[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15368-15373]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of 
the Cissna nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Lee 
Francis Cissna, of Maryland, to be Director of United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
  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. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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 Democratic leader is recognized.


                        Las Vegas Mass Shooting

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, the Nation continues to reel from 
the awful events of Sunday night in Las Vegas--the most deadly mass 
shooting in modern American history. It has gotten even deadlier in the 
last 24 hours, with 59 dead and 527 injured--some wounded by gunfire, 
some injured because they were trampled in the chaos. There were 22,000 
concertgoers who fled for their lives from the scene. The police found 
23 guns in the hotel room of the monster who committed this atrocity 
and 19 more at his home. Some of them had been modified to cause even 
more carnage.
  Of course, as always, the beauty of the American people and the first 
responders pulled through. I saw on TV today a man who had been shot. 
Two young women came and risked their lives while those shots were 
going. They took off his belt and tied a tourniquet around his upper 
thigh because he was bleeding profusely from his leg. They saved his 
life. He said he will never know who they are, but they saved his life. 
That story, I am sure, will be repeated over and over again. The valor, 
the bravery of the average American and the greatness of our first 
responders is the only counterpoint to the evil, the carnage, the 
horror we have all witnessed.
  We cannot banish evil or madness from the Earth, but we sure can do 
what we can in our power to make our country a safer place. We need 
commonsense reforms, and these reforms have broad public support.
  In the face of tens of thousands of gun deaths every year, too many 
Republicans in Congress have tried to enact the dream agenda of the NRA 
and the gun lobby. They have pursued a national concealed carry law. 
Can you imagine if that were to have passed? This horrible man could 
have concealed carry under the laws of Nevada and gone to Times Square 
in New York City or to Walt Disney World in Florida and just shot away.
  Most of our police organizations are against this concealed carry 
bill. In light of the carnage, in knowing of the evil that exists, with 
the power of evil magnified by guns and automatic weapons, how can we 
try to pursue it?
  What about gun silencers? There is a move actually in this Congress--
it is in the House right now, and I am sure it has support on the other 
side of the aisle in the Senate--to make it easier for citizens to 
acquire silencers. Why? Let me tell you something. One of the few ways 
the police had to go after the shooter was trying to hear the sound of 
where the guns were coming from.
  Thank God our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have pulled 
back on this bill. It is not the first time. They had to postpone a 
hearing on the bill when the congressional baseball team was attacked 
during an early morning practice. When two mass shootings force you to 
delay a bill that would make those mass shootings harder to detect and 
stop, maybe it is a sign that you ought to let go of the bill once and 
for all.
  Of course, we have this absurd NRA nostrum that if everyone were to 
have a gun, we would all be safe because if people were in an arena--a 
place--where someone was shooting, they could shoot them back. They 
sure could not have shot back at someone who was 32 stories up in a 
hotel. This idea that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun 
is a good guy with a gun is absurd in this situation. It is absurd in 
many situations.
  So where do we go from here?
  This place has been gridlocked on the issue of gun control for a 
while. President Trump, before he ran for office, was for certain sane, 
rational, limited aspects of gun control. After Sandy, he called for 
the gun laws to be tightened. I know when he ran, that the power of the 
NRA, the money of the NRA, and the narrow special interest of the NRA 
lobbyists here were just the swamp he decried--small groups going 
against the public interest and persuading Congress to do that. Yet 
maybe he can have a bit of a reawakening, in the horror of what 
happened, as he goes to Las Vegas tomorrow.
  Today I am calling on the President to come out against the absurd 
law about silencers--to threaten a veto if he must and put an end to 
that bill. I am also calling on President Trump to bring together the 
leaders of Congress and let both sides know he is ready and willing to 
address head-on this issue of gun safety. He should tell Members of his 
party it is time to work to address this epidemic that costs the lives 
of more than 30,000 Americans a year.
  I am glad the President is going to Las Vegas--that is a good idea--
but he should take it a step further. He should call us together and 
lead this Nation in some rational laws about gun safety that the 
overwhelming majority of Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and 
Independents--support.
  If we truly want to honor our first responders and protect our fellow 
Americans, as we say we do, President Trump should stand up and tell 
the NRA that they are not always right, abandon some of their most 
extreme policies--I would abandon most of them--and come to the table 
and do the work that so many Americans are desperate for Congress to 
do.


          Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Recovery Effort

  Mr. President, on another matter, the crisis in Puerto Rico and the 
U.S. Virgin Islands, today, President Trump will be visiting Puerto 
Rico nearly 2

[[Page 15369]]

weeks after Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico. In my view, 
the lateness of his visit is indicative of his leadership and the 
Federal response to this humanitarian crisis. It has been slow, it 
hasn't been well coordinated or sure-footed, and it has been too late 
in coming.
  President Obama visited Sandy two days after the storms hit. 
President Trump himself was much quicker to visit Texas when Harvey 
hit. Two weeks is too long. It is better than nothing. That is for 
sure. But it is too long. It sends a signal that maybe he believes what 
happened in Puerto Rico is less important than what happened in Texas 
or in Florida.
  In the lead-up to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, President Trump was 
tweeting on an almost daily basis, prevailing on Texans and Floridians 
to stay safe from the storm. That was the right thing to do. But when 
it came to Puerto Rico, there were no tweets or public statements in 
the lead-up to the storm, and it took several days to even mention 
Puerto Rico in his tweets. Even then, he had mostly blame for Puerto 
Rico or pats on the back for his own administration. He kept decrying 
fake news, but he couldn't fool the American people. They saw on TV 
what was happening and the devastation that stayed for so long.
  Let me give a comparison. The President said that, because it is an 
island, it is harder to get to. It is, but when Haiti was struck by a 
massive earthquake in 2010, the United States didn't wait for things to 
get worse. We ramped up military and disaster assistance quickly and 
responded with an overwhelming amount of support. Within 2 days of the 
earthquake in Haiti, 8,000 troops were in route. Within 2 weeks, 22,000 
troops were in route with 300 helicopters assisting relief efforts. 
Even to this moment, the number for Puerto Rico is much smaller. That 
shows that the response has not been good enough. Why was his response 
for Puerto Rico so much less than the response for Haiti?
  So we need a much better response on the ground in Puerto Rico and 
the Virgin Islands. I would say to President Trump, I am glad you are 
going--glad you are going--but this is your chance to make up for what 
has been a plodding start.
  When the President visits Puerto Rico today, he should not get into 
any political fights or blame Puerto Rico for its problems. The 
President needs to figure out what is wrong and what else has to be 
done and marshal the resources of our government and our military to 
fix it. The 3.5 million American citizens in Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands are counting on their President. These are American 
citizens.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. President, returning to the Republican tax plan, over the 
weekend, we heard some pretty absurd claims from Republican legislators 
and Cabinet officials about the tax plan. The President and his top 
advisers are selling this as a middle-class miracle, but every 
independent analyst is saying that the Republican plan focuses on the 
rich to the exclusion of the middle class.
  The GOP tax plan lowers the top rate from 39.6 to 35 percent and 
repeals the estate tax, which affects only the top two-tenths of 1 
percent of the estates in this country, or any estate over $11 million. 
That is not the middle class. It lowers the rate on passthrough 
entities, creating a huge loophole that would allow wealthy hedge fund 
managers, law firms, and lobbyists to pay a rate that is a lot lower. 
According to the Tax Policy Center, the top one-tenth of 1 percent 
would reap 80 percent of the benefits of the GOP plan. The top 0.1 
percent, or folks who make more than $5 million a year, would get a 
break of a million dollars a year. How many Americans believe that 
people who make over $5 million a year should get a $1 million tax 
