[Pages S8088-S8142]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed having been agreed to,
the Chair lays before the Senate the conference report to accompany
H.R. 1, which will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
1), to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V
of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
2018, having met, have agreed that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the
same with an amendment and the Senate agree to the same,
signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both
Houses.

Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of December 15, 2017.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we stand today on the precipice of the most
sweeping change to our Nation's tax system in over 30 years. This is a
historic moment, as this distinguished body begins final consideration
of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--tax reform that will help boost America's
economy, create more jobs, and leave more money in people's paychecks.
The last time we considered tax reform similar to this magnitude was
1986. To help remind us how much our country, its economy, and the
people have changed since that time, let's review some of the events of
that year.
In 1986, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 1,895--sure that
20,000 would never be broken, and it wasn't until after the last
election. It now stands at over 24,000.
A gallon of gas cost just 89 cents. Today it is close to $2.50. We
still used land lines to phone our loved ones. Iconic movies such as
``Top Gun'' and ``Aliens'' opened. Americans were watching TV shows
like ``Dynasty'' and ``Hill Street Blues.'' The Associated Press chose
NBA star Larry Bird as one of the Athletes of the Year.
President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986,
which ushered in deep tax rate cuts for American families and an
overhaul of our complicated Tax Code. When he signed the bill, Reagan
commented on the length of the journey and noted that some people
thought it would never happen.
Today, too, some have asserted that tax reform either cannot or
should not happen, but as our strongly optimistic President said in
1986--and as I continue to believe--the American people ``haven't made
this the freest country and the mightiest economic force on this planet
by shrinking from challenges.'' Reagan noted:

This country was founded on faith in the individual, not
groups or classes, but faith in resources and bounty of each
and every separate human soul. Our Founding Fathers designed
a Democratic form of government to enlist the individual's
energies.

For that reason, I want to remind my colleagues about the hard work
that brought us here. It is a journey that has been years in the making
under the leadership of both sides of the aisle. It is one we started
and will finish for the benefit of the American people and the health
of the U.S. economy.
I am proud of the work of the Finance and Budget Committees, and I
have had the honor to play a role with both. The Finance Committee held
more than 70 hearings on how the Tax Code can be improved and
streamlined to work better for all Americans.
Almost 3 years ago, Finance Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden
convened bipartisan tax reform working groups to analyze challenges of
our outdated Tax Code and develop policy recommendations for
comprehensive tax reform. The conclusions reached by these groups
helped identify the issues for reform and shape the contours of the
legislation we are considering now. It is worth noting that the entire
fiscal year 2018 budget reconciliation process has been open,
transparent, and subject to regular order, starting with the passage of
the Senate budget resolution.
The Senate Budget Committee marked up the bill over 2 days and
accepted amendments from both sides of the aisle to make the resolution
stronger. In fact, for the first time ever, the minority received a
copy of the chairman's budget document 5 days prior to the start of the
markup. According to many of my colleagues, it was one of the most
transparent budget resolution markups in history.
The budget resolution--complete with the document reconciliation
instructions--was then debated on the floor. This was an open floor
process that allowed every Senator the opportunity to offer and vote on
amendments to improve the resolution before its final passage.
Last month, the Senate Finance Committee held a 4-day markup before
approving tax reform legislation designed to modernize our Tax Code.
The markup lasted 23 hours and 34 minutes over the course of those 4
days. Of the more than 350 amendments filed, 69 were considered in
committee. Amendments offered by both Democrats and Republicans were
adopted.

Since then, both Chambers of Congress have passed similar versions of
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and over the past 2 weeks, conferees worked
tirelessly to resolve and bridge the differences between the two bills
and

[[Page S8089]]

come to an agreement on a final piece of legislation.
In this Chamber, the legislation reflects the outstanding work and
leadership of Finance Chairman Hatch and Energy Committee Chairman
Murkowski in developing legislative recommendations that adhere to the
budget resolution's reconciliation instructions, and I thank them for
their efforts.
I also thank my Senate colleagues who earlier this month supported
the Senate passage of the Tax Cuts and Job Act and whose advice and
consent during the conference has shaped the final bill. The
legislation is truly a reflection of the broad range and consensus of
Members who engaged with this process.
Throughout my work on this bill, I have carried with me the many
lessons I have learned from when I owned and operated a small business
or when I worked as an accountant. I have been led by one singular
purpose, to help improve the lives of millions of hard-working American
families, especially the residents of my own State of Wyoming.
I am pleased with the outcome of our work because I believe it
includes meaningful changes that will help individuals and families
struggling to move up the economic ladder. The tax plan includes
reforms that will help grow the economy, that will create more jobs,
and that will simplify taxes. It provides American workers and families
with an across-the-board tax cut and puts more money in people's
pockets. It lets Americans have a greater say as to how to use their
hard-earned money. The changes will help small businesses in our
communities thrive and encourage the largest multinational companies to
remain in the United States, investing profits here instead of
overseas--not a bad wish list for Santa.
Under the plan, Americans will reap tax savings from reduced tax
rates, tax savings from a higher standard deduction, which creates a
larger zero tax bracket for low-income individuals and increases many
people's tax refunds. It also includes a child tax credit that doubles
in size to $2,000 to help struggling families and all this while
preserving important deductions for medical expenses, charities,
homeowners, and State and local taxes. Our farmers and ranchers will
receive stronger protections from the reach of the death tax to help
them more easily pass on their businesses to future generations--
eliminating a double taxation.
Businesses small and large will benefit from a range of tax breaks,
including lower tax rates, expanded opportunities to expense the
purchase of capital assets, a new 20-percent deduction for many
unincorporated businesses, and international tax reforms to give the
U.S.-headquartered global companies a strong competitive footing in the
global marketplace. These are changes you can take to the bank.
Now it is time for us to act. It is time for us to modernize our
outdated Tax Code so our Nation can remain competitive in the 21st
century economy. The code, as it now stands, hurts American workers and
hampers economic growth.
Along with reforms to the code, this bill will also promote economic
growth. For too long, some have accepted the presumption of a U.S.
economy that will not grow as strongly as it has in the past. As a
supporter of this bill, I reject that false narrative.
Better tax policy will boost the value of everything we produce, and
this will mean more revenue for the Federal Government. I am tired of
the accusations that Republican budget hawks--and that definitely
includes me--are willing to throw in the towel and accept a $1.5
trillion deficit over the next 10 years. I am still a deficit hawk.
Here is why. Claims to the contrary that this bill will go unpaid for
are based on an incomplete analysis of the tax bill.
We have a Congressional Budget Office tasked with impartially
evaluating any legislation we do. Unfortunately, its evaluations are
tied to static scoring. That means it is evaluated without considering
the underlying economic effects of these changes. Let me repeat that.
The Congressional Budget Office is tied to static scoring. That means
it is evaluated without considering the underlying economic effects of
these changes.
The problem really isn't how much revenue we will have under the new
bill. I believe it will increase revenue as the tax cut did in the
1980s. The problem is spending. We never make budget cuts. In
Washington, a cut in the budget brings screams if an agency or program
doesn't get as much as it requested, even if it gets more than it ever
had before. That is not a budget cut, but that is how it works in
Washington. If we continue this way, we will not ever get our spending
in line.
For years, I have tried to institute the Penny Plan, where we just
cut one penny in real cuts from where we have been. It gets lip service
but not votes. It is a lot easier to give away money than it is to take
away money, even pennies. So we need a new approach. We need to grow
the economy. We need businesses to do well so more tax money will come
in. We need individuals to make more so more tax money will come in.
That has been done before with tax cuts. Unfortunately, when the tax
cuts performed to provide more revenue, we spent twice what we brought
in.
So here is what I have done as Budget chairman. A good economy brings
in more tax money. Our economy has been limping along. Last year, it
grew at a mere 1.6 percent GDP--which is private sector growth, not
government growth. The norm for the United States is 3.2 percent
private sector growth--not like we saw during the past 8 years when
this growth remained below 3 percent. In fact, since this President got
elected, the growth has been 3.2 percent already. In the fourth quarter
of 2017, we may almost hit 4 percent. There is a lot of hope in
America. Every tenth-of-a-percent increase in GDP brings in $273
billion in taxes over 10 years. If we could raise that anemic 1.9
percent to a mere 2.4 percent GDP, we can recover the deficit effect of
the tax cuts. If we can bring up the productivity in the private
sector--the GDP--to its norm of 3.2 percent, we will pay down
significant debt over the 10-year window.
The Council of Economic Advisers and some 130 economists have agreed
with me. They say the balancing point of 2.4 percent is way too low,
and 3.2 percent GDP is much more reasonable. Some even predict 4
percent growth to our economy. That is how you can be a deficit hawk
and cut taxes. You just have to bet America can do better. Actually, we
are just betting that we can be as good as we used to be. Our American
spirit should say: ``We can do a lot better than that.''
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will help our economy expand. It will
provide tax relief to hard-working Americans and make changes to our
Tax Code that businesses large and small need to boost the economy and
create jobs.
Ultimately, we know increased revenues alone are not going to solve
our long-term budget and debt problems because Washington's real
problem isn't revenue; Washington has a spending problem.
I urge my colleagues today to finish the task before us. Let's pass
this bill to make critical and long overdue changes to our Tax Code
that will jump-start our economy. Our country needs it, hard-working
American families need it, and they deserve to have the opportunity to
make more choices about how their hard-earned money should be used.
In closing, I again remind my colleagues of the words of President
Reagan:

Let's not let this magnificent moment slip away. Tax relief
is in sight. Let's make it a reality. . . . We can do it. And
if you help, we will do it this year.

Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President and colleagues, today the Republican Party officially
turns its back on America's middle class. Our constituents believe
Congress must require multinational corporations to pay their fair
share, ensure that the middle class has the chance to truly get ahead,
and protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Instead,
Republicans are doling out new giveaways to the multinational
corporations, raising taxes on the middle class after a brief sugar
high, and taking away the Medicare and Social Security guarantees for
the future.
It takes hard work to muscle a tax plan this unpopular and
destructive

[[Page S8090]]

through the Congress. Writing it is the easy part, especially when you
are just checking off the far-right tax policy wish list. Normally, the
hard part is sticking to your baseless talking points, ignoring the
public outcry, and turning a blind eye to the loads of evidence that
your plan is designed to fail.
This process has certainly been as far from normal as it can get. The
bill comes at an enormous cost and represents a huge missed
opportunity. For some perspective, the $1.5 trillion Republicans plan
to borrow for their tax bill would fund the Children's Health Insurance
Program for 915 years--915 years of a lifeline for families who are
walking on an economic tightrope with CHIP. That is what you could get
for the $1.5 trillion Republicans are borrowing to pay for their tax
bill. Spent on infrastructure, it would build towering, new monuments
in the tradition of the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the
Interstate Highway System. Aimed permanently at helping the middle
class, it would give long-struggling Americans a meaningful chance to
get ahead.
But this isn't real tax reform or a serious solution to the major
policy challenges of our time; this is a stimulus plan for shareholder
goodies and executive compensation. Today, Republicans are ignoring
decades of evidence that trickle-down economics is a fantasy.
Republicans have cut taxes bit by bit for multinational corporations
and high-flyers, but we have seen wages stay flat. The benefits of
those previous tax cuts never trickle down.
In this debate, Republicans seized on a talking point about workers
getting a $4,000 average raise if the bill becomes law, but that figure
is based on a made-up, revenue-neutral plan that was never on paper. It
is fake math, plain and simple.
I want to issue a warning to the public today. Passing this bill
guarantees years and years of instability in our Tax Code and painful,
drawn-out battles over tax policy here in the Congress. Because of the
pure partisanship and the recklessness of the process that went into
drafting this legislation, the bill is already full of mistakes that
are going to have drastic, unintended consequences.
Down on K Street, they are already working overtime to exploit new
special interest loopholes. The giant passthrough tax loophole, which
has been widely covered in the business pages, is just the beginning.
There are going to be big new incentives for multinational corporations
to ship jobs overseas, and with that, more factory towns and mill towns
are going to go dark. Fewer Americans will have the kinds of reliable
manufacturing jobs that support a family. There are going to be
extraordinary new pressures on State and local finances, and that is
going to hamper their ability to build new roads and bridges and
schools. There are going to be new and annual fights over the stop-and-
go tax policies. Around here, they are called tax extenders. And what
they do is ensure a lack of the predictability and certainty we need
for innovation and growth.
All the evidence says that many of the policies in this bill are
going to be a nightmare to administer. This means that with this bill,
tax cheats get a holiday gift and have the opportunity to create new
rip-offs. What this means for the typical family who just wants to file
and get a refund on time is that there are going to be more hassles
because the government is going to have to devote more time to trying
to catch the cheats.

The defining economic challenge of our time is guaranteeing that the
middle class and those who strive to be middle class have a chance to
get ahead. Our country is home to the world's most powerful economic
engine, and it generates levels of prosperity that have never been seen
before, but working families and the middle class have been on the
outside of the winner's circle for generations. The Republican plan
isn't an answer to that challenge. In fact, it almost certainly makes
the problem worse.
At a time when the middle class needs fundamental, permanent reforms
to give them a chance to get ahead, the best--the best the Republican
plan offers is a sugar high. The fact is, it will not be long before
the sugar high wears off and tens of millions of hard-working Americans
will find themselves paying higher taxes--higher taxes--as a result of
this bill. Corporations, on the other hand, reap the benefits of
permanent tax breaks and a loophole-ridden system that, in my view,
just begs to be gamed.
The trail of broken promises that Republicans have left behind in
this process is long and unforgettable. The President said his tax bill
would not benefit his family or people like him. That is untrue. The
Treasury Secretary said there would be no tax cut for the upper class.
He was happy to have that called the Mnuchin rule. That is untrue.
Republicans in Congress said the principal feature, the main feature of
their plan, would center on a middle-class tax cut. That is untrue.
Republicans said their bill would make the system dramatically simpler.
That is untrue. Republicans said their bill would allow families to
file their taxes on a postcard. That is untrue. Republicans said their
plan would pay for itself. That, too, is untrue.
Even many of the promises Republican leaders made to their own
colleagues have been broken, but there is one that they are not trying
to hide. The deficit hawks have flown back to town, and they are
already stirring up a battle over entitlement reform, and they are
going to look at a variety of health programs and programs that are a
lifeline to millions of Americans.
Our people are not thrown off by the Washington lingo. They know that
when Republicans say they are coming after entitlement reform, they
have the knives out for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, anti-
hunger programs, education funding, and more.
Our distinguished colleague from Wyoming, Chairman Enzi, was talking
about how dynamic scoring would take care of things and that it was
just off base to be concerned about these deficits because dynamic
scoring would make everything turn out fine. The reality is that all of
the independent analyses have shown that this bill comes up way short
in terms of projected revenue. The Tax Foundation, for example--which
is not exactly a leftwing operation--says the Republicans were hundreds
of billions of dollars short. What the Joint Committee on Taxation said
is that the Republican plan was $1 trillion short.
Let's put it in context. Remember that Steve Mnuchin said that this
plan would not only pay for itself but that it would leave $1 trillion
left over. Yet both the Tax Foundation and the Joint Committee on
Taxation said that this bill comes light years away from paying for
itself.
I say to my colleagues, it didn't have to be this way.
I see the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee on the
floor.
As I have indicated, Democrats believe that the Tax Code is a rotting
mess and has to be fixed. For years, there has been bipartisan interest
in getting tax reform done right. Seventeen Democratic Senators came
together, even in a last-ditch effort to try to bring some
bipartisanship into the process, and laid out ideas for some common
ground. I commend that group, led by our colleague from West Virginia,
Senator Manchin, and our colleague from Virginia, Senator Kaine. I have
written two comprehensive, bipartisan tax reform bills, first with
Senator Judd Gregg and then with a member of the President's Cabinet,
Dan Coats. The majority leader always likes to talk about how nobody on
this side is interested in bipartisanship. When Democrats laid out
their principles, the first thing we said was how important it ought to
be that we focus on bipartisanship. That letter was shared with the
Republican leadership. Then you have the group of moderates. Then you
have the actual bills that were written. So this idea advanced by the
Republican leadership that there was no interest in bipartisanship does
not resemble reality.
By the way, a lot of Senators here know that we have a pretty current
example--the 2015 tax bill. It is kind of a model of what you can do.
Both sides had good ideas. Bipartisanship is not about taking each
other's dumb ideas; anybody can do that. But in the 2015 bill, my
colleagues on this side said that the earned-income tax credit ought to
be expanded, and we wanted the child tax credit and the American
opportunity tax credit.

