vote:

vote:

the vice president: on this yeet the yeahs are 50. the nays are 50. the vice president votes in the affirmative and the motion is agreed to. pursuant to senate resolution 27, and the motion to discharge having been agreed to, the nomination will be placed on the executive calendar. thank you.

mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i welcome the vice president, the president of the senate to our chamber this evening. i'm here this evening to discuss the infrastructure plan that's been proposed by president biden and the plan along with it for massive tax increases. the biden infrastructure plan totals a $2.3 trillion but only 20% of it actually goes toward funding anything that members of either party have ever considered infrastructure. i support more infrastructure investment as do, i believe, most if not all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

the question is, what is infrastructure and how do you pay for it? roads and bridges as an example in this proposal are only about 5% of the plan. in fact, it provides more money for long-term care than it does for roads and bridges. more money for electric cars than it does for roads and bridges. more money for schools and day care than it does for roads and bridges. many of these noninfrastructure ideas are worthy ones and they should be debated and they should be considered but not as part of a self-described infrastructure bill in part because the funding sources should be very different. the price tag $2.3 trillion, soon to be $2.7 trillion we are told, and also the scope of the bill are bad enough but i want to -- but what i want to talk about tonight is the equally concerning way the biden administration plans to pay for this massive new legislation.

they want to pay for the bulk of it by completely reversing the progress we've made over the past few years in making america competitive again and making our workers competitive again. in the for years before covid-19, we saw record growth in jobs and wages in large part thanks to the pro-growth policies we put in place through the 2017 tax cuts and reforms. the nonpartisan congressional budget office has found that 70% of the savings from the 2017 corporate tax cuts went into workers' wages. 70%, they say, went into workers' pockets and it's one reason the leading up to the pandemic in february, a year and a couple of months ago, we had the 19th straight month, 19th straight month of wage growth of 3% or more annually. that was great news in my home state of ohio. we haven't had wage growth like

that in over a decade, maybe two decades. most of that benefit, by the way, went to middle and lower-income workers, exactly what you want. during that time period, the couple of years before the pandemic hit, we tied the 50-year low in unemployment at 3.5%. and had the lowest unemployment ever for blacks and hispanics. in fact, before the pandemic, we had reached the lowest poverty rate, 10.5% since we started recording this data back in 1959. so the lowest poverty rate on record. importantly, tax reform also stopped important conversions. companies were actually becoming foreign companies so they could get from under our tax code. this made no sense, and it was happening during the obama administration and during the first year of the trump administration. we also ended the so-called lockout effect caused by a tax code that made it too expensive to bring earnings back home,

foreign earnings back home, so people kept their earnings overseas. in fact, during that couple years, $1.6 trillion in overseas earnings has now come back home to invest and create jobs here. $1.6 trillion. we want that money here. as a result of those changes, the largest u.s. companies increased domestic research and development spending by 25% to $707 billion, and capital expenditures went up by 20% to $1.4 trillion. the biden plan would throw all that positive progress out. it would change our competitiveness to put us back where we were before or worse. the administration's corporate tax increase raises the combined federal and state corporate rate from an average of 25.8% to 32.8%. it would put us, again, as

having the highest rate in the developed world. these tax hikes, by the way, when you include the international tax hikes are actually five times as large as the corresponding cuts in 2017 based on the analysis that's been done. by the way, this would also of course give us not just the highest tax rate among the developed countries but also a far higher tax rate than countries like china, with whom we're trying to compete. it also changes the international tax doad make it much more costly for u.s. companies to operate outside of the united states, punishing american workers who have jobs here supporting international sales. i use the example of procter & gamble, my hometown of cincinnati. they are headquartered in ohio but they do business all over the world. they have told me that it would be far more expensive for them to do that, even uncompetitive for them to be working globally because we would be the only developed country in the world that charges them a tax to do

