[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16561-16565]
[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 Palk nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Scott L. Palk, of 
Oklahoma, to be United States District Judge for the Western District 
of Oklahoma.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10:30 a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or 
their designees.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The majority leader is recognized.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senate Republicans had a productive 
discussion with President Trump yesterday about our shared agenda. We 
were particularly focused on how to bring tax relief, economic growth, 
and jobs to the middle class through tax reform.
  It is clear we share a lot of the same goals. It is clear we are 
united in an effort to take more money out of Washington's pockets and 
put more in middle-class pockets. It is also clear we are all excited 
about this once-in-a-generation opportunity to get America going again 
and growing again.
  So we are watching our friends in the House with anticipation as they 
consider the comprehensive, responsible budget that cleared the Senate 
last week. We anticipate they will pass it by the end of the week. Once 
they do, we will have important legislative tools to move tax reform 
forward. That is something everyone can look forward to. More 
importantly, that is something the American people deserve, especially 
after so many years of an economy that failed to reach its potential--
an economy that, so often, failed them.
  Tax reform represents the single most important thing we can do today 
to get the economy reaching for its full potential. We are looking 
forward to taking the next steps very soon to get it done.
  Mr. President, on another matter, I would like to again commend 
President Trump for the outstanding judicial nominees he has sent us 
this year. So far, every nominee we have brought to the floor has been 
confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate. In some cases, those 
majority votes have been bipartisan and massive, like 95 to 1, like 97 
to 0. Yet almost every time a judicial nominee is brought to the 
floor--even nominees with votes like these, nominees whom both parties 
support--Democrats throw up partisan procedural roadblocks. For what 
reason? Certainly, it is not to change the outcome. No. Like I said, in 
many cases, Democrats actually support the nominees. They are just 
wasting more of the Senate's time because they can. They are doing it 
again now. Let's take the two judicial nominees who are currently 
before the Senate.
  First, there is Scott Palk. After nearly two decades as a State and 
Federal prosecutor, Mr. Palk has the legal skill and community support 
to excel as a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Oklahoma. 
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination by a large, 
bipartisan vote of 17 to 3.
  Then there is Trevor McFadden. Mr. McFadden's sterling record of 
public service makes him an ideal candidate for the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Columbia. Not a single Member--not one--of either 
party opposed him.
  These nominees should have sailed to confirmation yesterday. Instead, 
Democrats are forcing us to waste time so we can again arrive at the 
exact same conclusion, but simply later this week.
  This really has to stop.
  In President Obama's first year in office, Republicans forced this 
procedural hurdle for a single judicial nominee, and it was a 
controversial one.
  Let me say that again. In President Obama's first year in office, 
Republicans forced the procedural hurdle we have had to endure many 
times for one nominee, and that nominee was controversial.
  In President Trump's first year in office, Democrats have forced this 
procedural hurdle for every single judicial nominee except one, even if 
they actually supported him or her in the end. This is just the kind of 
partisan game that Americans are so sick of.
  President Trump should be commended for his strong judicial picks. 
The Senate is going to keep working hard to confirm them, and we are 
going to succeed. The only question is whether the Democrats are going 
to keep wasting more of the Senate's time getting there. I hope they 
won't. I hope

[[Page 16562]]

they will end these pointless games so that the Senate can keep its 
time and focus where it belongs.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, good morning.


                  Commending Senators Flake and Corker

  Yesterday we all learned that our colleague Senator Flake will be 
retiring at the end of his term. After Senator Corker's announcement a 
few weeks ago, this was another blow to this body. Senators Flake and 
Corker are both men of principle, decency, and conscience.
  In his address here on the floor shortly after his announcement, 
Senator Flake alluded to the great figures of history who toiled at 
these desks to remind us that our time here is only temporary. He is 
certainly right. It should comfort him, however, that history will 
judge Senator Flake and Senator Corker as two men of the greatest 
conscience to have graced this Chamber on either side of the aisle in a 
long time. This Senate will be much poorer for their departures.