The Republicans, led by my distinguished colleague, Senator Hatch,
had

[[Page S8091]]

some pretty good ideas too. They wanted to make the research and
development credit permanent and the expensing provisions, which are so
important for farmers and rural communities, and they had some ideas on
business incentives. So we said: We are going to find some common
ground here. We are going to take good ideas from both sides.
The tragedy of this bill is that Republicans wouldn't build on the
good work of the 2015 tax legislation, where good ideas were accepted
from both sides. This time around, there was zero outreach from
Republicans on this issue. There was not one moment when Republicans
actually shared even a piece of paper or a document about ideas that
might bring both sides together. In fact, we can go all the way back to
November 2016. They were still putting the voting machines back into
storage when the first whispers began about tax reform happening
through a completely partisan process.
Now, in coffee shops across America, most folks are not talking about
budget reconciliation. Budget reconciliation is Washington lingo for
saying: We aren't going to do this right; we are just going to make it
our way, partisan, with no effort to try to bring people together. And
after those whispers in November of 2016, within days, Chairman Enzi,
the chairman of the Budget Committee, and my good friend, Senator
Hatch, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and everybody is on
board.
Then, the majority leader, in December of 2016, made it official: We
weren't going to build on the history of successful tax reform, which
required bringing both sides together; the majority leader said that we
are going with reconciliation and partisanship. Reconciliation is a
full-on rejection of the history of successful tax reform, and it is a
full-on rejection of bipartisanship. It is the majority saying to the
minority, as was the case: We just don't want your ideas because we
don't need your votes. When you look at the way this debate played out,
it is obvious that has been exactly the approach my Republican
colleagues have taken.
The administration's first tax outline, which was shorter than your
typical drugstore receipt, didn't contain an ounce of Democratic input.
Then, what we had with the Republicans were the closed-door meetings of
what they called the Big 6, a Republican-only group who turned their
outline into a framework for a bill. The framework they released, which
was roughly the same size as your typical drugstore receipt, still
reflected no Democratic ideas.
Everybody knew that if we did it this kind of way, the public was
going to catch on. They were going to see this as a con job and they
were going to catch on that this is going to give the middle class the
shaft, so they decided that they just have to move at the speed of
light. That is what the House did.
Here in the Senate, the Republicans dropped their plan late at night,
just before the Veterans Day weekend, and the Finance Committee was
supposed to start the process of voting on it a few days later.
There was a whole new bill introduced in the middle of our markup
that turned the tax bill into a healthcare bill--a healthcare bill--
with a fresh attack on the Affordable Care Act. There was another set
of last-second changes introduced literally minutes before the final
committee votes happened. The bill makes $10 trillion in tax policy
changes, and there was never a single hearing on the specifics of the
legislation.
Let me just repeat that. I want the public to know that. There was
never a single hearing--not one--on the specifics of this legislation.
We are going to hear on all points a push by my colleagues on the
other side to say that there were 70 hearings. Well, sure, there were
people who would come in from time to time and talk about issues. There
wasn't one hearing--not one--on the specifics of the legislation.
On the Senate floor, the Republicans played hide the ball for days
until they dropped the final version of their bill late at night on a
Friday. Two full days of debate had already passed, and the final bill
was a mystery.
I stood here hour after hour asking where the bill was--an economy-
transforming bill, a tax hike on tens of millions of middle-class
Americans. Yet Republicans kept it hidden until the very last second.
When it was revealed to the public, we saw my colleague, Senator Durbin
from Illinois, holding it up with illegible notes scrawled in margins.
It wasn't anywhere near enough time for any Member of this body to read
the bill and grasp each of its provisions.
Even the conference committee was an exercise in reckless
partisanship. News reports said that Republicans had agreed to a final
bill, but they were empty-handed at the only official conference
meeting. So what was going on at this so-called conference meeting?
This was, I guess, a reality show version of a conference committee.
The conferees were supposed to ask questions about out-of-date plans
from the other body, in the Senate, when the actual, final bill was
still locked behind closed doors.
The chairman didn't allow any motions or any amendments. Just like
every other step in the process, this was a sham debate, and now the
bill is a few hours away from passage.
I close with this: This bill has the power to reshape the American
economy in far-reaching and unforeseen ways. It has the power to send
families into economic hardship. It has the power to threaten this
country's ability to uphold the special promises of Medicare, Medicaid,
and Social Security. And this bill was written in the shadows, written
in the dark, with billions and billions of dollars' worth of changes
tumbling out at the last second, the result of special interest
influence and hushed conversations in back rooms.
There were no public hearings on the specifics of this legislation,
and people wonder why the American people oppose it. Republicans have
chosen to ignore them. They have chosen to ignore them. What is
happening is un-Democratic. It is wrong. I am here to say that this
vote will not be forgotten.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the conference
report for H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I have waited a long time
to give this final statement in support of tax reform legislation.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the
Gallery.
The Senator will suspend.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this fellow has a very interesting way of
trying to get his point of view across. It shouldn't be done here in
this august body.
Let me just start again.
The Senate will soon vote on the conference report for H.R. 1, the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I have waited a long time to be able to give
this final statement in support of tax reform legislation.
I have been in the Senate for a little while. I have been party to a
number of major legislative achievements, like the passage of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the creation of the CHIP program, the
Child Health Insurance Program, and the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act, to name just a few. These are landmark bills, and I have had a lot
to do with them.
The legislation before us is as important and as far-reaching as
anything I have been privileged to work on. It is beyond gratifying to
see the Senate reach this point, and I look forward to finally seeing
real tax legislation signed into law.
I apologize for this type of intemperate action and mouthing off
inside of this august Chamber. People feel very deeply about these
things on both sides of the issues.
Passage of this important bill will be historic. It is the
combination of years of work by people in both parties, in both
Chambers, and on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. Many of us in this
body have been waiting for years for this opportunity, and millions of
Americans outside of this body have been waiting even longer.
It is no secret that our Tax Code is broken. Members of both parties
have acknowledged this. If you walked across the country and asked
Americans of all backgrounds and ideologies, you wouldn't find many who
would be willing to defend the status quo. I don't think you would find
anybody.

