tv U.S. Senate 11272017 CSPAN November 27, 2017 3:59pm-6:49pm EST
reductions to offset we are never getting on top of the debt and deficit so my first question is how are we dealing with the debt and deficit? are the offsets real and i'm trying to try to address that. to me the big issue is how are we dealing with the debt and deficit? do we have realistic numbers and is there a backstop in the processing case we don't? the night will they have the meeting with you? we have had phonecalls to the thanksgiving time period and we have had constant interaction. this is not a finished product. there are lots of questions. we will continue to work on that. >> are you concerned about the fact that some of the provisions as the bill currently stand are set to expire. we take you live to the four senate returning from thanks you
in recess with votes on judicial nominations expected at 5:30 p.m. eastern and starting on g.o.p. tax reform bill tomorrow. watching live coverage of the senate floor here on c-span2. the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. . the chaplain: let us pray. our father, god, thank you that we see you in the world around
us be holding your works in the earth and sea and sky. your everlasting mercies sustain us, enabling us to borrow our heartbeats from you each day. today, be for our lawmakers and abiding and sustaining presence. may they live to serve and honor you bringing glory to your name. make them patient in debate, charitable in judgment, and slow to anger. lord, empower them to defend and maintain the right as they seek justice and freedom for all.
we pray in your sacred name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, dabney langhorne friedrich of california to be united states district judge for the district of columbia. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: if no one yields time, the time will be equally divided.
the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: during the last decade our complex tax code left hardworking families behind and allowed
the wealthy and well connected to get ahead. it's so bad one small business owner in paducah, ky, wrote to my office asking for relief, because, as he says, taxes are suffocating my company and me personally. the pain isn't just being felt
in kentucky. it's an urgent problem nationwide. families and job creators are doing their best to get ahead but too often our tax code keeps them reaching for the american dream. working families and small businesses in our country deserve better than our outdated tax code, and that's what we're trying to deliver. tax reform represents the single most important thing we can do right now to spur economic growth, help support good jobs, and boost the middle class. this is our once in a generation opportunity and we should meet the challenge. overhauling our tax code can mean more money for small businesses to hire, to invest, and to expand. it can mean families keeping more of what they earn to save for a rainy day or an emergency. and this relief could even mean getting one step closer to sending a child to college, buying a new car, or saving more
for retirement. this week the senate will continue our year-long effort towards tax reform. under the leadership of chairman hatch, the senate finance committee reported out legislation to replace our noncompetitive, complex, and outdated tax code. through dozens of hearings, substantial hard work and an open amendment process, the committee has prowsed a bill that -- produced a bill that will prioritize the middle class and small businesses so they can keep more of their hard of earned -- hard-earned money. we will preserve the adoption tax credit and roughly doubles the standard deduction as far as how much income is taxed in the first place. put it together and a typical middle-class family of four making a median income could see a tax break around $2,200.
as families sit around the table to balance their budgets and plan for the future, this money will make a significant impact. in addition, our tax reform proposal will provide relief to low and middle-class families by repealing obama tax, this plan can help those who need it most. the bottom line is this -- we want to take more money out of washington's pocket and put more money into the pockets of american families. to accomplish this goal, we will continue to consider the plan under regular order. every member will have a chance to offer amendments here on the floor and then we will vote. there are many places in this legislation where we should all, republicans and democrats, be able to agree. for instance, our democratic colleagues have the opportunity to help us end tax incentives that contribute to american jobs
going overseas. that sounds like something our friends across the aisle should support. in fact, many of them have identified those incentives as a fundamental problem in our current tax code. this is our chance to put an end to it. i hope they will join us in our effort to help jobs and investments stay right here at home. i'm proud to continue to work with my colleagues to get this legislation one step closer to the president's desk. let's keep working together to deliver tax relief for the american people. now, madam president, on another matter. later today the senate will consider two more talented nominees to the senate judiciary. first we will vote to confirm the nomination of dab dab to -- dabney friedrich and we will
vote on a nominee to the federal judiciary, gregory kasak. after graduating from harvard law school he clerked for justice clarence thomas on the d.c. circuit and on the u.s. supreme court. he then joined the litigation group at a prominent law firm focusing on state and appellate litigation, including arguing before the supreme court. in 2001, mr. katsas became the attorney general supervising the justice department's appellate staff. the senate later confirmed him by a voice vote to serve as assistant attorney general for the civil division where he was responsible for overseeing hundreds of lawyers and some of the government's most complicated litigation. for his work, he was awarded the
edmond randolph award, the highest award given by the department. in a letter the senate judiciary committee former attorney general michael mukasey expressed his support for mr. katsas' nomination. this is what general mukasey had to say. it was my great privilege to work with greg when headed the civil division and argued many of the most difficult and challenging cases. greg worked tirelessly to defend the interests of the united states in court whatever his personal views about them may have been. former attorney general mukasey, who has also previously served as a federal district court judge went on to say, it is greg's character, temperament that most set him apart that suits him to serve as a circuit judge. there are many smart lawyers in
washington, probably many nice one, but i know of no one who has greg's unique legal skill coupled with integrity and good judgment. that high praise was echoed by many of the others who new mr. katsas well at the justice department. a large group wrote to the senate judiciary committee supporting his nomination. greg is an exceptionally taloned and brilliant appellate lawyer. his commitment to public service and academic qualifications are impeccable. in addition we can attest to greg's thoughtfulness, temperament and character. the group of distinguished attorneys who have in their own words worked with greg or litigated against him in the supreme court or federal courts of appeals or otherwise familiar with his work, penned a letter of support for mr. katsas' nomination. we hold a broad range of policy reviews, but we are united in
our view based on our experience noodged of greg's work that he is highly qualified to serve on the d.c. circuit. once he completed his time at the department of justice and returned to the private practice, he has continued to impress his colleagues with his legal skill and judgment. his firm's managing partner wrote a letter signed by partners around the globe recommending his nomination. here's what they wrote. greg is a truly great legal thinker with a well-earned reputation for integrity, fair-mindedness, and respect for others. he's been a brilliant advocate, they continued, for the firm's clients in the supreme court and appellate courts throughout the nation in a wide variety of kift, -- difficult, high-profile cases. he is an impressive individual who is well qualified to serve on the d.c. circuit. i want to thank chairman grassley once again for his outstanding work in moving president trump's judicial
nominees to the floor. i look forward to confirming the nominee of mr. friedrich and