that and that would hurt the jobs in cincinnati, in ohio, that supports international sales. it just doesn't make any sense. why would we want to go back to that and have that lockout effect where profits are kept overseas where companies become foreign companies? and it eliminates in the biden plan the so-called foreign drive intangible provision. that was a carrot we put in the law very deliberately, a carrot for companies to bring their companies back here. that's what facebook did. they brought valuable intellectual property back home creating high-paying, high-tech jobs here in the united states of america. why would we want to change that? the bottom line is that this tax plan that has been proposed would make us uncompetitive again in the global economy, and the biden administration knows it. that's why when treasury secretary yellen announced the proposal to increase these

taxes, she actually asked other countries around the world to raise their own corporate taxes, pleading with them. we're going to raise ours. you need to now raise your taxes. of course when she said we need to do that to create a more level playing field, other countries in the world said this is great. we're going to get more american investment and more business for our companies. in fact, right after she made that announcement, the finance minister in ireland was asked a question. he said he has no interest in joining america in raising taxes, nor do others. china is not going to raise its taxes. in fact, these countries are continuing to do what they have been doing, which is knock down ban yers to jobs and investment -- barriers to jobs and investment in their economy. and that makes sense from their point of view. it makes sense from our point of view to continue to be competitive also. the tax increases would mean america standing alone atop the corporate tax rate chart. studies by the nonpartisan

congressional budget office and others have shown that, again, it's american workers who will bear the brunt of these corporate tax hikes in the form of lost jobs and lower wages. because of the tax hikes, the university of pennsylvania penn wharton model analyzing this biden plan actually projects we would see a 1% decrease in p g.d.p. and a a decrease in wages. this is extraordinary to me because that is did despite the obvious benefit we're going to get from this infrastructure spending. so despite all that benefit, we're still going to see a reduction in our economy, our economic growth and a reduction in wages. this harms american workers, particularly those toward the bottom of the economic ladder. the bottom line is that the $2.1 trillion tax hike used to pay for this infrastructure bill will harm middle-class families and our businesses. and i believe the american people get that. they recognize this is not the

way forward for our economy or for our infrastructure. instead, let's follow the proven bipartisan model on infrastructure. let's keep the plan to real infrastructure. let's agree to what it is. let's do it generously. let's include broadband, let's include water projects, let's make it real infrastructure, though, and then let's come up with sensible pay fors, including user fees. that's what the american people want, and that's what they deserve. i yield back my time. 123450

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: thank you. the legislation called the judiciary act of 2021 was introduced last week which would immediately expand the supreme court to 13 justices. if this is serious in its intent, it is foolish. there is no need to expand the court in order to meet the demands of its workload. after the peaking in 2006 when president george w. bush was in office the number of cases in the docket have plummeted. the late justice ruth bader ginsburg, appointed by president clinton and a liberal icon in 2019 told n.p.r. there is no need to expand the court saying nine seems to be good, a good number. with that established, this is a transparently ploy, a transparent ploy for power that would undermine trust in the

fair application of law and delegitimize the highest court of the land. if this is really a serious piece l policy legislation, we wouldn't change the number of supreme court justices immediately. if it wasn't just politics, we certainly wouldn't change the justices before another election. in fact, senator joe biden on this senate floor called f.d.r.'s attempt to pack the court, quote, a power grab. and as presidential candidate this last year, he refused to endorse expanding the number of justices. earlier this month, justice stephen breyer, appointed by president clinton, said the court's authority depends on, quote, a trust that the court is guided by legal principles, not politics. he continued by saying structural alteration moat vailted by the perception -- motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed the latter ask --

expepgget further eroding that trust. if the public sees supreme court justices as politicians in robes, its confidence, the public's confidence in the courts and in the rule of law itself can only be diminished, diminishing the court's power, including the power to act as a check on other branches of government. last august, gallup found that 58% of americans approve of the job the supreme court is doing. in fact, the supreme court's approval ratings actually increased in the last several years. polling from february of this year finds that 35% of americans approve the job that we in congress are doing, and that's up from 15% not many days ago. i raise this data to demonstrate that the supreme court is an institution which a majority of americans continue to place their trust in.