                   The Budget and Republican Tax Plan

  Mr. President, last week the Senate passed one of the worst budgets 
in our Nation's history. It excuses one of the most massive expansions 
of the national debt ever--$1.5 trillion. It directs the committees to 
take a sledgehammer to Medicaid and Medicare, again to the tune of $1.5 
trillion, and it sets up the same awful, partisan process that 
Republicans used to try to jam healthcare through for tax cuts.
  The budget is now before the House. I hope every House Member is 
taking a close look at it, and Republican Members who come from States 
such as New York, New Jersey, Washington, California, Pennsylvania, 
Virginia, Illinois, and Minnesota should pay particular attention to 
the issue of State and local deductibility. There is no doubt the 
elimination of State and local affects States and congressional 
districts over the entire country.
  For instance, one of the States that pays the highest rates and gets 
the highest tax break from State and local is Utah. Thirty-five percent 
of Utahns take it because it is such a large percentage tithe, and they 
don't use the standard deduction. It affects middle-class families in 
every State. In the State it has the lowest effect on, West Virginia, 
it will still affect 17 percent of families. I don't have the numbers 
in front of me, but my guess is that Kentucky, the home State of our 
Acting President pro tempore, is probably in the twenties. But in many 
States, the State and local deduction is claimed by over one-third of 
taxpayers and amounts to tens of thousands of dollars a year in 
deductions.
  In California, 34 percent of taxpayers take the deduction for an 
average of $18,400. In New Jersey, 41 percent of taxpayers claim State 
and local with an average deduction of $17,850. Faced with this, some 
of our colleagues are looking for a compromise. They say: Well, let's 
just take away the deduction for the people who earn above $200,000, 
$300,000, or even $400,000. Or they say: You can choose between taking 
the State and local deduction or the mortgage deduction. That is like 
saying: Taxpayer, we will chop off your left hand or your right hand, 
but we will give you the choice.
  Even without the mortgage trade, a compromise doesn't work. It 
doesn't work for a few reasons. No. 1, it is double taxation. You are 
being taxed on paying tax. No. 2, for States like New York, 
particularly my upstate colleagues, it chases away businesses. 
Companies don't want to locate in a place where their top executives 
are going to pay a lot more, because they can't deduct their taxes. No. 
3, it lowers State income so that whether or not you use the State and 
local deduction, your school board, your road building, your police, 
and your fire departments will be hurt as they will be creating a huge 
deficit.
  So a compromise doesn't work here. I have named some of my Republican 
colleagues in New York. One of them got very mad yesterday. All I say 
is this: In 1986 there was a Democratic tax reform bill led by Senator 
Bradley and Congressman Gephardt. I had the same conviction and with 
the same strength and velocity opposed their taking away State and 
local, even though they were of my own party. We worked hard and we 
succeeded. Tax reform passed in 1986 with Ronald Reagan's blessing. I 
supported it. It was real tax reform. We closed loopholes and lowered 
rates. We did not just give massive tax breaks and let the deficit go 
up. But State and local was removed, and the bill still passed.
  So I would simply ask my Republican colleagues to oppose their party 
leadership when it hurts their States and constituencies, as I did back 
in 1986 when I was a fourth-term Member of Congress.
  Now a few Members of the New York and New Jersey delegation--a whole 
bunch in New York--have come out against the elimination of State and 
local deductibility. I salute them. They have done what they should do. 
In the eyes of the Founding Fathers, they have represented their States 
and their constituents. They have not represented these hard-right, 
corporate, wealthy interests that just want their taxes reduced. Are 
the remaining Members of the Republican delegation from New York and 
New Jersey, as well as Members from Washington State, California, 
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Minnesota, Illinois, and all the other States 
going to stand up now because they know this hurts middle-class 
constituents? This is not a tax break for the rich. The rich have lots 
of other big tax breaks, and the property taxes that they pay are not 
that much in terms of their income. I hope they will stand up as some 
of my courageous colleagues have in New York State and in New Jersey.
  Here is another reason we don't want to eliminate the State and local 
deduction. A recent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that under 
the Republican tax plan, any homeowner with an income of between 
$50,000 and $200,000 would see an annual average increase of $815.
  Here is the amazing part of their study. They say that home prices 
would fall 10.2 percent in the short term. That makes sense. If you are 
a new homeowner or buying another home, you calculate: How much is my 
mortgage? How much are my property taxes? What deductions will I get? 
If you don't get the deduction, you have less money to pay the mortgage 
because you are paying higher taxes. So the demand for homes goes down, 
the price new home buyers are willing to pay is less, and home prices 
go down.
  So my Republican colleagues, particularly those in the House who have 
to vote on this bill tomorrow, are going to hit their middle-class and 
upper middle class constituents with a double whammy if they vote for 
this bill. They will pay more taxes, their home values will go down, 
and home values are the rock of the middle class. That is what people 
work for their whole lives. The happiness someone 45 or 50 years old 
has when they pay off their mortgage and their home is theirs is great. 
Why delay that? Why impede that? Why impugn that?
  Are our Republican colleagues willing to go home and explain to their 
middle-class constituents why their taxes are going up and their home 
values are going down? Because if they are not willing to confront 
that, they shouldn't vote for this bill.
  The budget is a betrayal of the middle-class men and women who sent 
House Members to Congress, who sent all of us to the Senate and the 
House. For many in the middle class, as I said, it raises taxes and 
erodes property values. And why? To lavish tax breaks on big 
corporations and the superrich. Its main focus is to give a tax cut to 
corporations and the top 1 percent.
  I would say to the average American: Is your No. 1 goal reducing 
taxes on big