advancing the nomination of mr. katsas later today. i urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting their nominations. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
the presiding officer: without objection. -- be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: first, i welcome you, the senator from texas, and all of our colleagues back after the thanksgiving break. i had my parents, 94 and 89, at our thanksgiving dinner with all their children and grandchildren and cousins and thises and thats, so i had a lot to be thankful for. i'm blessed to have my mom and dad see their whole family and be so happy about it. but now we're back, and we have a lot of work to do before the end of the year and precious little time to do it. funding for the government expires a week from this friday. 800,000 dreamers are waiting to hear whether they can live and work in the only country they have ever known. almost nine million children are waiting for us to reauthorize the children health insurance program, and millions more are waiting for us to restore funding for community health centers, the most cost-effective and often only health care lots
of people can get. we need to fund the cost-sharing programs that hold down premiums and out-of-pocket costs for low-income americans because the administration refuses to do so. texas, louisiana, florida, puerto rico, the u.s. virgin islands are desperately in need of additional aid to recover from the natural disasters that god brought on them. and the debt ceiling must be raised again, and in short order. so we need to come to agreement on all of these issues, and quickly. to that end, the four leaders will meet with the president tomorrow. hopefully, we can make progress on an agreement that covers those time-sensitive issues and keeps the government running and working for the american people. now, we could be working on all these issues this week, but instead the majority is pursuing a partisan tax plan at a
break-neck pace. since the republicans released their first draft of the tax bill a few weeks ago, we have had one week of markup in the senate finance committee during which the bill shape shifted on several occasions. aside from the testimony of one representative from the joint committee on taxation, the senate hasn't heard from any expert witness in a hearing room. can you believe that? a major tax bill in front of the american people, changing lives dramatically, no expert witnesses except the j.c.t. gentleman. and the bill's likely to change drastically again on the floor of the senate, with little time for senators of either party to grapple with the consequences. the republicans are moving so fast, the joint tax committee will not have time to produce a full analysis of the economic impact of the bill. until after the bill is voted
on. is that backwards or what? the republican tax bill will affect every taxpayer and business in america, and my colleagues won't know many of its impacts before they vote on it. two things about this bill, however, seems certain. first, it will raise taxes on millions of middle-class families in every state of the union. second, it will explode the deficit. every independent analysis of the senate tax bill shows that millions of families making under $200,000 a year will eventually pay more, not less, in taxes under the republican plan. the most recent tax policy center analysis show that about 60% of middle-class families, those making between $28,000 and $155,000, would see a tax increase at the end of the day. most middle-class families by the time the ten-year window is
up will see a tax increase, 60%, according to the tax policy center. and while middle-class people are struggling, they either get a small, small decrease in taxes or an increase, folks making over a million dollars a year will get an average tax cut of over $40,000, more than many americans make in a whole year. the tax breaks for individuals all expire. the tax breaks for massive corporations are permanent. because the individual mandate is repealed, the tax bill would cause 13 million fewer americans to have health insurance. meanwhile, couples with estates worth over $11 million get a tax break. the bill is terrible for the country. it is a massive transfer of wealth to the already wealthy. it would exacerbate inequality and set the middle class back at the worst possible time. at the same time, it would
increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion at the very least. now, some of my republican friends are saying that future congresses will extend the middle-class tax breaks that are now set to expire. well, that would increase the deficit even more significantly. you can't have it both ways. either the bill socks it to the middle class or it blows a giant hole in the deficit. no one wants either. the tax bill gives you that awful choice. some of my republican friends say the tax bill will unleash such economic growth that the tax cuts will pay for themselves and the deficit will evaporate. it's curious to me that those same republicans are rushing the bill so fast through the joint committee on tax that it won't have time to assess the economic impact. of course, they are afraid of what it will say. they know it's going to say
nothing close to what our republican optimists are predicting. according to a former ject economist, quote, there is good reason to expect the estimate of current legislation will show less than flattering growth effects, unquote. so you have to wonder are the republicans afraid that the experts will fund the republican promises of economic growth? will they find that the republican promises of economic growth are pure fantasy? it sure seems that way. the majority shouldn't be ramming through such an ill-conceived, backward bill. they shouldn't be breaking all the traditions of this body, busting the deficit, hurting millions of middle-class families when there is so much potential agreement between our two parties on tax reform. we could come up with a good, bipartisan bill, not through reconciliation, through regular order, and we would all be the prouder for it. we democrats want to lower
middle-class taxes. we democrats want to reduce the burden on small businesses. we democrats want to encourage companies to locate jobs here instead of shipping them overseas. and we want to do all of these things in a deficit-neutral way. those thoughts probably have a majority on each side of the aisle. it's a shame that the republican leadership has chosen reconciliation, which means no regular order, no hearings, no night, and -- no sunlight, and no democratic input into the bill. if republicans turn their backs on the deeply flawed approach -- and i plead with the hands full who haven't committed yet, we can work together on bipartisan tax reform that delivers real relief for everyone in the middle class. finally, on the matter of the directorship of the cfpb, the consumer financial protection bureau. there should be no dispute about who is the acting director of
the agency. the process for succession laid out in dodd-frank is clear. leanda english, not mick mulvaney, is the acting director of the cfpb. let me underscore that point. i was involved when dodd-frank was written. the clear intention of congress was to establish a clear line of succession for the cfpb, separate and apart from the verl vacancies act -- from the federal vacancies act. i remember. i was there. the language in question wasn't part of the house version of dodd-frank, but we included it in the senate version phenomena an explicit purpose. we wanted the cfpb to be an independent agency, free from political considerations of the white house, free of the influence of lobbyists who we knew would not like that consumers were finally protected in the financial area. we wanted a watchdog whose only job was to look out for
consumers. that was the whole structure of the bill. that's why it has such a unique structure, to shield it from an administration, whoever it would be, that would be influenced by lobbyists. that's why we expressly stipulated that if the director wasn't available, the acting director should be the highest ranking member of the cfpb, not whoever the white house believes is in their political interests. by attempting to install mr. mulvaney as the director, the trump administration is ignoring the established, proper legal order of succession that we purposefully put in place in order to put a fox in charge of the henhouse. mr. mulvaney has throughout his career criticized the mission and the purpose of the cfpb. the man the president chose for director of the agency called it a sick, sad joke. he doesn't believe in the agency. he would prefer that it doesn't exist. that's not speculation.