break? That is what is in the bill right now.
  They are saying that maybe it will change, but why did they put out 
such a shoddy product to begin with? Why didn't they wait and put in 
more details than what is there now? It is not a middle-class tax cut 
by any stretch of the imagination. Those who put together this bill, 
the hard rightwing of the Republican Party, really aren't interested in 
middle-class tax cuts. They are interested in tax cuts for the rich and 
scraps for everyone else. Nothing makes this clearer than their budget 
resolution, and every day this plan comes with a surprise.
  Here is the surprise today, and it is amazing. The Republican budget 
resolution calls for a $450 billion cut in Medicare. Folks, this tax 
bill cuts your Medicare. In the budget bill that outlines the tax bill 
that we are doing this week, the plan calls for a $473 billion cut in 
Medicare and more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid.
  If you are an older American, you are saying: Maybe this tax bill 
will not affect me.
  It sure will. It sure will because, amazingly, to pay for these tax 
cuts for the wealthiest of Americans--the most powerful of Americans--
they cut your Medicare by over $450 billion and cut Medicaid by $1 
trillion.
  Haven't our Republican colleagues learned? When they tried to do a 
similar thing in healthcare--to cut healthcare so they could save money 
and cut taxes on the very wealthy--they had to abandon it. This is 
going to meet a similar problem. It is going to meet the opprobrium of 
the American people--$1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest of 
Americans--and the budget tees up even more cuts to Medicare. If the 
GOP tax plan were to pass, another provision known as statutory pay-go 
would offset the deficit increase automatically with cuts to Medicare 
and many other programs that support our Nation's economy. So not only 
does this bill favor the rich, the very wealthy, but to help finance 
those tax cuts for the wealthy, they are cutting Medicare by one-half 
trillion dollars--close to one-half trillion dollars--and they are 
cutting Medicaid by $1 trillion.
  So this is just like the Republicans' first healthcare bill, but in 
reverse. In the first TrumpCare bill, the Republicans proposed cutting 
back on healthcare to sneak through tax breaks for the rich. Now they 
are proposing massive tax cuts to the rich to sneak through cuts to 
healthcare.
  Wait till America finds out about this bill. It is going to get the 
same cold, horrified reception that the healthcare bill did, and it 
will not pass. The American people will not be fooled. They have seen 
this movie before. The top 1 percent of corporations would win, and 
millions of seniors, the disabled, and working-class Americans would 
lose, and lose a lot.
  The rich are doing great. They don't need a tax break. To compound 
the injury, to say we are going to pay for their big tax break by 
cutting Medicare and Medicaid, that ain't going to fly. Don't even try 
it.
  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. CORNYN. 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.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I mentioned how our colleagues 
across the aisle and, of course, some groups outside of Capitol Hill 
have predictably started attacking tax reform, actually a plan that 
doesn't even yet exist in legislative language. With the fall season 
now upon us, they have decided to shoot arrows at a straw man.
  One would think, given their effusive support for tax reform in the 
past, our Democratic friends would at least wait to review the 
legislation before they pounce on it. I had hoped that they would work 
with us to come up with a bipartisan plan, but I guess I am not 
entirely surprised. That has never stopped them before from pillorying 
smart policy when it served a political end.
  Yes, they are already piling on, spreading misinformation, and 
assuming the worst because that is the easy and politically expedient 
thing to do. The problem is that many of the criticisms of our 
framework have been misleading and counterproductive. Worse,