[[Page S8092]]

There is one apt phrase my good friend Senator Wyden uses to describe
our Tax Code. He calls it ``a dying carcass.'' Indeed, our Tax Code is
dying and rotting. It has hampered job creation, wage growth,
investment in the United States, and it has chased American companies
to foreign shores. I don't know how it could be more harmful than it
has been. It has also given foreign companies a leg up on U.S.
businesses in the global marketplace, leading to a record number of
foreign takeovers and inversions. The bill before us will address these
problems and help us turn the ship around.
Our legislation will reduce the corporate tax rate to 21 percent--
something that is long overdue--the lowest level in the modern history
of the United States, placing our country slightly below the average of
industrialized countries. These changes will once again give American
companies a competitive edge and bring more businesses back home
instead of losing them the way we have been.
Hundreds of economists have said that our bill will boost economic
growth, and numerous companies have indicated that once our bill
becomes law, they will invest heavily in expansion and job creation
right here in the United States of America.
In addition, as the Joint Committee on Taxation has made clear,
reducing the corporate tax rate has distributional effects that go
beyond the companies themselves, their high-ranking officers, or even
their richest shareholders. In fact, JCT--the Joint Committee on
Taxation--estimates that workers bear 25 percent of the corporate tax
rate and other economists have found that this number can reach as high
as 75 percent. This means that no matter how you slice it, Americans
will see their wages go up when corporate tax rates go down.
Further, over the last few decades, we have seen a massive expansion
of pension and retirement assets, much of which are invested in
corporate stocks. While many of my colleagues like to decry any
business from merely earning a profit, the truth is that the continued
rise in corporate profits has significantly expanded the wealth of
middle-class workers and taxpayers who have continually set aside funds
for the future.
A representative from the Tax Policy Center testified before the
Finance Committee in the spring of last year. At that hearing he stated
that 37 percent of corporate stock ownership was held in retirement
plan accounts--37 percent. That was the largest share of overall stock
ownership, and that statistic syncs up with the distribution tables put
out by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.
For all of these reasons, lowering the corporate tax rate has been a
bipartisan goal for over a decade now. I have said it before:
Presidents Clinton and Obama, Senators Wyden and Schumer, and most of
the other Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee have at some point
in the recent past endorsed a significant reduction in the U.S.
corporate tax rate.
Our bill will achieve this bipartisan goal and place our country well
within the mainstream among our international competitors. This is a
good thing--not just for businesses and rich stockholders but for
working, middle-class families as well.
Let's be clear. This bill's chief focus is about helping the middle
class. I know there is a tendency among some in this Chamber to act and
speak as though all money in this country inherently belongs to the
government. I won't speak for everyone, but those of us who have worked
on this bill tend to think differently.
Aside from business reforms that will grow our economy, increase
wages, and create jobs, our bill will lower individual tax rates across
the board, allowing hard-working Americans to keep more of their money.
In our bill, we also nearly double the standard deduction for
individuals and married couples. This feature will significantly reduce
the burden of tax filing for millions of middle-class families and
decrease even further the overall tax liability of millions more. For
the first time in more than 30 years, nearly every American will get
more money back by just filing out an EZ form. This, without a doubt,
fulfills our goal of simplifying the Tax Code.
For individuals who are concerned about being able to itemize--again,
we believe the number of people with this concern will decrease
dramatically under our bill--we retain a number of key provisions that
benefit many in the middle class. For example, this historic
legislation will allow individuals and families to continue to claim
deductions for State and local taxes, up to $10,000 a year. It will
keep in place, with relatively minor adjustments, the deduction for
mortgage interest. And Americans who itemize and want to deduct their
charitable deductions will be free to do so. This has made America
great, and it has helped us at the same time to be more charitable. We
are also expanding the child tax credit with this bill, doubling it
from $1,000 to $2,000 per child and making the credit far more
refundable than ever before. The adoption credit will stay in place.
The deduction for medical expenses will still be available. Credits and
assistance for students and their families will be untouched. We have
made all of these changes and, when necessary, preserved current law,
with an eye toward helping the middle class.
I know a number of my colleagues like to argue that this bill will
have different results. Let's look at the numbers.
Under this bill, a typical family of four, earning the median family
income of $73,000, will see their taxes go down by more than half--
about 58 percent. That number means something more than just a simple
percentage; it means that an average American family will be able to
keep $2,058 more of their own earnings next year. That is a mortgage
payment, a downpayment for a car, or several months' worth of
groceries.
What about a single parent? Under our plan, a single parent with one
child, making $41,000, will see their taxes slashed by nearly 73
percent. That is almost a three-quarter reduction in tax liability.
That means a savings of more than $1,300 over the course of a year.
That could be a month of daycare expenses, multiple car payments, or a
family vacation.
These are things that matter to American families, and they well
should. But our friends on the other side have been so caught up in
partisan politics that they decided to ignore the Americans who will
benefit from this legislation. I think it started with the election of
President Trump and the retention of Senate control by Republicans.
Their base protested, occupied, and disrupted the transfer of power
from President Obama to President Trump. Here on the Hill, the
``resistance'' was in full effect right off the bat, with a coordinated
effort to stall nominations in committee, which included unprecedented
boycotts and refusals to meet with nominees. It has only gone downhill
from there.
While we heard words from our friends on the other side about
participating in tax reform, their actions showed otherwise. I don't
know how they can stand here and make some of the arguments they do.
Unprecedented process demands were made. Resistance was the plan, and
that plan was carried out. Now we hear about massive tax cuts for the
very rich and huge breaks for corporations, but these claims fall apart
when you look at the facts.
Again, this isn't unchartered territory for my friends on the other
side. Accusing Republicans of hating the poor and loving the rich is
one of their go-to moves. I have seen it for over 40 years. Every time
you turn around, there is one of their go-to moves, and it has nothing
to do with reality. I do think they are getting more desperate and
vicious in their attacks because they regret their own decisions to sit
out of this endeavor. That is precisely how it happened. Our colleagues
were apparently so preoccupied with denying President Trump and
congressional Republicans any success, they chose not to engage and
instead to sit in the peanut gallery throwing out baseless attacks.
As I have said literally dozens of times over the past few years, I
wish the Democrats had joined us in this process, put aside their
ultimatums and preconditions, and helped to advance policies that they
have claimed to support for years now. But we are where we are, and
while the bill before us includes a number of ideas and proposals
Democrats have supported, we are prepared to pass it without their

[[Page S8093]]