those are mulvaney's own words. in with 2015, he said i don't like the fact that the cfpb exists. the only reason, the only reason the trump administration would put mr. mulvaney forward for this position would be so that he could rot the agency from the inside. it's a clear pattern in this administration. rather than trying to scrap agencies the administration doesn't like, a tactic that would never fly with congress or the american people who know how important these agencies are, the administration puts in charge people who will undermine them to head -- undermine them. to head the environmental protection agency, the trump administration chose an industry advocate who was against just about every advance in the clean air and clean water act. to head the department of energy, the trump administration nominated someone who called for its abolishment. to head the ex-im bank which helps exports throughout this
country, new jobs, the trump administration nominated someone who called for it to be disbanded. mr. mulvaney is only the latest in a long line of trojan horse candidates selected by the white house to undermine federal agencies from within. the cfpb should be led by someone who believes in its mission, who is committed to work round the clock, not by a part time director who clearly disdains the agency. president trump must nominate a permanent director and eventually that person will take charge of the agency if confirmed. whoever is nominated must have demonstrated record of standing up on behalf of consumers. former director cordy, leanda english fit that mold. nick mulvaney certainly does not. for the interim the law established under dodd-frank dictates that miss english is the acting director of the cfpb.
the white house should abandon any efforts to circumvent that succession process. i yield the floor, madam president. mr. cornyn: madam
president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, my friend, the senator from new york, is my friend, and we've worked together on a number of occasions, but i must disagree with a number of things he said today. first of all, the consumer financial protection bureau was a partisan creation by democrats during the obama administration that had virtually no republican support. what they did is they created a modern day emperor, somebody immune from congressional oversight and appropriations process and now that mr. cordroy is leaving following the election of a republican president, they are taking exception to the fact that this
president has the authority under the law to appoint his successor instead insisting that somebody chosen by mr. cordroy, this modern-day financial emperor, they should be able to make a choice and foist that on this administration when clearly this administration was elected to office in part in response to the overreach of the previous obama administration. this is a perfect example of how nimble my colleague can be with the facts, because the fact is he comes here and complains about the fact that this tax bill that we'll be taking up is not partisan enough for him when in fact senate democrats have made it clear they don't want to do anything that would give any credit to this administration or the republican majority and
basically without taking the opportunity to find common ground and govern, they essentially have taken up the resistance leaving the results of the election of last november basically unresolved in their minds at least, even though the american people have clearly moved on and expect this administration that was elected to office along with the republican majority in the house and the senate to actually govern. and i remember days and times when after we had elections we actually figured out we needed to govern and weren't focused then on the next campaign, but apparently our colleagues across the aisle have simply forgotten that. that's the bad news. the good news is it's not too late for them to change their ways and to join us and bring historic tax reform to the american people. this week we'll be considering the senate's version voted out of the senate finance committee last thursday night of our tax
cuts and jobs act which is a first major overhaul of our nation's tax code in more than 30 years. it cuts tax rates across the board reducing the burden on american job creators and middle-class families alike. under our proposal, it's been estimated that folks back in my home state of texas will see more than 76,000 new jobs created. after tax incomes for middle-class families should rise by nearly $2,600. now, that may be chump change here inside the beltway. our friends across the aisle may turn their noses up and say who will want to do this for $2,600 additional tax saving each year? i can tell you my 28 million constituents in texas don't believe that $2,600 in tax savings for a family of four it chump change. they think of that as ways to increase their take-home pay, improve their standard of
living, prepare for retirement, help their children go to college. that's what that means to them. this bill will also reduce the tax burden on small businesses and put american companies on a level playing field with their foreign competitors ultimately growing our economy here at home. ironically, we heard smch the same old -- we heard the same old tired rhetoric in the finance committee where we were talking about corporate giveaways and things like that only to remind our colleagues on the senate finance committee that they themselves had proposed similar tax cuts for american businesses so that they could get more competitive in an international economy, a global economy. in fact, we had to remind them after they derided this idea that we would want to be more competitive in the global economy that it was barack obama in 2011 called for democrats and republicans to come together to cut the corporate tax rate because it was the highest one
in the world. and it was causing businesses to invest abroad, indeed to leave the united states to set up their headquarters abroad just to avoid the highest tax rate in the civilized world. well, there's been a lot of disinformation and misinformation out there which i would like to take the opportunity to correct on a couple of counts. one major reform we've included in the latest version of our tax reform bill is a repeal of obamacare's individual mandate. make no mistake, the individual mandate penalty is literally a tax on low-income americans. it's a tax because chief justice roberts in the united states supreme court called it a tax. democrats have made two arguments. first, the repealing this mandate is a tax increase only in the parallel universe known
as washington, d.c. would cutting the tax be called a tax increase. and second, they said that the repeal kicks people off their insurance coverage, which is demmons demmons extraively not true. it's a pretty strange thing to say, madam president, that eliminating a financial obligation simultaneously entails an additional fiscal burden. in other words, that a tax cut is really a tax increase. only here in the parallel universe of washington, d.c. could that possibly be true. it defies all logic. what actually happens under our plan is that certain low-income individuals do get a tax cut if they voluntarily decide not to buy obamacare coverage, they receive an additional tax cut because they will no longer be penalized by their own government for failing to buy an insurance policy that they can't
afford. it's worth noting in 2015 that 80% of the people paying the obamacare individual mandate tax made less than $50,000 each year, 80% made less than $50,000. there were 6.7 million people in 2015 alone that paid this additional mandate tax because they couldn't afford to purchase the government-mandated coverage. if the mandate is repealed, these folks will have more money to spend and they'll benefit from income tax rate reductions in addition. now, if our colleagues across the aisle would work with us, these same people would be able to find more affordable coverage that suited their need rather than have to buy a one-size-fits-all policy that prices them out of the market. but that's another story.
