[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6227-6230]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Clayton 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Jay 
Clayton, of New York, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission for a term expiring June 5, 2021.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last Wednesday, the Trump administration 
unveiled the outlines of a tax reform plan, and, predictably, the plan 
has met with both praise and scorn from the usual sectors. Regardless 
of where the people might come down on the specifics of the President's 
plan, those who have been proponents of tax reform--hopefully those 
from both parties--should be pleased to see the President of the United 
States fully engaged in this effort.
  For 6 years now, I have been beating the drum on tax reform. I have 
sought to make the case for reform here on the floor, in public forums 
and events, and in private conversations, and I haven't been alone. 
Indeed, Members from both parties have acknowledged the need to fix our 
broken tax system and have sought to move the ball forward on reform.
  One thing I have said throughout this endeavor is that tax reform, if 
it is going to be successful, will require Presidential leadership, and 
that was not a political statement on my part. With those statements, I 
wasn't simply calling for the election of a Republican President; on 
the contrary, I repeatedly implored President Obama to engage with 
Congress on tax reform but really to no avail.
  As of now, we finally have a President who is willing to lead in this 
effort. Once again, regardless of where anyone stands with regard to 
this President or the specifics of his tax plan, the fact that he is 
willing to meaningfully engage with Congress and the public on these 
issues should be viewed as a welcome sign for all tax reform advocates, 
regardless of their party affiliation.
  With regard to the specifics of the outline, I believe the President 
has laid out a set of critical core principles that should hopefully 
serve as guideposts as the effort moves forward. Most importantly, the 
plan is designed, first and foremost, to grow the economy, and it would 
certainly do that.
  In addition, the plan would greatly simplify the Tax Code to make it 
fairer, particularly for individuals and families, which has been a 
shared goal of tax reformers from both parties and from both sides of 
the aisle. For instance, over two-thirds of taxpayers take the standard 
deduction. Those taxpayers tend to be concentrated in the middle and 
lower income brackets. Under the President's plan, married couples 
would see the standard deduction doubled, so that they would not pay 
taxes on the first $24,000 of income. It would reduce rates for both 
large and small businesses and job creators, which is also something 
both Republicans and Democrats have sought to accomplish in tax reform.
  Overall, the President's tax plan would make our country more 
competitive in the international marketplace and reduce the tax burden 
on millions of middle-class families.
  Clearly, as the effort moves forward, Congress and the administration 
will have to fill in the specifics. We will need to see how the numbers 
work out and where the votes are for any particular reform proposal. 
This is going to take some time, but, as the chairman of the Senate's 
tax-writing committee, I believe we can be ready to move in relatively 
short order. I intend to work closely with my colleagues on the Finance 
Committee, our leadership here in the Senate, leaders in the House, 
and, of course, the administration to finalize a reform package and get 
it across the finish line. The last major tax overhaul in the United 
States was more than 30 years ago, so we have a once-in-a-lifetime or 
once-in-a-generation opportunity in front of us, and I intend to do all 
I can to ensure that we make the most of it.
  When I say ``we,'' I am not simply referring to Republicans in 
Congress and the White House; I am referring to anyone who recognizes 
the problems in our current tax system and is willing to do the 
necessary work to fix those problems. My hope is that this will be a 
bipartisan exercise. By and large, Republicans appear ready and willing 
to work with the President to get tax reform done, and I am working to 
find some willing partners among my friends on the other side of the 
aisle.
  I have said many times that tax reform should not have to be a 
partisan exercise. Our current tax system imposes undue burdens and 
undue hardships on Republican and Democratic voters alike. Therefore, 
both Republicans and Democrats in Congress should be willing to relieve 
these hardships, and, as I have stated here on the floor on numerous 
occasions, I am willing to work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, to 
make this effort successful.
  That said, I haven't been all that encouraged by the rhetoric we are 
hearing from our friends on the other side of the aisle on these 
issues. Setting aside statements we have heard about the policies in 
the President's plan or elsewhere, the Senate Democratic leadership at 
times seems bound and determined to ensure that no Member of their 
party engages on these issues.
  Most recently, the Senate minority leader has insisted on two 
conditions before he will agree to work with Republicans on tax reform.
  The first condition is that Republicans commit to not moving tax 
reform through the budget reconciliation process. This is an odd 
demand, one that is, quite frankly, unprecedented in the modern history 
of tax policy. Certainly, the reconciliation process makes it easier to 
move reform