[[Page 15370]]

some Members seem more content to misconstrue a plan than to understand 
it and give it a fair hearing.
  Allow me to clarify the record for just a moment. What is most 
striking is that the new framework unveiled by the so-called Big 6 
shares many of the core features of previous plans that were widely 
embraced by Democrats--not only that, but many of the folks who are now 
critical of the new plan came out in support of these provisions as 
recently as this year. The senior Senator from Oregon is typical in 
this regard. In response to our framework, he said that ``this is a 
far-right Republican scheme to endow future generations of the mega 
wealthy and leave what amounts to crumbs for the middle-class behind.'' 
That is kind of a breathtaking allegation. Those are indeed strong 
statements, but the American people are smart. The American people 
realize that the plan our colleague from Oregon is criticizing is 
similar to the one he sponsored and promoted in 2011.
  Let's get the facts straight. The Senator from Oregon had previously 
sponsored a plan in 2011 with our former colleague, Senator Coats of 
Indiana, called the Wyden-Coats plan. Here on the left is the Big 6 
framework that he described.
  Let me read that again. He said that ``this is a far-right Republican 
scheme to endow future generations of the mega wealthy and leave what 
amounts to crumbs for the middle-class behind.''
  Well, here is the framework he was criticizing by the language I just 
provided, and here is his plan in 2011. Each of these plans--the Wyden-
Coats plan from 2011 and the one we are considering now--is based on 
three individual tax rates. Both the plan the Senator from Oregon once 
supported and the one we are now discussing, the framework, would 
collapse seven tax brackets in the current system down to three, vastly 
simplifying the Tax Code and the burden of complying with that Tax Code 
by ordinary Americans. Each plan would also eliminate the alternative 
minimum tax. It vastly increases the standard deduction. The Wyden-
Coats plan would have tripled it. The Big 6 framework, which he 
criticized, doubles the standard deduction, making it so that a married 
couple who earn $24,000 or less would be essentially in a zero tax 
bracket.
  So my question is, What has changed, other than the political party 
of the President in office? These changes to our Tax Code used to be 
noncontroversial, and certainly not partisan.
  The Big 6 plan isn't just similar to the Wyden one, though. It also 
shares key features with the so-called Simpson-Bowles plan from 2010, 
which not long ago was embraced by a number of Democrats, including the 
current minority whip, the Senator from Illinois.
  Here is a comparison of the so-called Big 6 framework and the 
Simpson-Bowles plan. As you can see, there are a lot of similarities: 
seven brackets collapsed into three, eliminating the alternative 
minimum tax, and eliminating a number of itemized deductions or so-
called base broadeners. It enhances the child tax credit, and it lowers 
the corporate rate.
  These proposals were once a no-brainer for Republicans and Democrats 
alike. So why the change in tune? Our Democratic colleagues used to 
think these reforms were long overdue. They were right then, and they 
are wrong now.
  None other than the Senate minority leader, our colleague from New 
York, has said: ``To preserve our international competitiveness, it is 
imperative that we seek to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 
percent.'' That was the Senator from New York in 2012. He said: ``This 
will boost growth and encourage more companies to reinvest in the 
United States.''
  He was absolutely correct in 2012. He is entirely wrong now to change 
his view and suggest that this is somehow a wrong way to approach 
getting the economy growing again and encouraging businesses that have 
earned money overseas to bring that money back home and invest it in 
businesses and jobs and pay for American workers here at home.
  We do need to change incentives, and we do need to spur growth. That 
is why the new framework we are considering will create a new tax 
structure for small businesses, allowing them to better compete.
  Once upon a time, none of this was particularly partisan, and many of 
our colleagues across the aisle got the picture. Our colleagues from 
Ohio, Minnesota, and Missouri have all said in recent years that we 
should lower the corporate tax rate, not because we love corporations 
but because we recognize that provides incentives for them to stay here 
and invest in jobs and businesses in America rather than overseas. But 
it also makes it more likely that hard-working Americans will be able 
to find a job and that the jobs they hold will actually pay better 
wages. Thanks to our reduction in individual tax rates, they will 
actually have more take-home pay. As some have pointed out, this 
literally would raise their standard of living and make it possible for 
them to provide for their children's education, maybe buy a reliable 
car so that they can go back and forth to their job every day, maybe 
buy a home, or perhaps save for their retirement.
  There is nothing partisan about wanting an updated and more 
competitive tax code that will incentivize businesses to keep jobs on 
American soil. That is what the so-called reduction in the corporate 
rate will do.
  Right now, we have the highest corporate rate in the world, so many 
businesses have simply picked up their roots here in America and have 
moved overseas to countries that have lower tax rates because they 
simply can't rationalize to their shareholders, to whom they have a 
fiduciary duty, paying higher taxes and remaining in the United States. 
So they take it overseas.
  Even for those who stay behind--because of our extraordinarily high 
tax rate and the fact they literally would have to pay double taxes for 
income earned abroad and brought back to the United States--they pay 
the tax rate in the country where the money is earned, bring it back to 
the United States, and have to pay twice. So they pay 35 percent on top 
of whatever they have to pay in the countries where the money is 
earned.
  Is it any wonder, for example, that IBM--I read this last weekend--
actually has more jobs in India than it does in the United States? Let 
me say that again. IBM, the global computer company, has more jobs in 
India today than it does in the United States. I have no doubt that has 
to do with certain incentives the country will pay to companies to 
invest and to build their business in their country, and, no doubt, it 
has to do with access to skilled labor. That certainly has to be a part 
of it, but there can be no doubt that our Tax Code is simply 
encouraging companies like IBM to shift more of their work overseas. 
Even if they wanted to bring the money they have earned overseas back 
to the United States, they would have to pay twice. So what do they do? 
They simply invest in their workforce, they simply invest in their 
business in another country, much to our detriment.
  If something is broken, which our Tax Code is, it needs to be fixed, 
not avoided. Our Democratic colleagues need to once again acknowledge 
this, as so many of them did when it came to our outdated Tax Code, as 
I pointed out. There is no reason why tax reform can't be bipartisan, 
and if our colleagues just returned to some of their statements, which 
I have highlighted here--if they returned to those policies in a 
bipartisan fashion and worked with us, we could change our Tax Code for 
the better. We could make it simpler. We could make sure individuals 
have lower tax rates so they could have more take-home pay from the 
wages they earn and, in the process, improve their standard of living 
for themselves and their families. Finally, we could become more 
competitive in a global economy where the highest tax rate in the world 
does not serve American interests well. It doesn't serve the interests 
of American businesses well, and it doesn't serve the interests of 
American workers or taxpayers either.
  We can do this. All it takes is political will. All it takes is 
approaching this in a fashion that benefits all