the second ridiculous argument is one you may recall the minority leader saying shortly before thanksgiving, he made the statement that we are kicking 13 million people off of their health insurance, but that's just not true. and it doesn't tell the whole story. first of all, no one is being kicked off of their health insurance coverage. instead, people will no longer be fined by their own government for not buying government-approved health insurance. and that's based on the correct view that people shouldn't be coerced by their very own government to buy something they may not want and can't afford. like i said in a more -- more rangal world, democrats and republicans would work together to come up with an alternative to provide people with more choices at a better price. democrats might say well, what about premiums president won't they rise if the pan date is
limb -- mandated and people drop out of the market because of this problem? well, this is one of the problems created by the affordable care act at its very beginning. but the issue of rising premiums is significant. a recent proposal offered by the senior senator from maine, ms. collins, along with senators alexander and murray would attempt to stabilize the health insurance marketplace, that would reduce the risk for insurance companies by providing funds to insurers for high-risk enrollees. their bipartisan stabilization proposal would provide money for cost-sharing subsidies and these payments could provide short-term certainty for insurers and prevent premiums from rising. in fact, premiums would go down. it's been scored by the congressional budget office as reducing the deficit by $3.8 billion over the next ten years.
that's why this proposal deserves our serious consideration, and i hope we will turn to it following our debate and vote on the senate's tax reform bill. after -- apart from the repeal of the mandate, there are other parts of the plan that i would like to highlight. one of them involves this other popular myth that certain provisions of our proposal are just disguised corporate welfare. i alluded to that a minute ago, the hypocrisy of some of our democratic colleagues claiming this is a corporate giveaway when they themselves supported a previous provision in previous proposals. this claim is completely and dib rattily misleading. as "the wall street journal" pointed out last week, the irony is this bill would do more to stop corporate tax becaming than anything done by the obama administration during the previous eight years. first, if we cut corporate tax, the incentive for companies to gain the system and move capital income and intellectual property
abroad is reduced. the bill institutes a territorial system that also includes so-called base erosion rules. these are safeguards against abuse. they prevent companies from shifting domestic income from foreign affiliates to lower tax jurisdictions and then bringing the profits home without paying taxes. our senate bill would impose an effective 10% rate on intangible property of u.s. multinationals that's held overseas. that's on a one-time basis. in return companies would be able to repatriate their future income from those places tax free. in other words, they would be taxed once rather than twice. this lower rate will help prevent the erosion of our corporate tax base. so will other provisions regarding patents, intellectual property, which will prevent the flight of this intellectual property abroad and will entice foreign companies to move their patents to the united states
along with the associated economic activity and jobs. in sum, as i said earlier, this bill changes incentives making it less likely that businesses will try to game the system and move capital to foreign and lower tax jurisdictions. madam president, we need to look at this proposal as a whole, not just one provision in isolation because you can't judge the merit of the plan without considering it as a whole. two days ago we got a letter from nine world class experts on tax policy and economics. they sent a letter to treasury secretary steve mnuchin. in that letter they praised the plan's objectives to enhance the prospects of both increased economic growth and household incomes, more take-home pay. but not only that, they said based on their analysis, our plan is likely to achieve those objectives, too. the signatories include a former
treasury secretary as wells the former director of the congressional budget office and distinguished economist from harvard, columbia, and stanford. i think they'd all agree with the bottom line which is the senate bill cuts taxes for every income group, that it will increase economic growth, and keep jobs in american companies here at home, all while making america more competitive. those that argue otherwise, i think, are resigned to the status quo, which is a stagnant economy characterized by slow growth and wages that will never rise. that's what we've had for the last 11 years, madam president. and under no circumstances should we stand by idly and permit it to continue. historically, the u.s. has seen growth of the economy hover around 3% since world war ii, but right now it's roughly 1.9%
that. slow economic growth means is less jobs, lower wages and less competitiveness for the u.s. in the global economy. if we get back to 3% growth or higher, we can begin to solve multiple problems at once. for example, we can do something about our lackluster defense spending. i know something that the chairman of the senate armed services committee, senator mccain, and others, including people like me and the presiding officer, care an all of lot about. we have simply tried again and again to cash the peace dividend when there is no peace, when in the words of general james clapper, former head of the director of national intelligence, he says the array of threats is more profound than he's seen in 50 years in the intelligence service of the united states. so we can't -- we can't spend the amount of money we need to
keep america safe to fight our nation's wars and to defend our shores here at home unless we meet that need, and we can't do it when our economy doesn't grow. not only will economic opportunities increase for americans of all stripes, we'll also have additional revenue to address our national debt. if we can get our economy growing again, we can actually pay down that debt. but this debt is not a product of tax cuts and defense spending, as some would lead you to believe. it's a symptom of our inability to pass entitlement reform. in other words, we have a spending problem. we don't have an inadequate taxing problem. indeed, during the eight years of the obama administration, when the senate debt doubled, i didn't hear one peep out of our colleagues across the aisle on the national debt. it's refreshing to hear them that they're concerned about that once again.
but we have a partial answer to that, which is getting the economy growing again so that the treasury will increase its returns and we can begin to pay down some of those deficits and debt. but to regain our standing in the world, we need to go to our financial house in order much the first step is to pass this tax reform package which will show our seriousness and determination in jump-starting our economy as a way to address our fiscal challenges. i hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting the senate's version of this bill. because america's future prosperity partially depends on our ability to get this done. what kind of country do we want? well, one that's vibrant and dynamic and full of energy, or do we want one that simply putters along? a lot is on the line this week as we debate and vote on the senate's tax reform bill. madam president, i would ask
unanimous consent to include at the end of my remarks the letter i referred to from the nine prominent economists. it was published today in the -- actually november 26, in "the wall street journal" entitled "how tax reform will lift the economy." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i yield the floor. mr. markey: mr. president, last year chairman pai of the federal communications commission threatened to take a weed whacker to the f.c.c.'s net neutrality rules, and last week chairman pai and the f.c.c. are likely to make good on that promise. so last week they issued their plan. they're quite proud of it. chairman pai is very proud of their plan. so they got that done last week.