[[Page 6228]]

through Congress on a partisan basis, but, historically speaking, most 
major tax bills that have moved through reconciliation have had 
bipartisan support. There is no reason, if agreements are reached on 
policy, that Democrats could not agree to support a tax reform package 
moved through reconciliation, so taking it categorically off the table 
before discussions even begin seems, at best, counterintuitive.
  History tells us that reconciliation need not be partisan. In fact, 
when Republicans have had control of both Houses of Congress and the 
White House, we have enacted tax reconciliation bills that have enjoyed 
some Senate Democratic support.
  It is also worth noting that at various points in the recent past, 
Republicans have stayed at the negotiating table, participating in 
formal and informal discussions on major policy matters with 
reconciliation instructions in place and without any assurances that 
reconciliation would not be used. Are Democrats going to be more 
amenable to compromising on policy if reconciliation is not on the 
table? It is hard to see why that would be the case. Taking 
reconciliation off the table would really only make it easier for 
Democrats to prevent any kind of tax reform from passing.
  So, essentially, what some of my Democratic colleagues are saying is 
that before they will even enter into talks on tax reform, they want us 
to ensure upfront that they will have the ability to block the bill 
once it is brought up. As I said, that is an odd demand, and not one 
you would expect to hear from someone who is willing to negotiate in 
good faith.
  My colleagues' second precondition for working with us on tax reform 
is that President Trump release his tax returns. Like their first 
demand, this one makes me doubt whether the Senate Democratic 
leadership really wants to be constructive on tax reform. This is a 
political demand, pure and simple, likely poll-tested and focus-grouped 
to please the Democrats' base. I don't imagine this demand is really 
about uncovering conflicts of interest in tax reform. If it is, it is a 
horribly misguided strategy.
  After all, if tax reform were to succeed, the President is only one 
small part of the equation. There are 435 Members of the House of 
Representatives and 100 Senators, all of whom would be called upon to 
vote either for or against the tax reform bill, and whether a Member of 
Congress supports or opposes a particular bill, a conflict of interest 
could potentially influence that decision, just as one could 
theoretically influence a President's decision to sign or veto a bill. 
Yet I don't hear anyone from the other side of the aisle demanding the 
release of the tax returns of every Member of Congress before we can 
even start working on a bill. That has never been a prerequisite for 
working on tax legislation in the past, and it certainly should not be 
a prerequisite in the future.
  In any event, despite these unreasonable demands, I will once again 
state that I am more than willing to work with my Democratic colleagues 
on tax reform, and I sincerely hope at least some of them will be 
willing to do so. I have been in the Senate for a while now. I think I 
have more than sufficiently demonstrated my willingness to put partisan 
differences aside and to reach across the aisle.
  Make no mistake, I believe Republicans can move a tax reform package 
on a purely partisan basis. We have the procedural mechanism in place 
that would allow us to do that. But my strong preference would be to 
find a bipartisan pathway forward, and I hope that can be achieved.
  Speaking more broadly, whether we move forward on a partisan or 
bipartisan basis, being successful on tax reform is going to require 
that we practice the art of the doable. There are a lot of ideas out 
there on tax reform and no shortage of competing interests. I have my 
own ideas and proposals that I have been working on for a number of 
years that I would like to see included in the final package. However, 
no idea should be considered more important than the broader goals of 
tax reform. That goes for my ideas and those of anyone else in Congress 
or in the administration.
  There is a great deal of consensus among Republicans on the most 
important tax reform policies and principles. In fact, I would say we 
agree on roughly 80 percent of the key issues, which is a good starting 
point. I will not go into specifics today, but there are some high-
profile items in the remaining 20 percent, and there are some 
differences of opinion regarding most of those items.
  Bridging that gap and finding the path forward is going to take some 
serious negotiation and compromise. My hope is that people will be 
willing to adjust their expectations and bend on their preferences in 
order to achieve success in this very important endeavor. Speaking for 
myself, I can say that I would be willing to do so, and I have 
confidence that my colleagues who will also be playing leadership roles 
in this effort are similarly willing. Perhaps most importantly, I 
believe the President and his advisers in the administration are 
willing to make the necessary compromises to finally make tax reform a 
success.
  This is the closest we have been to success in tax reform in the past 
three decades. I hope both parties, both Chambers, both sides of 
Pennsylvania Avenue are up to that challenge.
  Mr. President, 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                     Government Funding Legislation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, late last night, due to the hard work and 
diligence of the staffs of the Appropriations Committees on both sides 
of the aisle in both Houses, the staff of the leadership, and so many 
others, we were able to come to a bipartisan agreement on a bill to 
fund the government through September. Most importantly, this agreement 
takes the threat of a government shutdown off the table. It is also a 
good agreement for the American people.
  The bill ensures taxpayer dollars are not used to fund an ineffective 
border wall; it excludes over 160 poison pill riders; and it increases 
investments in programs that the middle class relies on, like 
education, infrastructure, and medical research.
  It includes a permanent extension for health benefits for miners. 
Here, I want to praise--and I can't give enough praise--to the Senator 
from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, who was relentless even after 
disappointment after disappointment, at holding the Senate's feet to 
the fire and making sure this was done. Many miners can rest easy 
tonight--people who have worked so hard all their lives and had so much 
disappointment--because of Joe Manchin's work and what we put into the 
bill.
  There is also funding to shore up Puerto Rico's Medicaid Program, and 
$2 billion to help States like California, West Virginia, Louisiana, 
and North Carolina recover from recent natural disasters.
  The bill also includes a significant increase in NIH funding, which 
deals with cancer research and the Cancer Moonshot that both President 
Obama and Vice President Biden pushed for and continues onward, and a 
restoration of year-round Pell grants that will benefit about 1 million 
students. College is often the ladder up for a lot of students, and 
this will help them stay on that ladder.
  And the bill includes significantly increased funding for 
infrastructure, as well as funding to combat the scourge of opioid 
abuse which affects all parts of the country--urban areas, suburban 
areas, rural areas. It affects the poor, the middle class, and the 
rich.
  Good news: It protects 99 percent of the Environmental Protection 
Agency's budget so their quest to keep our