votes, if that is what it takes. There have been some Democrats who
have worked with us, but they have been few and far between.
Once again, this is a historic bill. I am proud of the work we have
done in the Finance Committee, here on the floor, and in conference to
get us to this point. I again invite our friends on the other side to
also support the bill. I am proud of our colleagues who have put in so
much effort to get us here. I am proud of the staff on Capitol Hill who
have labored day and night to assist in this endeavor.
As I said, this legislation has been years in the making. I urge all
of my colleagues to support the conference report and help us send it
to the President's desk. You will not regret it. Those who support this
will not regret it.
I think we ought to get rid of this hatred for Donald Trump that
currently exists in this country and in this body. I think we should
give the man a chance. He hasn't even been President for a year yet.
Give him a chance. Even though he hasn't been President for a year yet,
we have had some amazing changes in this country for the better, and I
think we could have many more.
What really interests me is that Donald Trump, 6 or 7 years ago, was
working with Democrats as well as Republicans. He offered to work with
the Democrats on these matters, and they have not taken up the offer.
Instead, it is as though they are still bitter because he beat their
candidate for President.
I would like to have us get over that type of petty politics and see
what we can do to work together. Heaven knows, on the Finance
Committee, I believe we have good Democrats on that committee, as well
as good Republicans, and I think we can work together. I have to say, I
don't think we have as well as we should, but I think we can, and I am
hopeful that we will.
This is an important bill. It is a bill that really does need to
pass. It is a bill that will help this country. It is a bill that will
help the middle class. In fact, it is going to help everybody, but it
will certainly help the middle class most of all.
I hope our colleagues put aside their petty politics on both sides
and come together to support this bill, which literally can help save
this country an awful lot of pain over the next number of years and
give the government the kinds of resources that it needs to be able to
do what the Federal Government needs to do for its people. I think we
can.
People in this body know that I have spent years here. I am the most
senior Republican. I have been here longer than any other Republican
that I know of, and I have the legislative record to back it up--a
record that has included working with Democrats almost every step of
the way. I am offering to make sure we work together, but I haven't
seen it on the other side. Can they get over the bitterness they have?
We heard this loudmouth in the Gallery who has no good sense and a
total lack of etiquette and a total lack of respect for this government
and this Senate. If I were on his side, I would be humiliated because
he was just a big loudmouth who didn't mean a doggone thing.
Unfortunately, I think there are more people like that who are so
bitter that they will raise these types of issues without really trying
to work together.
I am one who has a reputation for working together. I am chairman of
the Finance Committee. I have enjoyed my work with the distinguished
Democratic leader on the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden. I care for
him. I care for the other Democrats on the committee, as well as all of
our Republicans. We work pretty well together. It is getting harder and
harder to work together when all we see are screaming and shouting
because they can't get their way because they are no longer in the
majority. I hope they get over that, and I hope they start working with
us. If they will, we can do an awful lot of good things for this
country, and we can bring people together across this whole country--
people who right now are divided because they don't know what to do.
They see us screaming and shouting around here and a total lack of
willingness to get together. I would like to change it. I am open to
changing it.
This bill that we have is a very, very important bill, and we need to
pass it. My friends on the other side need to realize that, and I hope
we will get some of them to vote for it. They know it is right. Deep
down, they know it is right. It might not be everything they like
themselves. It is not everything I myself would like. But it is a
doggone good bill, and it is something that could really help this
country pull out of the mess that it is in.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, am I next?
I see the distinguished Senator from Washington on the floor. I ask
unanimous consent that after I speak, she be recognized to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to commend
Senator Orrin Hatch. I listened to the debate over this bill not just
today but for the better part of 3 years I have been a member of the
Finance Committee. I have never heard a more dignified, deliberate,
intelligent delivery on any subject than we all just heard from Orrin
Hatch on the tax bill. Regardless of your politics, regardless of where
you are from, it is good to know that America has dignified statesmen
like Orrin Hatch to take the tougher issues, simplify them, get people
to join hands, work together, and pass what is right for the American
people. I am glad the American people are going to get to see that over
the next couple of days.
I publicly want to thank Senator Hatch for all he has done and all I
know he has done in Washington during the last 3 years. In the 3 years
on this committee, I have seen us--Republican and Democratic committee
and subcommittee alike--work on every facet of the Tax Code to try to
simplify changes down to doable amounts and doable jobs. I have seen
everybody have input. I have seen everybody work together. Sure, we
have had differences. Senator Hatch has always kept the mainstream
there, kept his hand on the tiller, and saw to it that we never lost
sight of doing what we need to do, which is to reform our Tax Code.
I want to commend Senator Hatch and Senator Enzi, as well, for the
work they have done on the Budget Committee to get us to this point and
the unsung heroes that all of us know about, our staffs, whom we cannot
do without. Jay Khosla and Mark Prater on the Finance Committee have
been outstanding and have made this thing work, and I commend them for
their work. On my staff, I could not have done what I have done without
Amanda Maddox, Trey Kilpatrick, Monica McGuire, and Jay Sulzmann, who
have all worked hard to see to it that we made the right decisions for
the right reasons for the people of Georgia.
I am very proud to be a part of this Senate today and of what is
going to prove to be a historic day in the future. There are a lot of
naysayers saying that this is not going to work. There are a lot of
people who have come up to me today and have asked questions that have
bad connotations to them. Yet I want, for just a minute, to talk about
what I think this tax bill really means for the American people--for
the folks who voted for me to represent them--and for what is going to
happen in the years ahead.
I had a reporter stop me today while I was coming up to the floor.
He asked: Senator Isakson, where are you going to find the $1.478
trillion that you all are costing us by passing this tax cut?
I said: First of all, we have not lost the money. Second of all, that
is a static score. Third of all, I will be willing to bet you that we
will take in a lot more money because of our having a dynamic economy
than we will ever lose with a single tax cut.
There are some people whose thought process is one of tunnel vision.
They can't see outside the blinders. They don't understand that tax
policy drives economic decisions.
There are companies that in the last few years had been thinking
about leaving America because of our tax rate that are now deciding to
stay because of the new change. Don't underestimate the power of the
territorial tax change that this makes for American business.
A lot of CEOs who go to their annual stockholder meetings for C
corporations in America have to go with a

[[Page S8094]]

game plan to raise the return on their stocks in order to have people
invest in their companies. Unfortunately, the easiest way to raise the
return on their stock today would be for a domestic American company to
move their headquarters out of the United States to Ireland or to some
other place that had a lower tax rate. If you put more money on the
table for the stockholders, it will be bad for the country, bad for
your company, and bad for the American people as jobs leave America.
Now that we have a territorial system that we are going to, there is
an incentive to stay in America if you are located there and to come to
America if you are not. We are not going to have any more fast food
companies that are buying doughnut makers in Canada and then moving
their headquarters to Canada to get a lower tax rate. We are going to
have a lot of new companies that will think about becoming doughnut
makers and will do it right here in the United States because the new
tax system we will have will be fair and equitable for economic
development and building growth.
On the personal side, you really cannot argue with doubling the
standard deduction. You can't argue with doubling of the child tax
credit. You can't argue with simplifying the tax process itself and the
filing of taxes. You can't argue with lowering rates--having seven
different rate categories that are all lowered. You can't really argue
with all of that because you know that is better for the American
people and their pocketbooks in the short run, but in the long run, it
will be better for them and their children and their grandchildren in
terms of employment.
I have eight grandchildren. My oldest just graduated from college,
and the youngest is 9. In the years ahead--and I hope that I will get
to see a lot of them--they are going to get jobs, and they are going to
work. They are going to raise their families.
What we have done today is going to make it easier for them to find
employment for their kids, opportunity to develop businesses, and peace
of mind because they will live in a country that will be vibrant and
true.
For those who want to ask what we are going to do about the money
that we are giving up, I don't deal with static scoring; I deal with
dynamic scoring.
When I ran a company for 25 years, I made investments where I knew I
had a place to grow. I made business decisions where there was positive
growth ahead if I made the right decision. This Tax Code--this change
in the Tax Code, this opportunity that we have--does all of those
things.
Do I know exactly what is going to happen? No, but I am willing to
bet--and I have bet my vote already in committee and will later on
tonight on the floor of the Senate--on the American people and the
American worker and the American entrepreneur. I will bet on their
taking advantage of a tax code that is fair to them and that gives them
a chance to expand their personal opportunities. I will bet on them
that they are willing to move forward with a better tax code for all of
the country. I will make my bet on them that they will want to see to
it that their children and their grandchildren will have the
opportunities that they have had as well.
I thank Chairman Hatch for what he has done in the last 3 years to
make this opportunity come about.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington and the Senator
from Alabama, whom, unfortunately, we are losing in the next few weeks,
for what they have put in this legislation. I thank them for what they
have done in their looking out for their people.
Did we make any mistakes? Maybe, but you never make mistakes when you
are trying to do the right thing. You never make mistakes when you are
trying to do a good thing. You never make mistakes when you take a risk
because when you take a risk, at the end of that rainbow is a reward.
When you take a risk in lowering taxes, the greater reward is more
jobs, more opportunity, and a better America for our children and our
grandchildren.
I thank Senator Hatch for his work and for all that he has done to
make America a better country and, in particular, for giving us the
chance today to make our tax system fairer for all of the American
people.
May God bless him.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about this
legislation.
At the outset, I thank my colleague from Georgia and the Senator from
Utah for their work on the affordable housing tax credit. The Senator
from Utah said: Let's work together. I stand ready to work with him on
affordable housing in the future, and, hopefully, with the Senator from
Georgia, we can make progress on what is a crisis in America.
I come to speak in opposition to the legislation before us today, the
tax reconciliation bill.
One of the requirements of the legislation that I most ardently
oppose is including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas
development.
Basically, this bill pays for the tax cuts for corporations and
millionaires by raising taxes on the middle class, undermining
healthcare, and requiring oil drilling in one of our Nation's most
iconic national wildlife refuges.
Everyone should understand that a vote for this reconciliation bill
is a vote that will go to the biological heart of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge and require drilling. I believe that opening up the
Arctic Refuge to oil drilling is being done as a supposed revenue
raiser to offset the soaring costs of this tax bill for corporations
and the wealthy, but the process that it went through is a sham.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that drilling for oil in
the Arctic Refuge will raise less than $1 billion over 10 years. This
doesn't even meet the $1 billion reconciliation instruction, and it
certainly doesn't represent a serious offset to the huge deficits in
the bill. To put this in perspective, less than seven one-hundredths of
1 percent of the $1.5 trillion increase in the national debt will be
from this policy in this legislation.
Drilling in the Arctic really has nothing to do with serious
budgetary policy, but it has everything to do with evading regular
order to pass something that could never pass in the regular order of
the legislative process.
In addition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, this
bill would sell 7 million barrels of oil from our Nation's Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. A portion of that sale is simply to meet the
reconciliation instructions--that is to say, to make this bill work.
Yet the sale of oil from our petroleum reserve would also provide a
$300 million windfall to four States--Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Alabama. So this bill is selling off oil in order to pay for oil
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I do not believe that
that makes sense.
Under this sham process, the bill will turn one of our Nation's
wildest and most pristine areas into an oil field. The Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge is the largest refuge in our Nation and is one of the
crown jewels for us in the United States for wildlife refuges. I
believe it is a U.S. Serengeti.
We received a letter from Jane Goodall, who basically said:

Around the globe so many indigenous people have been harmed
in the name of ``progress''--let us not add one more tragedy
to the list. We have other sources of energy.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter we received from the
Jane Goodall Institute be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Jane Goodall Institute,

Vienna, VA, November 14, 2017.
Dear United States Senator: It seems that each day brings
ever more dire news about what we humans are doing to harm
our planet, the animals that share it with us and, by doing
so, harming ourselves also. You have an important opportunity
to make a difference both now, and for future generations, by
voting to oppose oil development in one of the world's most
spectacular wilderness areas--the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.
This Refuge is a truly wonderful place--nearly 20 million
acres of pristine and ecologically significant habitat. There
is compelling scientific evidence as to why it is truly
important to protect this place. For one thing, it provides
key breeding habitat for the millions-upon-millions of birds
that migrate there from six of our planet's seven continents.
It is also a calving ground for the 200,000-strong Porcupine
caribou herd. And it is one of the most important denning
habitats on earth for polar bears. Moreover it plays a
significant role in helping to protect us from the onslaught
of climate change.

[[Page S8095]]

But the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is more than that.
Its very wildness speaks to our deeply rooted spiritual
connection to nature, a necessary element of the human
psyche. The Gwich'in people understand this and call the area
``The Sacred Place Where Life Begins''.
If we violate the Arctic Refuge by extracting the oil
beneath the land, this will have devastating impact for the
Gwich'in people for they depend upon the caribou herds to
sustain their traditional way of life. Around the globe so
many indigenous people have been harmed in the name of
`progress'--let us not add one more tragedy to the list. We
have other sources of energy.
And so I beg you: Please use your voice and your vote as a
U.S. Senator to protect the Gwich'in people and the American
treasure that is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
America has helped lead the world in the conservation of
wildlife and your voice has been so meaningful in this
regard, your example so powerful. Please take this
opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to the natural
world and to future generations and stand with me to protect
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Please vote against oil development in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge.
Sincerely,

Jane Goodall, DBE, PhD,

Founder--the Jane Goodall Institute,
& UN Messenger of Peace.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
which manages the refuge, describes it as ``the only conservation
system unit that protects, in an undisturbed condition, a complete
spectrum of the Arctic ecosystems in North America.'' It is home to an
incredible diversity of wildlife--47 different species of mammals,
including polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, Dall sheep, moose, musk
ox, and caribou. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge also provides
important habitat for over 40 species of fish and more than 200 species
of migratory birds.
So why would we want to destroy this refuge?
It was first established by the Eisenhower administration. Congress
later protected this amazing Arctic area and its ecosystem in order to
protect the wildlife and protect the habitat because of its incredible
diversity. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is really known as the
``last great wilderness'' in our country, one of the great, last wild
places, but this legislation turns that on its head.
It would make oil and gas development one of the statutory purposes
of the Wildlife Refuge, and under this legislation, this Refuge would
become the only Refuge where oil and gas development is required by
law. It opens up the entire 1.5 million-acre coastal plain for oil and
gas exploration and requires the leasing of at least 800,000 acres. It
requires the leasing of areas with the highest oil and gas potential,
no matter the consequences for the wildlife or the environment.
The bill requires that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be managed
as a petroleum reserve, which is unprecedented, and it undercuts
managing the Refuge for wildlife.
The bill includes no clear requirements to comply with environmental
laws or to protect wildlife. Its sponsors, however, say that they are
not preempting environmental laws and that, in fact, laws like the
National Environmental Policy Act will ``fully apply.'' Yet this bill
undercuts those assurances of compliance with environmental laws by
adding oil development as a purpose of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. Adding oil development as a purpose is contrary to the purpose
of a wildlife refuge.
The purpose of a wildlife refuge is to protect wildlife and to make
sure that the managers of wildlife do so in a sound fashion.
At every other wildlife refuge in the country, development within the
refuge is only permitted to the extent that it is compatible with
protecting wildlife. This bill tries to waive one of the most important
management protections that applies to every other national wildlife
refuge--that development must be compatible with protecting wildlife.
They have to do this because they know that oil and gas development in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not compatible. It is just the
opposite.
It is important to note also that this bill does not provide any
energy security. There is no prohibition in the bill against exporting
oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and in all likelihood,
much of the oil will be exported.
In addition to opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to
development, the bill also requires the sale of 7 million barrels of
oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to give $300 million, as I
mentioned earlier, to several States--Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Alabama.
So at the same time as we are being told that we must ruin a national
wildlife refuge because we need the oil, we are selling oil out of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It does not make sense for America. It
just doesn't add up.
The impact of oil and gas exploration in the wildlife area and the
danger to our wildlife cannot be overstated. The Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain and nearby waters are designated as
critical habitat for polar bears, which are listed as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act. Female polar bears head to
the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain so that they can create snow dens,
where they give birth to their young. The Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge has a higher concentration of polar bear denning habitat than
any other area on Alaska's North Slope.
The refuge is also the summer calving grounds for the porcupine
caribou herd. This herd's range extends into Canada, and we actually
have a treaty between both of our countries to protect this herd. The
almost 200,000-member herd has an annual migration of hundreds of
miles--and in some cases, thousands of miles--wintering in the south of
the Refuge.
I think that this herd of caribou is so important because scientists
say that it has an entirely different kind of migration pattern than
other caribou in Alaska, that it has been adept at dealing with the
adaptation that comes along with climate change.
Why not, instead of ruining their habitat, study and understand this
migration that has been studied since the 1950s? It has been part of
our national investment in understanding wildlife. It has been
supported by both Democratic and Republican administrations, to
understand the science and background of this caribou herd. These
caribou are an important food source for many Alaska Natives but in
particular the Gwich'in people who live south of the Refuge. Wildlife
biologists argue that the risk to the caribou herd and to those who
rely on them could be quite significant.