and then on december 14, they are going to execute their plan to execute the net neutrality rules of of our country. net neutrality applies to palestinian-- toprinciples of b. ensuring that america's internet gatekeepers do not block or slow down or prioritize internet traffic. in 2015 the f.c.c. correctly adopted the open internet order, enshining these net neutrality principles into law. but now net neutrality and the free and ohm internet, this diverse, dynamic, democratic platform, are under attack. here's what chairman pai is proposing: number one, he would gut the rule against blocking. so what does that mean? well, it means that an internet service provider could block any
website it wants, could block something just because it decided to. that includes a website of a competing service or a website with a contrary political view, whatever they want, they can block. the biggest companies -- comcast, at&t -- they can just black it. number two, chairman pai would gut the rule against throttling. what does that mean? well, that means that the internet service provider could slow down any website it wants. number three, chairman pai would gut the rule banning paid priorization. what does that mean in easy-to-understand language? well, that means that the internet service provider could charge websites for an internet fast lane, meaning those websites would load quicker
while websites that can't afford the internet easy pass would be stuck on a gravel path taking more time to load and frustrating consumers with lon longburg times -- buffering times. number four, chairman pai would gut the forward-looking general conduct rule. what does that meaning? that means that whatever discriminatory conduct i.s.p.'s think of next in the coming months or years would be perfectly legal. number five, chairman pai would create an unregulated interconnection market. what does that mean, an unrecreated interconnection market? it means the federal communications commission would lose authority to oversee places where the internet service providers connect to the internet and extract thieves. number six, chairman pai would prevent states and localities
from adopting their own net neutrality protections. so if you live in massachusetts or you live in california or you live in alabama, your state can't give you any protections. they can't say, here's how we want the internet to be operating. so what will replace these enforceable net neutrality rules? nothing. chairman pai will leave it to the big internet service providers that we subscribe to, to just regulate themselves. we'll just put them on the honor system. we know the broadband system -- your cable, wireles wireless or telecommunications provider cannot regulate themselves. do we really trust the broadband industry to resist leveraging their internet gatekeeper role and putting their online competitors at a unfeign disadvantage in of course not.
so what is chairman pai's silver lining in light of gutting all of these rules? he has proposed to keep some transparency rules requiring the interst internet service providers -- these broadband behemoths -- to disclose their practices to consumers. what good is transparency when most americans have little or no choice for high-speed broadband access? 62%of americans have one choice for high-speed fixed broadband. if a households only choice for high-speed broadband is transparent about its plans to set up internet fast and slow larynx the consumer has two choices -- accept the internet provider's terms or live without the internet. that is not a real choice at all. people are not going to be living without the internet in the 21's century. you're going to pay whatever
that company tells you you are going to pay. and it's clear that most americans do not want what the f.c.c. is proposing. a record number of people -- over 22 million -- made their voices heard at the f.c.c. americans know that the internet, the world's greatest platform for commerce and communications, is at stake. consider that today essentially every company is an internet company. in 2016, almost half of the venture capital funds invested in this country went to its internet-specific and software companies. that's $25 billion of investment. and to meet america's insatiable demand for broadband internet, u.s. broadband and telecommunications industry companies invested more than $87 billion of capital expenditures in 20156789 that's the highest rate of annual investment in the last ten years. weaver hit the sweet spot.
investment in broadband and wireless technologies is high. job creation is high. venture capital investment in online start-ups is high. with these net neutrality protections in place, there is no problem that needs fixing. but under chairman pai's plan, broadband providers get exactly what they want -- an unregulated wild west where they can set up internet fast and slow lanes. chairman pai proposes to have the f.c.c. completely abdicate its rightful role to oversee telecommunication net wherebies under title 2 of the communications act. now chairman pai claims that the f.t.c. -- the federal trade commission -- provides a sufficient backstop to discriminatory behavior by the big broadband companies. but that is simply not true. under the federal trade commission regime, the big
broadband barons would step their own net neutrality policies and if the internet service provider wants to block websites, slow down the competitor's content or charge innovators and entrepreneurs to reach their customers, they will be free to do so. that's because the federal trade commission can only step in if a broadband provider violates its own net neutrality policies. but what if the internet service provider has a written policy that charges websites for internet fast lanes? there's nothing the federal trade commission can do about it because the broadband baron told you what they're going to do. they were transparent about what they're going to do. but you just have no recourse whatever going to the federal trade commission. so it is a false promise of protection that chairman pai is presenting. the only way to protect a free and open internet is with strong net neutrality rules of the
road, not voluntary guidelines. chairman pai's proposal would put the future of a free and open internet in the hands of big corporations and the powerful few at the expense of ordinary consumers all across our country. our consumers will be tipped upside down and have money shaken out of their pockets because they won't have the protection of net neutrality provisions that are now the law but are soon to be wiped off of the law. and the trump administration -- well, it's waging an all-out assault on core protections everyone the affordable care act, the paris climate accord, the clean power plan, and now trump's federal communications commission has net neutrality in their sights. for all of those who rely on the free and open internet, whether four health care, entertainment,
i urge you to rise up to this assault on net neutrality. this goes to the fundamental principles of nondiscrimination online. this is the greatest engine for commercial job development that our country has ever seen. it is the engine for new companies to be started. it is the which way in which young people are able to disrupt, to take new concepts that create jobs but also benefit consumers a cross our country -- across our country. that's the opportunity that this represents and it's also a powerful force for democracy for everyone's voice being heard equally. that's what net neutrality is about. that's what the trump chairman pai federal communications commission is about to end. and that's why we must fight, and that's why i'm so proud to be standing as part of this
effort with our great ranking member of the commerce committee, senator bill nelson from the state of florida, because this is a fight worth havinhaving. madam president, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. nelson: madam president? officerrer if the senator from florida. mr. nelson: you can't say it much better than the senator from massachusetts has said it. everyone has come to expect a free and open internet, one that does not charge open internet, one content. it should be free. it should be open. it should be balanced. hopefully since it seems that the pai regime is in fact going down this road, there will be immediate lawsuits
that will be very time-consuming. at the end of the day somewhere in the future there may be an opportunity for a legislative solution. but it has to be a balanced solution that protects the right of the public to a free and open internet. madam president, i want to discuss another issue. what do you think it would be like being in your home for three months without electricity? all of your home appliances, all of your daily routine having been built around the fact that electricity provides the power to run your home in the way that you expect. well, do you know that the people of
puerto rico, half of them, three months after the hurricane maria, still do not have electricity? and is it any wonder that 160,000 people people, our fellow citizens from puerto rico, have now chosen to get on an airplane and come to the state of florida is it any stretch of the imagination that there will not be hundreds of thousands more who, seeing a land that was devastated by a category 4 verging on a category 5 hurricane, covering up the entire island with remote parts of the island completely cut off from transportation
to get there except by air for two and a half weeks, like the town of otwato up in the mountains that i visited shortly after the hurricane, is it any wonder that people like that, that are now being very creative and very inventive, and neighbors helping neighbors, and all coming together but without electricity for such a long period of time that there are the opportunities for jobs that are drying up, that the businesses can't open, that commerce has slowed. and with a $250 plane ticket, in two hours they can be in florida. and indeed that is what's happening.