[[Page 6229]]

water and air clean will be able to continue. It increases funding for 
clean energy research as well. That is one of the great hopes for jobs 
in this country, as our Senator from Washington, Maria Cantwell, 
constantly reminds us.
  For my home State of New York, I was particularly pleased the 
agreement supports critical programs that are greatly needed and very 
popular in my State, like the Community Development Block Grant 
Program, which so many smaller cities depend on; the Great Lakes 
Restoration Initiative to get pollution out of all the Great Lakes, 
Lake Ontario and Lake Erie being on the shores of New York; and the 
vital TIGER Grant Program, which has done so much to support 
infrastructure, road building, and highways throughout my State and 
throughout America.
  As I said, the bill explicitly precludes the use of any of this 
funding for a border wall. This is an idea that both parties rejected. 
A load of Congressmen and Senators on the Republican side have said 
that the wall doesn't make sense. In fact, you couldn't find one 
Republican on the border in the States of California, Arizona, New 
Mexico, and Texas who supported that wall. Why? Unlike the President's 
promise, Mexico is not paying for it. There is no plan for the wall. We 
don't even know where we would build it. The Secretary of the Interior, 
President Trump's appointee, said: We can't build it from the U.S. side 
because it cuts us off from the river. Mexico will not build on their 
side. Where are we going to build it? In the middle of the river? And, 
mainly, because it is not very effective--you can tunnel under a wall.
  We all want to prevent the scourge of drugs from coming across our 
border; so many of them come in little planes and boats. When they come 
by land, they are often hidden in parts of cars, in the carburetor or 
the exhaust tank--hidden. They will be able to come through because the 
wall obviously is going to have portals in it where trucks and cars can 
go through. So there is no money for the border wall, not one plug 
nickel.
  We do have money, of course, for border protection, which both 
parties have always supported, and comprehensive immigration reform. 
Senator McCain and I, in a bipartisan bill supported by 68 Members of 
this body, made sure we had very strong border protection. But it has 
to be smart, it has to be cost effective, and it has to work.
  Early on in this debate, Democrats clearly laid out our principles 
and insisted there would be no poison pill riders in this bill. We were 
able to knock out more than 160 poison pill riders from the final 
agreement, including the border wall, anti-labor measures that hurt the 
working people of America, and efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. So 
many women depend on these clinics for their health. And we were able 
to achieve significant investments in domestic programs that help the 
middle class and those struggling to get to the middle class.
  Of course, this bill doesn't include all the things we wanted, but 
that is the nature of compromise. At the end of the day, this is an 
agreement that reflects our basic principles--something that both 
Democrats and Republicans can support. It took a few extra days, but we 
got a very good agreement.
  I want to thank my friend, the majority leader, Senator McConnell. He 
worked very hard to get a good bill. I thank the chairmen and ranking 
members of the House-Senate Appropriations Committees, particularly 
Senator Leahy from Vermont in our Chamber. I thank Speaker Ryan and 
Leader Pelosi and all of their staff for working so hard last week and 
over the weekend to forge an agreement.
  I must tell you, and I must tell my colleagues, the negotiations 
between our two sides were consistently productive and always 
respectful. Throughout the process, both Republican and Democratic 
Members and staff negotiated in good faith because we all wanted to get 
something done. I believe this experience bodes well for the 2018 
