Chamber on the other side seems to be 
nothing--none of the above. That doesn't make sense. This is an 
emergency. People are suffering. People can't get back into their 
homes. Small businesses need help starting up again. This is not the 
time to duck, to look for cover, to know when the President has done 
something sort of wrongly and seemingly on a whim to just bow to what 
he says. We should agree on the need to do something now to help 
communities that are recovering from natural disasters. Our amendment 
offers the Republicans the opportunity to do just that.
  Nobody--no Member of this body--should pick and choose which American 
citizens get help in times of crises. It is a profound shame that my 
colleagues on the other side, thus far, have allowed the President to 
derail this process and have gone along with appeasing him. I say the 
power of this Chamber is greater than they realize. If we vote on this 
package and if it passes the Senate and if it passes the House and 
reaches the President's desk, the President will sign it. He will not 
follow through on a veto threat even if he knows that doing so will be 
a profound betrayal of his promise to look after the well-being of all 
Americans.
  I urge the Senators to support our amendment today that gives aid to 
the Middle West, to the South--those from Florida to Texas--and to the 
people of Puerto Rico.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as in legislative 
session, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 268; that all pending 
amendments be withdrawn; that Leahy amendment No. 246 be agreed to; 
that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that 
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, these unanimous consent requests are 
political and, I believe, are not productive at the moment. We know 
that for two reasons.
  First, earlier this week, my Democratic colleagues rejected a 
disaster assistance package that contained assistance for the Midwest. 
Instead, they supported a different version that did nothing for folks 
in Iowa, in Nebraska, and in other States who have been the victims of 
catastrophic flooding. In fact, if the Democrats had gotten their way 
the other night, their bill would have gone straight to the President's 
desk.
  That brings me to the second reason these procedural requests are 
empty gestures. My Democratic colleagues know that the measure they 
raise today does not have the President's support, not unlike the bill 
they supported earlier this week. Those measures cannot secure the 
President's signature.
  My Democratic colleagues have regrouped today and have decided to 
provide assistance to the folks in the Midwest--the same folks they 
left stranded earlier in the week. Yet they are willing to help the 
Midwest only if Puerto Rico gets billions more in Federal assistance--
billions more they cannot justify right now.
  Look, we all want to help the people of Puerto Rico, and I know the 
Presiding Officer has been deeply involved in this. Congress, in its 
recognition of those needs, has already committed significant resources 
to the island. In fact, Puerto Rico is eligible for more than $90 
billion in funding from the previous supplemental.
  For example, FEMA estimates that Puerto Rico will be eligible to 
receive more than $60 billion from the Disaster Relief Fund as a result 
of the 2017 storms; yet Puerto Rico has only spent approximately $10 
billion of this amount thus far.
  Another example is Congress has approved $20 billion in Community 
Development Block Grant--or CDBG--funding for Puerto Rico--$20 billion.
  In February 2018, the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
allocated $1.5 billion of this amount to the island; yet more than a 
year later, it has spent only $42,000 out of the $1.5 billion 
allocation. Still, HUD allocated another $8.2 billion just over a month 
ago. In addition, Puerto Rico has been granted an enormous amount of 
flexibility to expend these resources.
  FEMA used its administrative authority to extend the 100-percent 
Federal cost share for emergency work in Puerto Rico longer than it has 
for any

[[Page S2249]]

other disaster in more than 10 years, and not once has FEMA denied 
Puerto Rico access to funding on the basis of its ability to provide 
its own share of the costs when required. More importantly, even if 
cost share were an issue, which I don't believe it is, Puerto Rico 
could use its ample CDBG funding to meet any cost share requirement.
  However, it does not appear that access to resources for cost share 
is actually an issue in Puerto Rico. According to the Treasury 
Department, Puerto Rico has billions of dollars in unrestricted cash on 
hand. In fact, the Treasury Department reports it has $5.6 billion in 
unrestricted cash, to be precise. What is more, the land of Puerto Rico 
continues to collect tens--if not hundreds--of millions of dollars a 
month because revenues are exceeding costs on the island, which only 
adds to that $5.6 billion balance.
  Despite all of these resources, we have agreed that the Government of 
Puerto Rico needs additional funding for nutrition assistance. My 
Democratic colleagues have been in the forefront. The question is, Why? 
It is that this money is actually being spent. In fact, it is running 
out. So not only did my Democratic colleagues leave folks in the 
Midwest behind when they rejected the Shelby amendment earlier this 
week, but they also passed up an opportunity to help the people of 
Puerto Rico immediately.