[[Page 15371]]

Americans on a nonpartisan basis. I hope our colleagues will listen.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Las Vegas Mass Shooting

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the aftermath of Las Vegas is a time for 
this Senator to reflect on whether a shooting is like Mateen's, in the 
Orlando nightclub, where he was motivated as a terrorist, and then 
there was the remarkable recovery of Congressman Scalise in the 
attempted killing of Scalise by a shooter who was motivated by 
politics, and then there is the massive massacre in Las Vegas, 
apparently by a shooter who was mentally deranged in some form. The 
fact is, massive amounts of ammunition with high-caliber, rapid-fire 
assault weapons is making this easier for whatever the motivation of 
the shooter is. As a result, you get to the point of, how many more of 
these do we have before you say enough is enough?
  That leads to the subject of politics. When does humanity overtake 
the divisiveness of our politics so we can come together and have a 
commonsense discussion about what should be done? Because if we don't, 
and humanity does not overtake our politics, we will continue, and it 
will be more of the same.
  So I ask--I yearn for that public but also private discussion with 
our colleagues because going down this road over and over again is not 
going to be the answer, and we ought to say enough is enough.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nelson pertaining to the introduction of S. 1907 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Remembering Louis J. Amabili

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Lou Amabili, a true 
Delawarean, a fantastic, dedicated, and tireless volunteer, a gentleman 
who dedicated his life and service to others.
  Mr. Louis J. Amabili, the son of Italian immigrants, rose from 
volunteering at his local volunteer fire company to become one of the 
most important and trusted voices in the American fire service. Lou 
passed away last Thursday, September 28.
  Lou was a giant in the fire service community, and his decades of 
dedicated service are a testament to how much he cared about his 
calling and his neighbors. Lou was a legend in the Delaware 
firefighting community, especially in my small hometown of Hockessin, 
DE. Lou proudly served the Hockessin Fire Company for 70 years, holding 
every position one could possibly hold--chief engineer, first and 
second assistant chief, along with vice president, president, president 
emeritus, and director.
  Lou was a humble, down-to-earth, passionate, and caring gentleman. He 
rarely sought the limelight, even as he was often thrust into it. He 
could walk into any event, whether a national convention or just a 
local meeting, and know an individual's name, making them feel as if 
they were the most important person in the room.
  Lou embodied the term ``public servant,'' which so many of us aspire 
to, yet he quietly and with dignity achieved this for decades. He heard 
his calling to serve his community, and he embraced it with dedication 
and a quiet passion.
  There was no greater ally of firefighters in Delaware or across the 
country than Lou. His continued service of seven-plus decades set the 
highest standard of dedication to the volunteer fire service.
  I first had the honor of meeting Lou around 2000 when I was county 
council president. Over my decade of service in New Castle County 
government, Lou was a frequent source of powerful advice, 
encouragement, insight, and occasional correction. I always looked 
forward to seeing him, whether at a county meeting, a State meeting, or 
at a national organization meeting. I was always certain I would get 
honest, direct, and constructive feedback from Lou about how things 
were going at home and how things were going nationally for America's 
firefighters.
  Lou's nationally recognized service is long and impressive. He first 
gained national recognition in the fire service when President Richard 
Nixon appointed him to serve on the National Commission for Fire 
Prevention and Control in 1970--the Commission that produced the 
landmark report, ``America Burning.''
  A graduate of Conrad High School and of the University of Delaware 
with a degree in chemistry, Lou was appointed the first director of the 
Delaware State Fire School in 1964 and served in that capacity for more 
than three decades through 1996. Upon his retirement, then-Governor Tom 
Carper, my senior Senator, signed a resolution naming the Delaware 
State Fire School the Louis J. Amabili Fire Training Center.
  From 1973 to 1980, Lou served as president of the International 
Society of Fire Service Instructors. From 1978 to 1986, he served as a 
charter member of the National Fire Academy Board of Visitors. Lou also 
served on the NFPA board of directors for 6 years in the 1980s and was 
chairman of the Fire Department Instructors Conference in 1979 and 
1980.
  Widely respected by his colleagues, the president of Congressional 
Fire Services Institute, William F. Jenaway, said:

       Throughout his entire career, Lou was fully committed to 
     the health and safety of the men and women who have served in 
     the fire service. He was always willing and eager to share 
     his knowledge with both aspiring and veteran firefighters and 
     cared deeply about preserving the fire service's rich 
     heritage. It was an honor to serve with him for many years on 
     the CFSI Board of Directors. I valued his friendship as did 
     my fellow board members. . . . His contributions to our 
     organization and to the nation's fire service will preserve 
     his legacy as a legendary leader for many years to come.