160,000 as of now just to florida. how many have gone to new york and other states? we don't have that calculation, but we expect several hundred thousand more to come. now each person had a comes, the island of puerto rico is their home. they want to return return, but is there going to be a quick resumption of business? is fema, through contracting out through the u.s. army corps of engineers, are they going to get the electricity back up? are there going to be the jobs? are we going to change the tax law so that puerto rico does in fact have the incentives that it used to have in the past that brought pharmaceutical companies there?
rum companies there? but a lot of those tax incentives have gone away. we ought to be considering that in this tax bill. we ought to be considering the long-term cost that it's going to take to help restore the island. and until that's done, what do you think people have done? just exactly what they've done. and they're going to continue to come. and as a result, now we have a different problem. in the state where so many of their family already lives, where they have been living with relatives, and now it's time for them to be able to have their own families and their
own place to live, and yet we do not have the provisions in order to give them the financial support to be able to afford housing. so suppose 300,000 puerto ricans come to florida alone. do they have the money? are they able to get a job right away so that they have the money for housing? that's why we're going to have to have financial incentives. and that's why in a bill that was filed last week, this senator along with several others, that there is a provision that if we can pass this legislation, h.u.d., the department of housing and urban
development would have the financial wherewithal then to supply housing needs many times through subsidized housing in the case of an incident like this hurricane where an emergency has occurred and has caused a huge dislocation of people to another state. in the meantime since it's going to be hard to get legislation like this passed in a timely fashion and the need is desperately right now, in the meantime since the last supplemental emergency appropriation for all the hurricanes did not include the housing part for the ones that are coming to florida, then in this next supplemental that will come just before christmas,
emergency supplemental funding, we need to provide that. and then the question is where, for example, in central florida, the orlando metro area will they actually be able to find housing that is available without having to drive hundreds of miles to find housing that is affordable that they even with additional assistance could afford? the people that can work this problem out are the local governments. they are the ones that best know the situation. so as we get ready for a final appropriations bill before christmas with an emergency supplemental funding because of
all the hurricanes that indeed will come but will just be the next installment for many installments to come into the new year, let us remember that housing is going to be critical by a huge amount of people that have been dislocated, have to strike out and find a new life, a new job, a new place to call home, which clearly means that they have to have a place to call home. and that is a place to live. housing. mr. president, it's an urgent need. it's one that's critical. and this congress has got to face it before the holidays.
mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. right now as we all return from thanksgiving, the american people, those that didn't have to work over thanksgiving weekend, as many, many people in this country do, and struggle, and continue to work two jobs. and as we, congress, returns from thanksgiving, the priorities of this congress are becoming pretty darned clear to the american people. people want to know the fundamental question. we all in this body, we all stand up for election every six years -- in some cases a little more often. and people fundamentally want to know which side are you on. are you on their side? are you on the side of wall street or the side of corporations and outsource jobs? the question is: whose side are you on? the question is are you going to
stand with multinational corporations that ship jobs overseas all to pad their own executives' fat bonus checks? are you going to stand with banks that rip off consumers, that steal their information and that get off scot-free? maybe some of these executives give their bonuses back, but that's about the only penalty they pay. are you going to stand with american workers who are working too hard for too long for too little pay, just looking to catch a break? are you going to stand with children whose parents work two jobs to put food on the table? and unfortunately, both jobs they work pay no health insurance. these are the choices we face. right now the leaders of the united states senate, the majority leader who works in that office down the hall, the majority leader who in that office negotiates with lobbyists, back in that office there negotiates health care bills, writes health care bills in the back room with drug company lobbyists and insurance lobbyists. now he's written a tax bill in
the back room. we voted on it last week in committee, but it just keeps changing. that's all done in the back room with senator mcconnell, the republican leader, with his lobbyist friends in corporate america, wall street banks that fleece taxpayers and other corporations, drug companies and oil companies and the koch brothers and all that. these are the choices we face. the leaders of the senate have made it really clear whose side they are on. period. while the senate spends its time on a bill to cut taxes for corporations that send jobs overseas, that's the bill that senator mcconnell is negotiating, is writing, drafting with his lobbyist friends in that office down the hall while the senate spends its jobs on a bill to cut taxes for corporations that sends jobs overseas children in america are about to be kicked off their health insurance.