budget and future negotiations between our two parties on 
appropriations. If we can show the same desire to get things done--the 
same mutual respect, the same ability to compromise--we can get a darn 
good budget for the year 2018 without the specter of a government 
shutdown hanging over the country's head.
  I wish to say one final thing. It shows that when our Republican 
colleagues are willing to work with us, we can get things done. All too 
often--particularly from the White House--this attitude is just do it 
our way, my way or the highway. That is what happened on the healthcare 
bill--no consultation with Democrats. That is what happened on this 
little tax plan.
  When you don't do things in a bipartisan way, it is much harder to 
pass things. It is much harder to get a product that is at the 
consensus of where America is. I hope that not only will this 
successful negotiation on the 2017 appropriations bill be a model for 
the 2018 bill but a broader model that we can all work together to get 
things done for the country we love.
  I expect we will vote on this bill later this week, and I believe it 
will receive overwhelming support in this Chamber.
  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. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I rise today in support of Jay Clayton, 
who has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Securities and Exchange 
Commission. In the interest of time, I will save my longer remarks for 
later.
  As demonstrated at the Banking Committee's nomination hearing, Mr. 
Clayton is eminently qualified to serve on the U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission, or the SEC.
  He impressed both Republicans and Democrats and was voted out of 
committee on a bipartisan vote of 15 to 8. His extensive expertise and 
experience in our financial markets will be a benefit to the Commission 
and to the American people.
  His testimony about the need to make our capital markets more 
attractive, which would rejuvenate their ability to invest in the 
United States and grow and create jobs, was well received. 
Additionally, he pledged to members of this committee and to the 
American people that he will show no favoritism to anyone.
  While some have raised issues about his previous work potentially 
creating conflicts, Mr. Clayton is not new in this regard, nor will he 
be any less vigilant to ensure that he acts appropriately and 
ethically.
  I will be supporting his nomination and look forward to having him at 
the SEC, where he can help protect and promote the success of our 
security markets and our investors.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Jay Clayton, of New York, to be a Member of the Securities 
     and Exchange Commission for a term expiring June 5, 2021.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Tom Cotton, Dan Sullivan, 
           Shelley Moore Capito, John Barrasso, Roger F. Wicker, 
           Mike Rounds, Orrin G. Hatch, Bill Cassidy, Pat Roberts, 
           Mike Crapo, Lamar Alexander, Richard Burr, John Thune, 
           Jerry Moran, James E. Risch.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). By unanimous consent, the 
mandatory quorum call has been waived.

[[Page 6230]]

  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Jay Clayton, of New York, to be a Member of the 
Securities and Exchange Commission for a term expiring June 5, 2021, 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), 
and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 117 Ex.]

                                YEAS--60

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--36

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Durbin
     Flake
     Heller
     Isakson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). On this vote, the yeas are 60, 
the nays are 36.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The assistant majority leader.

                          ____________________