  While the fire service and the safety of his fellow firefighters was 
his passion, his family was his love. Lou's wife of nearly 60 years, 
Carmella, was his constant companion as he traveled extensively to 
national conventions, local meetings, or speaking engagements. Lou's 
daughter Janice; his son Louis Junior and his wife Bridget; his 
grandson Louis J. Amabili III and his wife Lacie; and Lou's great-
grandchildren, Lyza and Silas, will be forever proud of his legacy of 
service to Hockessin, to Delaware, and to our Nation.
  Lou was an inspiration to generations of volunteers, first 
responders, and firefighters, not just in his home company in our small 
town of Hockessin but to all the firefighters of Delaware and our 
country.
  Lou Amabili was exactly the sort of man on whom the safety of our 
Nation has been built and whose service and dedication to his community 
and his neighbors will never be forgotten.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from Louisiana.


                            Social Security

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about Social 
Security and, specifically, about the windfall elimination provision 
and the government pension offset. Now, I know that sounds real 
technical, but, basically, here is the problem.
  We have a lot of Americans who have paid into Social Security who are 
now getting screwed by Social Security. They are not getting their 
money back. All of us want to do everything we can to maintain the 
stability and sanctity of the Social Security system, and I think all 
of us believe that we all ought to get the Social Security payments 
that we are entitled to. That is all this issue is about. Let me 
explain.

[[Page 15372]]