So why are we doing this? Why are we doing this?
The last few years have been a difficult budget situation in Alaska.
Relying on oil for 90 percent of the budget, I agree with many others,
is unsustainable. Every dollar the price of oil per barrel drops,
reduces the State budget by $30 million, or close to 1 percentage point
per dollar. The general revenue fund in Alaska dropped over 80 percent
after 2012, and that situation caused Alaska's $4 billion deficit
projection last year. Difficult choices had to be made about taxes,
savings, spending, and what the State government should do. Thankfully,
their economy hasn't collapsed, but in the last big oil-driven
recession in the 1980s, Alaska's banks failed, housing prices
collapsed, and 15 percent of the population left.
Why am I bringing this up? Because the good news is today's Alaska
economy is more diverse than it was 30 years ago. I know this because I
talk to my colleagues and because we are interacting in a lot of ways
in the Pacific Northwest.
Alaska is well known for its tourism. Two million visitors to Alaska
spend $1,000 per person in the State, supporting a $7.3 billion outdoor
industry. My colleagues here may not realize what my colleagues from
Alaska and Washington know, and that is that the State of Alaska and
Washington have a lot of interdependence. A recent study found that
113,000 jobs in Puget Sound are tied to Alaska's economy, and this
number has doubled in the last 30 years.
What are those jobs? One-quarter of those are in the seafood
industry. Almost 1,000 commercial-vessel owning fishermen who work in
Alaska's fisheries are part of the trade between us. The Alaska trade
accounts for one in five containerized shipments through the Port of
Seattle and the Port of Tacoma. Another 14,000 jobs are tied to
passenger transportation to Alaska, including 430,000 cruise ship
passengers who come through Puget Sound every year. That is just one
way of saying the Washington-Alaska economies are tied

[[Page S8096]]

together, and as a hub for Arctic commerce, I have worked with my
colleagues Senator Murkowski and Senator Sullivan on issues such as new
Coast Guard Arctic icebreakers that are so needed for the future. I
have supported more funding for demonstration programs for renewable
energy and microgrids in an effort to help the local economy. I feel
the same way about rural broadband across the Nation, and we want to
make sure we are deploying and helping with everything we can to bring
more connectivity to Alaska, but I really question how opening the
Arctic Wildlife Refuge is a solution to these problems.
Even under CBO's aggressive view, if leasing occurs in the Refuge, it
will be many years before Alaskans see any significant revenue. So my
colleagues should be aware that doubling down on oil by sacrificing one
of the great wildlife refuges will not, in my opinion, help close
Alaska's budget deficit, and it will not help them diversify for the
future.
This Arctic Wildlife Refuge is too special, too important. It is one
of the crown jewels of our National Wildlife Refuge system. We should
be preserving it. We should not be destroying it. We should not be
turning it into an oilfield.
I am reminded that many people over many decades have fought for this
great area of our country, to maintain its environmental stewardship,
starting with Olaus Murie, who went there and did great explorations
and convinced many people here in this Washington that it was something
so special and worth preserving.
After decades of his scientific exploration in Alaska, Olaus
testified in 1959 in support of creating the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. He
said: ``We long for something more, something that has a mental, a
spiritual impact on us. This idealism, more than anything else, will
set us apart as a nation striving for something worthwhile in the
universe.''
So what is setting us apart today? Some very short-term gains. In 100
years, when this economic tax bill will long be forgotten, the question
will be whether something important in the universe still exists in the
Arctic wildlife area. We didn't create the Arctic Coastal Plain, but I
can state this: We cannot recreate it. What we are doing today is
taking a step toward destroying it.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this reconciliation bill. Do not
sacrifice the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil development. Don't take one
of the great, wild, pristine places on this planet and turn it into an
oilfield. We can do better as a nation. I know we can do better as a
region, and we can do better with a better Arctic strategy for our
Nation's future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the great Senator
from Washington State for her leadership on this incredibly important
issue.
If this tax bill weren't terrible enough, it goes after one of the
most beautiful places on Earth, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is nothing more than a
Big Oil polar payout. This isn't about drilling oil; it is about
drilling for votes. This isn't about crude oil; it is the crudest of
politics.
We now have 41 cosponsors of my legislation with Senator Bennet to
permanently protect the Arctic Refuge by designating it as a
wilderness. That is enough to sustain a filibuster, and that is
precisely why they are circumventing the normal legislative process by
including it as a rider on a tax bill.
In reality, drilling turns this pristine wilderness into an
industrialized wasteland. The Coastal Plain is the biological heart of
the Arctic Refuge, and allowing oil and gas drilling would drive a
stake right through the heart of it.
We are currently sending nearly 1 million barrels a day of American
crude oil overseas, but Republicans and the their oil industry allies
are saying we need to allow drilling in the wildest place left in
America so we can export even more oil to China and other foreign
nations. It is an abomination. It is a disgrace. Drilling in a
wilderness area in order to send oil to China--it is a disgrace. If the
Republicans persist in passing this monstrosity of a tax bill and pass
this Big Oil polar payout, they are the ones who are going to be left
out in the cold in 2018.
If the Republicans want to see what real wilderness looks like, they
don't need to travel to the Arctic Refuge, the wilderness is about to
come to them. They are about to be sent deep into the political
wilderness if they pass this tax scam legislation.
If the Republicans are successful in ramming through the Arctic
drilling rider in the dead of night, we will never give up. We will
keep fighting because the Arctic Refuge should forever be the home for
caribou, not crude; bears, not barrels of oil; sandpipers, not
pipelines. We will never stop fighting.
They may win tonight in the dark of night, but this fight is not
over. This is a crime against the environment which is being committed
here tonight. We do not have to sacrifice this wilderness. We are
exporting oil out of our country--exporting it. We don't have to go
here. Export more oil, and that is where it is going? It is just wrong.
Just remember that this is all a part of the so-called Republican
reconciliation process. Now that we have the final product, that
process is being exposed as the giant con game it truly is. The key
phrase in reconciliation is ``con.'' It is a con job. The whole thing
is nothing more than a masquerade, a Trojan horse in order to get a tax
cut for the upper first percentile. It is a con job.
The polling in our country says the American people are not buying
it. They are seeing right through it--through all the political noise,
all of the incredible distractions, all the red herrings. The American
public knows this is a tax break for the wealthiest people in our
country and not for the middle class. Republicans are not even trying
to hide what they are doing anymore. They are moving ahead with
reckless speed to pass this disaster of a bill in the middle of the
night, so that is why we will all be back here in a few hours, yet
again, voting in the dead of night on a 500-page bill that has no
hearings, no amendments, no real debate because that is the only way
you can get a tax break for the upper first percentile and the
wealthiest corporations in the country while trying to market it as a
tax break for the middle class, when they know it is not. They know it,
by the way. They know what they are doing.
It is the height of irony that we will be here tonight ramming
through legislation before the Senator-elect from the State of Alabama
can be seated. Just 8 years ago, Republicans called on Democrats to
stop progress on the Affordable Care Act until Senator Scott Brown was
sworn in. They said at the time: Stop progress. Don't do anything. We
need to wait for Scott Brown to show up. Back then, Democrats listened
to those calls, but when Doug Jones gets elected, it is just put your
foot to the accelerator, move as fast as you can, no hearings, no
anything, and Alabama will not be represented with their new Senator
out here. Back then, Democrats actually listened to those calls, and
today our concerns are completely ignored by the Republicans, all so
they can continue playing their con game on the American people.
The American people are waking up to the fact that they have been
sold a bill of goods. They are seeing that this plan is simply a Trojan
horse of giveaways to the wealthy corporations and Republican political
donors.
What are some of those giveaways? Front and center is the massive cut
in tax rates for megacorporations. We know this will not create jobs or
trickle down to their employees because we have tried it before. In
2004, we gave a massive tax holiday for huge corporations on the money
they held overseas, but the 15 companies that benefited the most from
those giveaways cut more than 20,000 jobs and decreased their research
spending.
Mark Twain said: ``History doesn't repeat itself, but it does tend to
rhyme.'' This tends to rhyme. The tax cuts in this bill are even more
egregious. Corporate tax cuts flow to CEOs and stockholders. Those
stockholders are not all American taxpayers. Foreigners hold 35 percent
of U.S. corporate stock. That means the Republican tax bill is a
giveaway of $48 billion to foreigners in 2019 alone.
Think about this. The Republicans can find $48 billion to give away
to foreign shareholders but in the same bill raise taxes on millions of
middle-class

[[Page S8097]]

families. By 2027, this bill will raise taxes on over 53 percent of
American households. At the same time, a full 83 percent of the tax
cuts will flow to the top 1 percent of Americans. So the more the
American people see what is in this bill, the more they realize they
will have to foot the bill, and the American people are saying ``No
way.''