[[Page 16563]]

corporations and the richest people in America? Well, that is the 
Republican Party's No. 1 goal. They say they must have tax reform. It 
is their No. 1 priority. And this bill, the core of it, the raison 
d'etre for it, is to cut taxes on big corporations and the wealthiest 
people.
  Again, to the American people: Is your No. 1 goal the same as the 
Republican Party's here in the Senate and in the House--to cut taxes on 
the richest corporations, to cut taxes on the wealthiest individuals? I 
don't think so. Do you, Mr. and Mrs. American, think that is what 
Congress should be gearing up to do when it has done so little? I don't 
think so. The Republican Party is making a huge mistake.
  It is not that there shouldn't be tax reform. There should be--but 
real reform. Big corporations pay a real rate of 16 percent. If we were 
to lower those rates and close loopholes, we would be doing the economy 
a favor. As I said, I helped pass that in 1986 once they abandoned 
State and local deductibility. If it is simply to give a huge tax cut 
to the wealthiest people and biggest corporations, the recent polling 
data has shown that the vast majority of Americans are against it. A 
majority of Americans say: If it means a small tax break for me and a 
big tax break for the wealthiest, I am not for it.
  So I am going to challenge my Republican colleagues: Go out there and 
speak plainly and honestly about your plan. Don't hide behind fake 
talking points and fake math. It is a massive tax cut for corporations 
and the wealthy. Defend it, why you think it is a good idea. I know 
some of you truly believe--the Senator from Pennsylvania, a Republican, 
has spent his lifetime, when he was at the Club for Growth, advocating 
that cutting taxes on the biggest corporations and wealthiest 
individuals fuels the economy. Talk directly about it.
  I hear the words ``middle class'' coming out of our Republican 
colleagues' mouths but not ``wealthy'' or ``big corporations.'' And let 
me just say it doesn't prove to be true.
  The corporate tax rate was much lower than the official tax rate. 
According to Goldman Sachs, our big corporations have more money than 
they have ever had and are paying a lower tax rate than they ever have, 
and they are not creating jobs. Give me one reason why giving them a 
tax break will now have them starting to create jobs when they are 
already flush with cash.
  How about the example of Kansas, and I say this particularly to my 
two friends. Both are my friends. When I see them both in the gym--I 
used to play basketball with one. I would say to my two friends, the 
Senators from Kansas, look at what happened to your own State, the home 
of Charles Koch. Big tax breaks, huge tax breaks will make Kansas the 
growth center of America. What happened? They gave huge tax breaks. 
They predicted that income would go up in the Kansas State treasury by 
$300 million. It went down by $700 million. They had to actually 
consider schools going from 5 to 4 days. And job growth, this great 
engine of job growth--Kansas grew last year by 0.2 percent. The 
American economy grew by 1.6 percent. It was a total flop. Kansas not 
only rejected the proposal by raising taxes after they had cut them so 
deeply, they also threw out a lot of the more conservative Republicans, 
and there was a rebellion within the Republican Party itself.
  Trading middle-class deductions for a tax cut for the rich is not a 
fair trade. Raising taxes on so many middle-class people so you can pay 
for tax cuts for the rich makes no sense, and it makes no sense 
particularly now that the scales are tipped more in favor of the 
wealthy and powerful than ever before.
  That is why the American people, now that they realize we are getting 
close here, despite all the distracting issues the President tweets 
about--by the way, I hear that in the Republican caucus, he talked 
about no details on the tax plan; he just said get it done. No details. 
I know why--they are afraid to talk about it. The President may not 
know the details, but our Republican colleagues do, and they are afraid 