that's a significant circumstance in today's polarized world, but a majority of americans still believe they can trust the supreme court. if we, congress, inject ourselves into the size of the court's composition, justice breyer is exactly right that the trust the american people have that the rulings will be delivered on a fair reading of the law will be further undermined. on the republican side of the aisle, we've seen our share of defeats in recent years, and not once when the republican party controlled congress and had the white house, were there efforts to expand the supreme court. can you imagine how the left or the media would react if president trump attempted to expand the court to 13 justices and add four republican nominated justices during his tenure? we have not attempted to expand the court because the supreme court should not serve as another legislative body. that is our job, a job we need

to do much better than we do today so that more than one-third of the american people can place their confidence in us as we pass laws. we've had the same number of supreme court justices for more than 150 years. perhaps the judiciary act of 2021 is less an effort to expand the supreme court than an effort to intimidate sitting justices to deliver rulings favorable to the ideology of my colleagues proposing the legislation. from guns to abortion, to religious liberties to other hot-button issues, my colleagues are threatening the justices either deliver favorable rulings or not take up divisive cases at all. if this is what my colleagues seek to accomplish, i'm confident that the independence and integrity of our justices will prevail. indeed, it must prevail to preserve the american people's confidence in the institution of

the courts, in the judicial system, in the supreme court. i'm disappointed because rather than working with each other across the aisle, across this aisle right here, to pass legislation, democrats interested in pursuing a larger supreme court are more interested in that, more interested in eliminating the filibuster than to pass their agenda and stack the court to prevent their legislation from being struck down as unconstitutional. process matters around here. we have to get to the point in which we utilize the process to get a fair and just result, where all people's voices are heard, where every member of the senate has the opportunity to express their view and an opportunity for that to be voted on. but we don't skew the process to get a desired outcome. we all need to do our jobs to convince our colleagues that we are right in our position, that our legislation is meritorious.

we don't, and we shouldn't change the process to get our way. the checks and balances of our constitution work. they've worked for a long time. they are important to this country. when we talk about how divisive things are on the senate floor and in this country today, the solution to that is not changing the rules in the middle of the game. the rules -- it is to abide by the rules that protect our freedoms and liberties. i implore my colleagues to have the same faith in these constitutional guardrails as i do, to have the same faith in the independence and fairness of the supreme court that a majority of americans have, and to believe that we can work together, you and i can work together on behalf of the americans we serve, the americans we represent without

resorting to acts that will damage us all today and for generations to come. mr. president, i thank you for your attention. i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session, that the cloture motions with respect to amendments 445 and s. 937 be withdrawn -- sorry, with respect to amendment 1445 and s. 937 be

withdrawn, that when the senate resumes consideration of s. 937 on thursday, april 22, the following amendments be reported by number and that they be the only amendments in order -- cruz-kennedy, number 1456, lee 1425, blackburn 1458. furthering that at 11:30 a.m., the senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, that amendment 1445, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, the bill be considered and read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption of the amendments and passage of the bill, with four minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote. all with no intervening action or debate and final lay that the motions to be reconsidered be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up it ten inns each. the presiding officer: officer without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 168 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 168, congratulating the northwest missouri state university bearcats men's basketball team on winning the 2021ncaa men's division ii national championship. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 169 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution

169, honoring the life and legacy of william robert bobby "slick" leonard. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of senate res170 submitted earlier today u. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 1710, relating to the death of walter frederick mondale, former vice president of the united states. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate

proceed to the consideration of h. con. res. 30 which was received from the house and is at the-esque did. -- desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: providing for a joint session of congress to receive a message from the president. officer without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 143. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 143, to honor and recognize the patriotism and service to the united states provided by veteran service organizations during the covid-19 pandemic.

the presiding officer: without objection, the committee will be discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. surely schumer i ask unanimous consent that the release be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. thursday, april 22. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour 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 morning business be closed. and that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of s. 937 as provided for under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: for the information of senators, there will be four roll call votes in relation to covid-19 hate crimes beginning at 11:30 a.m. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under

the provisions p s.170 as a further mark of respect for the late walter mondale, former senator of minnesota and vice president of the united states of america. the presiding officer: under the previous order, and pursuant to senate resolution 170, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, april 22, and does so as a further mark of respect to the late walter mondale, former senator from minnesota and vice president of the united states.

>> hello, and welcome to thiss. virtual event on covid-19