  For many middle-class Americans, receiving Social Security at 
retirement is sort of like a welcoming light at the end of the tunnel. 
They have worked hard, they have retired, and now they are entitled to 
some of the money back that they paid into the Social Security system. 
I am talking, of course, about the hard-working women and the hard-
working men who have seen a chunk of their monthly earnings go into the 
Social Security system throughout their entire careers--10, 15, 20, and 
sometimes 30 and 40 years. These same Americans have not seen a pay 
raise or an increase in their median household income for a long time. 
The median household income in America today, as the Presiding Officer 
knows, is pretty much the same as it was in 1999.
  I guess whom I am talking about are ordinary people. You can call it 
the middle class, if you would like, or working families. They were the 
ones who were hit the hardest by the great recession of 2008. They have 
been struggling throughout their lives to participate in the great 
wealth of this Nation. They are entitled to participate in the great 
wealth of this Nation, and they should not have to keep on struggling 
to get money for retirement from the Social Security system when they 
have already paid into the Social Security system.
  The principle behind Social Security is pretty simple. Throughout 
your working life, you pay some money and your employer pays some 
money. When you are done working, or when you retire, according to a 
formula, you get your money back through a Social Security check. It is 
simple in theory. You put money in, and when you hit the retirement 
age, you get some of it back, except that for 1.7 million Americans, 
that is not the case. That is not how the system works for them. That 
includes about 38,000 hard-working folks in my home State of Louisiana, 
but there are a lot more in other States as well. I am talking about 
millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters, and a lot of other 
folks who earn modest pensions in service to their communities who face 
little or no access to Social Security.
  Here is what I am talking about. I am talking about a teacher who 
paid into the Social Security system. I am talking about teachers or 
firefighters or policemen who paid into their own retirement systems. 
So they are rocking along. They are, basically, paying into two 
retirement systems--Social Security and the private retirement system. 
They are doing the right thing in getting up every day, going to work, 
obeying the law, and trying to save money for retirement. It is 
deferred gratification. They are ready to retire, but because they were 
prudent enough to invest in a private retirement system, they do not 
get their Social Security check even though they have already paid into 
it. Additionally, a worker can pass away before reaching retirement age 
not even knowing that his spouse and children will not have full access 
to his Social Security survivors' benefits. That is just not right.
  Until 2005, there was not even a legal requirement for human 
resources to notify workers that switching careers would affect their 
eligibility for Social Security or Social Security survivors' benefits. 
Many of these 1.7 million Americans who are getting screwed tried to do 
the right thing. They paid into a private retirement system, and they 
paid into Social Security only to find out later that they can get 
their money from the private retirement system but that they cannot get 
their money from Social Security. They are being punished for being 
prudent. Many of them retire with no idea that that is the law. By 
then, of course, it is too late.
  In June of this year, one in six Americans collected Social Security 
benefits, and I am happy for every one of them because, to collect, 
they had to pay in. That is about 61 million Americans. By 2031, when 
the last of the baby boomers hits retirement age, that number is going 
to increase to about 75 million Americans. These are going to be our 
seniors. They are our seniors, and they are our seniors to be. They are 
battling against the rising costs of housing, healthcare, automobiles, 
taxes, and fees. Many of them have had their private retirement 
accounts or home values wrecked by the great recession. Yet these 
Americans press on.
  When we talk about tax reform--and we are going to be talking a lot 
about tax reform here over the next few weeks--we need to make clear 
that we are talking about reforms that will help these middle-class 
Americans. They are the people who get up every day, go to work, obey 
the law, and try to do the right thing by their kids and teach their 
kids morals and try to save a little money for retirement.
  Let me be blunt. I would like to eliminate the windfall elimination 
provision and the government pension offset in the Social Security 
office. I think it would be a vital step in ensuring that our middle-
class seniors can enjoy continued economic security after their 
retirements. Not only would it help the economy, but it is the right 
thing to do.
  I sum up. We can provide economic relief immediately to some of those 
middle-class retirees about whom I have been talking by eliminating the 
windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset of the 
Social Security system. It will not cost much money. It will have a 
small effect on the cost of Social Security, at about 0.13 percent--not 
13 percent but 0.13 percent. It is a little over one-tenth of 1 
percent.
  After taking care of this simple fix, which is more than about 
money--it is about fairness--we can turn our eyes to out-of-control 
Washington spending to ensure that Social Security remains a reliable 
source of retirement income for Americans in the long term.
  Thank you.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, a recent survey reported that 50 percent of 
people in this country consider themselves living paycheck to paycheck, 
and one third of these people say they are just $400 away from 
financial crisis. That is not acceptable.
  Unfortunately, after 8 years of economic stagnation under the Obama 
administration, living paycheck to paycheck is starting to feel like 
the new normal for most Americans. But it doesn't have to be. We have 
the resources to be the strongest economy in the world. American 
workers and job creators are as dynamic and creative as ever, and they 
can get our economy thriving again. In order to get them to do that, we 
need to clear some obstacles in their path. That starts with reforming 
our complicated and outdated Tax Code, which has increasingly been 
strangling our economy.
  This month, Republicans in the House and Senate are making 
comprehensive tax reform one of our top priorities. After weeks of 
work, last week leaders from the Senate, the House, and the White House 
unveiled the framework that will guide our final tax reform 
legislation.
  The framework is built around Republicans' five principles for tax 
reform: first, providing tax relief for the middle class; second, 
increasing wages, jobs, and economic growth; third, keeping good-paying 
jobs here at home in America; fourth, increasing American 
competitiveness in the global economy; and, finally, fifth, simplifying 
the Tax Code. The framework outlines our plans to provide relief for 
middle-class families.
  First, we will lower rates for hard-working Americans. By collapsing 
the seven income tax brackets to three, we will ensure that working 
families get to keep more of what they earn. Our plan will also expand 
the child tax credit and make it available to more families, and our 
plan doubles the standard deduction, which will provide significant 
relief for those who need it the most. Under our plan, a family making 
$24,000 a year will no longer owe any Federal income taxes. All of 
these measures will provide direct relief to working families.

[[Page 15373]]