to talk about the details in public.
  The bottom line is that the American people are learning what this 
plan is about, and they don't like what they see. In a recent Reuters/
Ipsos poll, fewer than one-third of all Americans supported it. And 
just like healthcare, I believe that the more Americans learn about the 
plan, the less they will like it. The number--low enough as it is--in 
support of the Trump tax plan will get lower.
  Listen to this: In the same poll, nearly two-thirds of Republicans 
said that deficit reduction was more important than tax cuts for 
corporations. Two-thirds of Republicans said that deficit reduction was 
more important than tax cuts for corporations. That is not what the 
bill says. The poll also showed that three-quarters of Republicans said 
that deficit reduction was more important than tax cuts for the 
wealthy. Again, the bill does the opposite.
  The Republican plan balloons the deficit by $1.5 trillion to do those 
two things--tax cuts for the wealthiest corporations and tax cuts for 
the rich. The more Republicans find out about the plan, the less they 
will like it.
  In conclusion, as the House debates the Senate budget this week, I 
urge them to consider first and foremost what the plan would mean for 
their constituents. I would tell them, should they vote down this 
budget, there are a large number of Democrats, including the minority 
leader, who want to sit down with Republicans and come up with a nice, 
mainstream plan, not a plan to please the thousand wealthiest families 
in America who have so much say over the Republican Party and 
shouldn't. But we want to work with you on a real, bipartisan plan. 
Defeat this plan, and we will, just as we promised on healthcare, and 
we have.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague and the 
Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, for his statement on this Trump tax 
plan. I think he really has summarized in his statement the concerns 
many of us have.
  We are concerned that the Trump tax plan will do several things. It 
will cut funds for education in America at a time when we need it now 
more than ever to prepare our people for the jobs of the future. It 
endangers Medicare, a program that for almost 50 million Americans is 
critical for the healthcare they receive. At the same time, it is going 
to dramatically increase the deficit. For so long, we have heard from 
the Republicans that their No. 1 issue was cutting the deficit, and now 
they come up with a tax plan that will increase the size of our 
deficit. Finally, of course, all of this is being done to create tax 
breaks for the wealthy and the biggest corporations in America.
  Here are the simple facts: As a percentage of our gross domestic 
product, corporate profits in America have never been higher. Corporate 
profits have never been higher. As a percentage of the gross domestic 
product, corporate Federal taxes paid have never been lower. Profits 
never higher, taxes never lower, and the Trump tax plan says: Let's cut 
corporate taxes even more, and then let's cut taxes on the wealthiest 
people even more. That is not a fair tax plan. It is not a fair tax 
reform.
  The Trump tax plan sadly rewards the biggest corporations and the 
wealthiest individuals at the cost of cutting education, endangering 
Medicare, and unfortunately increasing the deficit, to be paid for by 
our children. The tax break for the wealthiest people in the Trump tax 
plan doesn't go to the rich. It doesn't even go to the very rich. It 
goes to the superrich--the superrich. Who am I talking about? The one-
tenth of 1 percent. The highest incomes in America--way beyond the 
rich. It is not a person who drives a big limousine; it is a person who 
is never going to drive the rest of their lives and owns a big yacht. 
Those folks--the one-tenth of 1 percent--get 40 percent of all the tax 
breaks in the Trump tax plan. That may be good news for the President 
and his colleagues and friends and even his family; it is not good news 
for working Americans. To