as soon as this week families with young children are going to get news in the mail their children are losing their health insurance period. 209,ho -- 209,000 of them live in my state of ohio. ?of -- senator hatch, chairman of the finance credit who doesn't seem as interested in this bill, frankly, today as he does when he wrote the bill because it's passed out of his committee, and senator mcconnell is too busy to put this bill out on the floor so we can pass it, this bill -- this bill works this way. if you have, there's a family and the parents lose their insurance, as many families do, the children still get insurance. that's why 209,000 children, tens of thousands of families in my state rely on the children's health insurance program. but this fall, because this congress is too busy giving tax cuts to rich people, because this congress is too busy giving all kinds of breaks to the nation's banks, because this
congress is too busy doing the bidding of the drug companies and the health insurance companies and the bidding of the oil companies, this congress let chip expire. states are beginning to run out of money for chip. some are preparing to have to shut down this lifeline for nine million children in kansas, ohio, florida, all over the country. folks in this -- we haven't done our jobs as a result the families of those 209,000 children in ohio and nine million children in the united states are going to pay the price. think about how devastating it would be to get that letter in the mail. it's already an expensive and stressful time of the year. parents are worried about all kinds of things, higher heating bills, the cost of child care when kids take off from school, scraping together what they can for gifts. they are already stressed enough, mr. president. imagine telling your daughter,
i'm sor i yrks -- i'm sorry, honey, we're probably not going to have many presents under the tree. you wonder how you are going to get her checkups or god forbid she gets an ear infection and needs to go to the doctor. oh, my gosh, no, we got this letter in the mail that says congress -- i don't know if the letter will say it this way -- because congress failed to do its job a bunch of elected people failed to do their job so that 209,000 children in ohio would be protected so nine million people in the country ohio, arizona, oregon are expected to run out of chip money. some states will need to start -- start notifying families that they will lose their coverage. virginia will have to start
sending out notices this week. many other states expect funds to run out in the first month of the year. this is just a few children that maybe we don't want to think about. this is nine million children, this is 209,000 children in my state, tens of thousands of children in kansas, hundreds of thousands of children in in this florida. these are working families who can't afford private insurance. they are families with two working parents who are not lucky enough to work for companies that provide health insurance. they are families with children with special needs. chip provides access to specialty providers so kids are never faced with a situation where their family can't afford the therapy or expensive prescription drugs they need. health care for all of our children is something we ought to be able to come together on. wouldn't you think, especially at the holiday season, wouldn't you think leading into christmas, wouldn't you think, wouldn't you just think, mr. president, that we could agree on that, that we ought to
take care of the children's health insurance program? there's never been a gap for funding in the chip program. it was created in a bipartisan way. senator kennedy, who sat over here in this body and senator rockefeller who sat over here in this body, senator hatch who is still in this body, helped to create this program. are senator hatch said, we as a nation he, we have a moral responsibility to ensure our children have health care. we maintained that bipartisanship ever since until now, until speaker ryan and leader mcconnell would rather worry about tax cuts for the rich, worry about helping banks keep consumers from having their day in court, rather worry about helping the koch brothers or drug companies or oil companies. that's way more important than taking carry of 209,000 children in ohio. i guess it's more important that are senator mcconnell can go back in that room and write a bill with his lobbyist friends from the koch brothers are from
wall street, from all special interests, can write a bill for those -- tax breaks for those companies, but can't get around to taking care of these kids. two years ago, with the support of advocates all over the country, we extended funding for chip with bipartisan support. we did it for two more years many we put kids first in this body, acting early to extend chip so families wouldn't have to worry. this year in committee, i give credit to senator hatch in this case, senator portman, senator wyden, others, we passed a five-year expansion -- five-year extension of chip and almost all my colleagues voted for it. but passing out of committee and patting ourselves on the back doesn't get the job done. i ask all of my colleagues who sit here, again, mr. president, they sit here with health insurance paid for by taxpayers to one time -- one time this christmas season to set partisanship aside and do the
right thing. let's forget the tax bill for a few days. let's forget helping the wall street banks for a few days. let's forget about helping the oil companies and the billionaire contributors that mitch mcconnell and senator mcconnell and his -- his colleagues rely on, let's forget about that just for a few days and let's take care of the 209,000 children in ohio and the tens of thousands of children in kansas and the nine million children around the country. my friend who is c.e.o. of akrans, said that the fact that reauthorization has been used for shallow campaign promises is inexcusable. and bill consey, i know -- have known him for 25 years. i don't know if he is republican or democrat. what he cares about is taking care of kids. he said the fact that we are putting children and families at risk in the country we live in, there are no words we can use to justify it. he's right.
there's no way to justify this congress's negligence. we need to reauthorize and fund the children's health insurance program this week, now. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to move a different place in the record the ensuing remarks are. the presiding officer: without objection. -- remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: another test we face is unfolding at the financial protection bureau. our job is to look out for the people we serve, not wall street banks an corporations trying to -- and corporations trying to scam consumers. that's why we must protect the independence of the consumer protection bureau. in 2008 when the big banks crashed, it was obvious no one was looking out for the public. while predatory lenders were getting rich off families taking out a second mortgage just to make ends meet. people who are supposed to be looking out for those families were asleep at the switch. that's why we passed the dodd-frank wall street reform,
that's why we are created the consumer financial bureau with a mission to protect consumers and stand up for bank customers, homeowners, veterans, student loan borrowers, and seniors many all the mlings of americans when it -- millions of americans who need somebody on their side when it comes to the financial marketplace. with these transactions people do in a increasingly complex financial world and with all of the fine print and documents people sign to buy a home, sign up for a credit card, the public needs somebody on their side. someone looking out for them, someone not -- not obedient to the wall street bottom line. some in this body work to try to roll back dodd-frank rules that protect homeowners from wall street abuses, it saul the more -- it is all the more important to have the bureau on their side.