  Just as important for families, however, is the other half of our tax 
reform plan, which involves creating the kind of economic environment 
where hard-working Americans can thrive--the kind of environment where 
Americans have access to good jobs, higher wages, and more 
opportunities.
  Over the past few weeks, I have come to the floor to talk about 
Republicans' tax reform principles and have highlighted some of the 
ways our tax reform plan will improve the economic outlook for American 
families. Last week, I talked about our third principle, reforming our 
Tax Code to keep those good-paying jobs here at home. This week I would 
like to spend a few minutes talking about our fourth principle, which 
is keeping American businesses competitive in the global economy.
  In order for individual Americans to thrive economically, we need our 
businesses to thrive. Thriving businesses create jobs, provide 
opportunities, and they increase wages and invest in workers. Right 
now, though, our Tax Code is not helping businesses thrive, and it is 
making it more difficult for American businesses with an international 
footprint to compete in the global economy.
  Our Nation has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized 
world--at least 10 percentage points higher than the majority of our 
international competitors. It doesn't take an economist to realize that 
high tax rates leave businesses with less money to invest, less money 
to spend on wages, less money to create new jobs, less money to devote 
to research and development of new products and services, and less 
money to put back into new property or equipment for those businesses. 
This situation is compounded when an American business has 
international competitors that are paying a lot less in taxes than you 
are. It is no surprise that U.S. businesses struggling to stay 
competitive in the global economy don't have a lot of resources to 
devote to creating new jobs and increasing wages.
  On top of our high business tax rates, there is another major problem 
with our Tax Code that puts American businesses at a competitive 
disadvantage globally--our outdated worldwide tax system.
  What does it mean to have a worldwide tax system? It means that 
American companies pay U.S. taxes on the profit they make here at home, 
as well as on part of the profits they make abroad once they bring that 
money back home to the United States. The problem with this is that 
most other major world economies have shifted from a worldwide tax 
system to a territorial tax system.
  In a territorial tax system, taxes are paid on the money earned where 
it is made and only there. You are not taxed again when you bring money 
back to your home country. Most American companies' foreign competitors 
have been operating under a territorial tax system for years. So they 
pay a lot less taxes on the money they make abroad than American 
companies pay. That leaves American companies at a disadvantage.
  Foreign companies can underbid American companies for new business 
simply because they don't have to add as much in taxes into the price 
of their products or services. When foreign companies beat out American 
companies for new business, it is not just American companies that 
suffer. It is American workers. That is why a key part of the tax 
framework that Republicans unveiled last week involves lowering our 
massive corporate tax rate and transitioning our tax system from a 
worldwide tax system into a territorial tax system. By making American 
businesses more competitive in the global economy, we can improve the 
playing field for American workers.
  There are a lot of other things we are going to do to help hard-
working families and American workers, from improving the tax situation 
for small businesses to helping family business owners, farmers, and 
ranchers like those in my home State of South Dakota by repealing the 
death tax.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to complain about 
our plans to repeal the death tax. They complain that it is not 
something to really worry about since they claim relatively few estates 
are expected to actually have to pay the tax. Well, I would like them 
to come and talk to some of the farmers and ranchers in my State of 
South Dakota. Some of these farmers and ranchers are paying tens of 
thousands of dollars a year in an effort to avoid having their families 
hit by the estate tax when they die. Why? Because they know that 
without careful and costly planning, if the Federal Government comes 
around after their death demanding a staggering 40 percent of their 
estate, their children won't have the money to pay the government 
without risking the farm or the ranch.
  Farming and ranching is a land-rich but cash-poor business. Farmers 
and ranchers own valuable land, but they are only earning cash on the 
crops they grow or the livestock they raise on that land. So while 
their overall farm or ranch may have a substantial value, the amount of 
money they have coming in is relatively small and subject to the swings 
in the market from year to year. Too often, when farmers and ranchers 
die, the vast portion of their estate is made up of their land, while 
actual disposable income is a very small part of it. If they don't take 
measures to avoid having their family hit by the death tax, the family 
will have no choice but to sell off some or all of their land to pay 
the government, which means, in many cases, losing the family's farm or 
ranch. And the same situation faces other types of family-owned 
businesses across the country where the value of the estate is tied up 
in that business.
  Removing the threat of the death tax for family-owned businesses, 
farms, and ranches would free up resources that these business owners 
could invest in their businesses and in our economy instead of on 
complex estate plans, insurance, and expensive tax professionals.
  Before I move on, let me just remind everybody that when we talk 
about the death tax, we are talking about double and sometimes triple 
taxation. The money the government is taxing has already been taxed at 
least once. It boggles the mind that some think that a person's death 
is justification for taxing his or her income a second or a third time. 
Death should not be a taxable event. When someone dies, they shouldn't 
have to see the undertaker and the IRS at the same time.
  Our Tax Code is increasingly strangling our economy and placing heavy 
burdens on hard-working American families. If we want to improve the 
economic situation of American families, comprehensive tax reform is 
essential.
  Republicans in the House and the Senate are continuing to work on the 
final draft of the bill that we will take up later this fall. I look 
forward to passing comprehensive tax reform that will help American 
families thrive, that will create greater economic growth, better 
paying jobs, higher wages, and bigger paychecks for American workers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________