[[Page 16564]]

think that we would cut education, endanger Medicare, and increase the 
deficit to give that level of income, the wealthiest people in our 
country, such a tax break is hard to imagine.
  Sadly, one of the provisions in the Trump tax plan creates an 
incentive for companies to move jobs overseas, because they will have a 
lower tax rate if they do. Think about that. A President who has told 
us over and over again that we want to ``make America great again'' 
creates a tax program to incentivize businesses to locate overseas and 
make their profits overseas. That makes no sense whatsoever, but that 
is the Trump tax plan. I am glad Senator Schumer brought that up.


                                  DACA

  Mr. President, let me address the issue of the Dreamers. It is one 
that I have spoken to many times before, and I would like to address it 
at this point.
  On September 5, about 7 weeks ago today, Attorney General Jeff 
Sessions announced the Trump administration's repeal of the Deferred 
Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, better known as DACA.
  DACA provided temporary legal status to immigrant students if they 
registered with the government, paid a fee, went through a criminal 
background check and a national security check, and did that on a 
renewable basis every 2 years.
  The young people protected by that Executive order are known as 
Dreamers. They came to the United States as children, brought here by 
their parents. They grew up in our schools, singing our ``Star-Spangled 
Banner,'' pledging allegiance to the only flag they have ever known. 
Seven years ago, I asked President Obama, in a letter that I sent with 
then-Republican-Senator Dick Lugar, to create a program to protect 
these young people and give them a chance to earn their way into legal 
status. The President responded to our request, and almost 800,000 have 
signed up.
  Now, with President Trump's announcement that he is going to 
eliminate this program, the clock is ticking. By March 5, 2018, every 
workday for the following 2 years, approximately 1,400 of these 
Dreamers protected by DACA will lose their work permits and will be 
subject to deportation. Mr. President, 1,400 a day who signed up for 
this program, as of March 5 next year, will hear the clock ticking. 
Teachers will be forced to leave their students, nurses to leave their 
patients, first responders to leave their posts, and soldiers who are 
willing to fight for their country will be forced to leave the Army if 
this happens. It is an outcome that none of us want to see, I hope.
  It isn't just a looming humanitarian crisis; it is economic too. The 
nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says that DACA-
eligible individuals contribute about $2 billion a year to our economy. 
They are working. They are going to school. These are productive people 
who against the odds have succeeded in life and want to do more.
  The Cato Institute--no liberal think tank--estimates that ending DACA 
and deporting DACA recipients would cost $60 billion and result in a 
$280 billion reduction in economic growth over the next 10 years.
  Poll after poll shows overwhelming bipartisan support for the 
Dreamers. Even FOX News--no liberal media outlet--recently found that 
79 percent of Americans support a path to citizenship for Dreamers--79 
percent. What percentage of Republicans support it? According to the 
FOX poll, 63 percent of Donald Trump voters believe that Dreamers 
should be given a chance at citizenship.
  The answer is clear: We need to pass the DREAM Act, and we need to do 
it before we leave Washington in the next few weeks. It was 16 years 
ago that I first introduced it. We have had our ups and downs. We have 
passed it at some time on the floor of the Senate and then again in the 
House of Representatives but never quite at the same moment so that it 
became the law of the land.
  Over the years, I have told over 100 stories about the Dreamers. This 
is another one I want to share with you. This is a story about William 
Medeiros. William was 6 years old when his family moved to the United 
States from Brazil. He grew up in Boston and then moved to Florida. In 