there has been $12 billion in relief for 29 million american consumers, they have been ripped off by pay day lenders, some were cheated by companies -- iconic american companies like wells fargo or companies like equifax, the consumer bureau has a special office of bureau member affairs, they take on -- took on the those who -- i know up close how they do that. at wright patterson air force base, the single largest employer near dayson in southwest ohio, the predators, the pay day lenders and the financial service predators set out shop outside the base. they can't set up shop inside the base, it's government property. they prey on people who might be ale little less sophisticated financially because they don't have a lot of money, they are
young, in many cases the service members who aren't paid very well, who are already struggling, somebody's overseas, they prey on the spouse overseas, they prey on them when they are overseas, they prey on their families when they are overseas. steven a former bush employee was talking about how important this agency's work is for working families. they have been able to do all of this because it's not beholden to wall street, not beholden to special interests or to people in this body. people in this body want to take away its independence many they say it's not accountable to everybody. you know what they mean? when i hear my friends in the banking committee say that the consumer protection bureau is not accountable to anybody? it means that they -- the banks can't influence them. the members of congress can't influence them. the members of congress who front for the big wall street firms can't influence them. that's what they mean when they
say that. they are accountable. the consumer bureau is accountable to the public. it's accountable to the people who get hurt by some of the financial transactions. a couple of weeks ago the administration sent the vice president to the senate floor under the cover of night -- you know what the vefs comes down -- vice president comes down here to the senate floor you know it's about to be a victory for wall street. the vice president came here under the cover of night to overturn a consumer bureau rule to guarantee hard working americans get their day in court. the vice president comes in breaks a tie and consumers lose, but wall street wins. now the administration ignores the law an hands over the consumer protection bureau to a person who doesn't think it should exist. the man they want running the consumer watchdog said that the agency, quote, is a sick, sad joke. he voted to repeal it. i guess that's why he thinks he
can do this job part time. the president sent a member of his cabinet who already has a full-time job at the office of management and budget and he's got fa full-time -- he's got a full-time job there and is going to run the consumer financial bureau. he is a reliable wall street cronie and will do everything he can to undercut the agency. it's no joke when he says it is a sick, sad joke, it's no joke to the people cheated by wall street. it's no joke to the tens of thousands of service members who reline0 the consumer bureau to fight for them. think about this. think about these banks that prey on service members, 19, 20, 25-year-old men and women serving our country, some of them are overseas, their spouse is back here raising kids, drugling every day on the a -- struggling every day here. who stood up for them? it wasn't members of congress who stood up for them. it wasn't -- it was the consumer
protection bureau. that's why they are there. the -- it was no joke to the 29 million american consumers who have money in their pockets now because the consumer bureau stood by them. it's no joke that in his first act today, nick mulvaney, the person the president wants to put in says he wants to end payments to working families who have been cheated by banks and financial institutions. we need this institution to fight back against wall street abuses and to fight for the american people. americans need a full-time cop on the beat with a proven track record of fighting for them, not a part-time director who has another job in the president's cabinet, not a part-time director, especially since that part-time director has a reputation when he was in congress down the hall, now that he's in the president's cabinet he has a record of working for wall street. candidate trump in 2016 said, this election is a choice between taking our government
back from special interests or surrendering our last scrap of independence to the total an complete -- their total and complete control. now president trump wants to keep that promise, he should take his advice and allow the consumer protection bureau to protect american consumers free of wall street's special interests. you don't drain the swamp by putting a toady for wall street into the consumer bureau to do the bidding of wall street. it's pretty darned simple. the president has an chance to stand on the side of the american people. heed should keep his promise. he told us that all last year, he would drain the swamp, stand up to the interest groups, punish wall street if wall street overreach. instead, he should -- he should keep that promise allow -- and allow the consumer protection bureau to do its work. anyone who stands on the side of hard working americans should make it clear they support deputy english. this, again, mr. president, it's about whose side are you on?
are you on the side of wall street? are you on the side of the special interests writing tax cut for the rich bills in the majority leader's office? are you for main street? are you for hardworking americans who show up for work every day and just want an even break and want a chance in this country. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the question occurs on the friedrich nomination. the yeas and nays are requested. is there a sufficient second? hearing so, the clerk will call the roll. vote:
the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 97. the nays are 3. nomination is agreed to. -- confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture clerk cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of gregory g. katsas of virginia to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit signed by 17 senators.
the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the seniors of the senate that the nomination on gregory g. katsas of virginia to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:
mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12:00 noon, tuesday, november 28. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and
mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent notwithstanding rule 22, that at 4:00 p.m. on tuesday, november 28, there be 90 minutes of postcloture debate remaining on the katsas nomination, equally divided between the leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand there is a bill at the desk, and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 1, an act to provide a reconciliation pursuant to titles 2 and 5 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018. mr. mcconnell: i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned --
the presiding officer: the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: now if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: during the last decade our complex tax code left
hardworking families behind and allowed the wealthy and well connected to get ahead. it's so bad one small business owner in paducah, ky, wrote to my office asking for relief, because, as he says, taxes are suffocating my company and me personally. the pain isn't just being felt in kentucky. it's an urgent problem nationwide. families and job creators are doing their best to get ahead but too often our tax code keeps them reaching for the american >> >> that is what we are trying to deliver. tax reform represents the second most important thing we can do right now to spur economic growth and boost the middle class.
this is a once in a generation opportunity and we should meet that challenge. our tax code can mean more for businesses to hire and invest and f expand family is keeping more of what they earn for a rainy day for an emergency or getting one step closer to get a child in college the senate will continue e the yearlong effort for tax reform. with the non with the outdated tax code. the dozens of hearings and the open amendment process the committee has introduced a bill to prioritize the middle class and small businesses to keep more of their hard earned money.
doubling the child tax credit and the adoption tax credit in doubles the standard deduction to reduce how much income is taxed in the first place. put it all together a family of four could see a tax break of around $2,200. as families sit around the table to balance budgets and plans for the future, this money will make a significant impact. in addition our tax reform proposal will provide much needed relief by repealing the individual tax on obamacare and to help those that need it most. we want to take more m money and of washington's pocket to put more money into the pockets of american families.nt
every member has a chance to offernd amendments on the floor where they should all republicans and democrats be able to agree and to have the c opportunity to contribute to american jobs while overseas this sounds like something they should support and this is a fundamental a problem this is our chance with our effort to help jobs and investments in to get this legislation one step closer to the president's desk and keep working together