  Where do we go from here?
  I think we need to find areas of agreement, which we have before in 
my working with Senator Leahy, Senator Schumer, and Senator McConnell. 
I am pleased that my Democratic colleagues have discovered a newfound 
concern for the people in the Midwest. We want to stay on that too. It 
is promising that we not only agree on that but also that we should 
provide funding for nutrition assistance for the people of Puerto Rico 
now. Yet, when it comes to additional funding beyond nutrition 
assistance for Puerto Rico, I believe that our constituents--the 
American taxpayers--deserve a detailed explanation of exactly why 
existing funding is insufficient and why the resources that we have 
provided have not been spent.
  How do we know Puerto Rico needs more when it hasn't come close to 
spending what we have already provided it? Communities, meanwhile, that 
experienced disasters in 2018 are truly suffering because Congress has 
provided them with nothing.
  Unless my Democratic colleagues can demonstrate this urgency, I 
believe they should stop holding hostage those who are suffering in the 
Midwest and those who have been impacted by disasters all over the 
United States. These people are in urgent need of funding so they can 
begin the rebuilding process, and many of them have been waiting for 
months and months for relief.
  I hope we can come together and work this out in a deliberate and 
fact-based manner. Until then, I will continue to object to these 
haphazard unanimous consent requests that will get us nowhere.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 
minutes regarding the Schumer-Leahy amendment. I realize this will put 
off the time slightly for the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am sorry that the Republicans objected to 
the earlier legislation we brought up, which would have helped the 
Midwest. It had money in it. Of course, we are not, by any means, 
asking for billions more for Puerto Rico in this amendment. In total, 
this amendment would add $3.2 billion, of which only $462 million is 
for Puerto Rico. The rest is for the Midwest floods, Alabama tornado, 
Florida, California, Georgia and other states.
  I think it is unfortunate we have reached an impasse on the emergency 
disaster supplemental appropriations bill.
  For months, I urged Senate Republican leadership to take up and pass 
H.R. 268. For nearly 3 months, it wouldn't. During those 3 months, 
American communities suffered, and new disasters struck the Midwest and 
the Southeast. The new criticism from the Republican leadership was, 
with the Democrats' pushing for more comprehensive aid to Puerto Rico 
in H.R. 268, that they must not care about the American communities 
that have been affected by more recent disasters.
  But I would remind the Chamber that it was the Republican leadership 
that rejected my amendment to H.R. 268 that would have accommodated all 
of these other communities.
  I would also remind the Chamber that the Trump administration has not 
asked for one dime for Hurricanes Michael and Florence, the Alabama 
tornadoes, or the Midwest flooding. To the Trump administration, it is 
as though they never happened.
  I have always stood with victims of disaster around this country. 
When my own State of Vermont was devastated by Tropical Storm Irene, 
Members of this body came to me, not as Republicans or Democrats but as 
concerned American citizens looking to help, just as I always have, 
whatever State it might be. Red State, blue State, or purple State, I 
have always voted to support them, and today this Vermonter is here to 
stand with all the American communities affected by recent natural 
disasters.
  I have not given up on finding a path forward. Today Leader Schumer 
and I offered a substitute that would provide $2.5 billion in new 
funding to address the needs of communities affected by the 2019 
disasters, such as flooding in the Midwest and tornadoes in Alabama. It 
would also accommodate the needs of the American citizens--remember 
that they are Americans--in Puerto Rico and other Territories by 
including increased funding for the community development block grant 
and grants to help rebuild damaged water systems. It also includes 
Medicaid funding for the Northern Mariana Islands and cost match 
waivers for the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
  Finally, it mandates that HUD speed up the release of billions in 
previously appropriated CDBG funding which the Trump administration has 
unnecessarily withheld from disaster-stricken communities in Puerto 
Rico, in Texas, in Louisiana, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, in Florida, 
in South Carolina, in North Carolina, in West Virginia, in California, 
in Missouri, and in Georgia. We want to get help to all of those 
States.
  I am disappointed that once again Senate Republicans have objected to 
this critical assistance. We are the United States of America. We are 
all Americans. We cannot pick and choose which American citizens to 
help in times of crisis.
  Frankly, I was offended when the White House referred to Puerto Rico 
as ``that country'' that ``only takes from the U.S.A.'' I would remind 
the White House to look at a history book. Puerto Rico is part of the 
U.S.A. These are our fellow American citizens. We in the Senate must be 
better than that. We must stand with all American citizens in times of 
crisis.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________