high school, he was an honor student. He graduated with a 3.8 GPA. He 
was an athlete, playing high school soccer and football. He is now a 
student at the University of Central Florida. He has a 3.5 GPA. He will 
graduate in the spring of 2019 with a bachelor's degree in criminal 
justice.
  He is working full time to support himself. Because he is a DACA 
recipient, he isn't eligible for any Federal financial assistance to go 
to college. He has to work his way through school, and he is doing it. 
His dream is that he wants to be part of America's military. Then, 
after serving his country, he wants to be an officer with his local 
police department. Thanks to DACA, he is on his way.
  Last year, he enlisted in the Army through the MAVNI Program. In this 
photo, he is shown with his recruiter from his enlistment ceremony. The 
MAVNI Program allows immigrants like him, who are vital to the national 
interest, to enlist in the Armed Forces. More than 800 DACA recipients 
with these critical skills have had their dream come true. They have 
volunteered to serve America in our military.
  Some Trump administration officials have claimed that DACA recipients 
are taking jobs away from Americans. But William and hundreds more like 
him have vital skills that our military desperately needs, and they 
want him to serve our country. William, along with many Dreamers, is 
now waiting to ship to basic training. He continues his undergraduate 
studies and is working full time while waiting for his first chance to 
serve.
  He wrote me a letter, and here is what he said: ``My desire to serve 
this nation and help people, to pay back my dues for everything I have 
received from this great country, and to lead by example by showing my 
fellow DACA members that anything is possible with hard work, 
perseverance, and dedication.''
  Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that this young man, William, 
desperate to serve our country and to be a law enforcement officer, 
will be an asset to the United States, a source of pride for all of us? 
Of course not. If DACA goes away and is not replaced, if this young man 
loses that opportunity, America will lose an important part of its 
future.
  I was at the Phoenix Military Academy, one of six military academies 
within the Chicago public schools, just last week. I am proud to say 
that our Chicago public school system hosts the largest ROTC Program in 
America, with 10,000 cadets from school to school. It turns out that 
many of them are DACA Dreamers. They want to serve our country just 
like William. I was joined by COL Daniel Baggio, who runs the Junior 
ROTC Program. His grandfather was an immigrant who served in the U.S. 
Army during World War I. Colonel Baggio certainly understands the 
important role immigrants play in our Armed Forces.
  William Medeiros and other Dreamers have so much to give America, but 
without the Dream Act, William and hundreds of other immigrants with 
skills that are vital to the national interest will literally be kicked 
out of the Army. Thousands of Junior ROTC cadets in Chicago will never 
realize their dream of volunteering to enlist in America's military. 
They want to serve. They are willing to risk their lives for our 
country. How can we let them down?
  When we introduced the Dream Act, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican 
of South Carolina, said: ``The moment of reckoning is coming.'' It is 
coming in a manner of days and weeks. I implore my colleagues and both 
sides of the aisle: Don't let that young man down. Don't let down the 
hundreds of thousands who just want a chance to prove themselves and 
earn their way into legal status. We can do this.
  Many people are skeptical as to whether Congress can get anything 
done on a bipartisan basis. I am not skeptical. I believe it can. I 
believe that we can work together. I have sat down with a lot of 
conservative Republican Senators in my office--Senators I

[[Page 16565]]

never dreamed I would be sitting with, discussing this issue, and now 
we want to make sure we get this job done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

                          ____________________