New polls today show that over half of the American public opposes
this bill; two-thirds of the people recognize that the bill will
benefit the wealthy over the middle class; and, according to the polls,
the only thing more unpopular than this tax plan is President Trump
himself. But the Republicans will push ahead anyway since this is all
part of the bigger con game. When these tax giveaways pass, the deficit
will explode by over $2 trillion.
Republicans aren't even waiting for those deficits to become reality
before using them as an excuse to move to the next phase of the con
game. They are already using future deficits to justify a brutal,
vicious cut to programs for the poorest, for the sickest, for the
neediest people in our country. Earlier this month, Speaker Ryan said,
``We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform,
which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit.'' We know exactly
what Republicans mean when they talk about entitlement reform. They
mean taking a machete to the programs that working and middle-class
families in America rely upon. Republicans want nothing more than an
excuse to slash Medicare and make it harder for Grandma to buy her
medicine. They want the ability to gut Medicaid because, in their
opinion, healthcare is only a right for the wealthy. They want to cover
their historical enmity toward Social Security so that they can steal
benefits from every American who has paid into that system, and they
are doing this because the modern Republican Party has a sacred
obligation to their donors--to the Koch brothers, to the massive
corporations that help fund their campaigns. They promised them tax
breaks, and it will be average working families who will end up footing
the bill. When the bill becomes due, the American people will not
forget who sent it to them.
Here we are at the end of the year. We have truly important issues to
address. We need to fund healthcare for 9 million children, ensure that
community health centers can keep the lights on, secure the dreams of
800,000 young Dreamers, and combat the crises that American communities
face from opioids and natural disasters. Sadly, we are doing none of
those things. Instead, we are looting America's middle class to give
away massive amounts of money to the rich, which will then create
deficits, which will then have them going after Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security--Grandma and Grandpa, who built this country. That has
always been their plan. They have an ancient animosity toward all of
these programs, and now they believe they can leave them as debt-soaked
relics of what they are today by creating this huge debt in this tax
bill and then turning on the very programs for the very people who made
this country what it is today.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. It will go down in history as one
of the worst single pieces of legislation ever to be considered by the
U.S. Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, relief for Americans is on the way. This
evening, we will vote on the first comprehensive overhaul of our Tax
Code since 1986. In 1986, I was a young Senate staffer. I watched as
that tax bill passed on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I was a 25-year-
old staffer back then.
In a couple of weeks, my wife and I will welcome our third grandchild
into the world, so it seems only fitting, after 30 years, that we go
about the business of reforming the Tax Code because a lot has changed
in this country. A lot has changed in this country in the past 30
years, but the one thing that hasn't changed is the Tax Code. Our Tax
Code needs to be updated and modernized to reflect the times in which
we live.
Since President Reagan signed the last overhaul into law, our Tax
Code has ballooned into an unwieldy, complex maze that costs American
taxpayers an incredible amount of time and money and acts as a drag on
economic growth and job creation.
I will say that when I was elected to the Senate, I came here, as
most of us do, wanting to do big things. We want to do consequential
things. We want to do things that will impact the American people in a
beneficial and a positive way, and that is certainly the case with tax
reform. I sought to get on the Senate Finance Committee for that
reason. The Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over tax, trade,
healthcare, and issues that really impact and affect the American
people's everyday lives.
In 2011, I had the good fortune of getting on the committee, and ever
since that time we have been working aggressively, planning for this
very day. The suggestion by our colleagues on the other side that
somehow this cropped up all of a sudden, overnight, is absolutely
inconsistent with the facts. Since I got on the Finance Committee in
2011, we have had no fewer than 70 hearings on tax reform and tax-
related issues.
In 2015, the chairman of the committee, Senator Hatch, created five
working groups. I was fortunate enough to chair one of those working
groups. They were bipartisan, and they were tasked with looking at all
aspects of the Tax Code, broken down into five different sections, and
making recommendations for tax reform. We went about that in a very
diligent way. We spent weeks and months developing ideas, reported
those recommendations to the full committee, and those recommendations
today serve as the foundation for the legislation we are considering.
That was a bipartisan process, and the Democrats participated in that.
A lot of the suggestions are bipartisan ideas. The foundation for this
legislation frankly, in many respects, originated with those working
groups that were worked upon by both Republicans and Democrats. So we
stand here today with a piece of legislation that has a lot of
bipartisan substance in it, even though the Democrats have refused to
participate in the process.
We started out with two major goals on tax reform. One was to put
more money in the pockets of hard-working Americans and to create a tax
code that would foster economic growth and make American companies
competitive again in the global marketplace. Those are the two goals.
The bill before us today--the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--succeeds on both
fronts.
The bill provides immediate, direct relief for hard-working
Americans, starting next month. It lowers tax rates for Americans in
every income bracket. It nearly doubles the standard deduction,
simplifying the code, meaning that fewer people will have to itemize.
Across the country, it varies State by State, but, on average, less
than one-third of the people across the country itemize today. Well,
this will reduce that number even further. Less than 10 percent of the
people in this country will have to itemize because of the doubling--or
near doubling--of the standard deduction. It doubles the child tax
credit and significantly increases the refundable portion of the
credit, which will provide important additional help for low-income
families, and it maintains the earned-income tax credit.
All of this means that American families are going to see a
significant drop in their tax bills for next year. Just as a case in
point, a family of four with a combined annual income of $73,000 per
year will see a tax cut of over $2,000, and that represents a 58-
percent reduction over what they are paying today under current law. If
you are a single parent with one child and have an income of $41,000,
you are going to see a $1,300 reduction in your taxes, which represents
a 73-percent reduction over what you are paying today under current
law.
So the idea, as has been advanced by the other side, that somehow
middle-income taxpayers don't benefit from this is absolutely false. It
is inaccurate because these are objective facts. A doubling of the
standard deduction, a doubling of the child tax credit, and a reduction
in rates mean that people in all income groups are going to see
significant tax relief. Just to put a fine point on that, this is based
on the latest analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation. They assess
and look at how these proposals will translate in terms of income
groups and who gets impacted by that.

[[Page S8098]]

I want to point out that if you look at income by level here--
different groups and their incomes--as you can see, every income group
receives a significant tax cut. In fact, lower income Americans receive
the largest tax cuts, and that, again, is according to the Joint
Committee on Taxation. The point made earlier by my colleague from the
other side was that somehow this was going to be a huge tax shift in
terms of who is going to pay taxes after all this is said and done.
Well, if you look at the tax burden--and by that I mean who pays taxes
in this country, the share of taxes currently borne by each different
income category--as you see from this chart, which is broken down by
quadrant, 25 percent of the filers are in this category, 25 percent in
this category, and 25 percent with $50,000 to $100,000 in income, and
then the final quadrant of 25 percent is those making $100,000 and
above. Well, if you look at those in the lower income categories--and
this is according to the Joint Committee on Taxation--their share of
the tax burden relative to what it is today is actually the same or
lower. So those in lower income categories, those making $20,000 to
$50,000 a year--and that represents about 25 percent of filers today--
pay 4.3 percent of total taxes in this country. After implementation of
the bill, they will pay 4.1 percent of total taxes in this country.
Their overall tax burden will have decreased after passage of this
legislation.
If you take the next category, from $50,000 to $100,000, they pay
today, under current law, 16.9 percent of the total tax burden in this
country. After this legislation has passed, they will be paying 16.9
percent of the total tax burden in this country.
What about those making $100,000 a year and more, which represents
about 25 percent of all filers? Well, according to the Joint Committee
on Taxation, on which these distribution tables are based, those in
that income category who are paying today 78.7 percent of all the taxes
in this country--after this is passed, they will pay 79.1 percent. So
their overall tax burden actually goes up after this legislation is
passed and enacted into law.
Interestingly enough, this is the most recent analysis by the Joint
Committee on Taxation. This is the distribution table that they just
put out. The category that has the biggest increase in terms of overall
tax burden is those making a million dollars a year and more. Today
they pay 19.3 percent of all the tax burden, all the tax liability in
this country. After this is all said and done, they will pay 19.8
percent. So their taxes--those with a million and more--are going up
under this legislation.
So this idea--they keep saying it on the other side, but just because
they keep saying it doesn't make it true. The facts tell a completely
different story. These are the facts. Again, I have come back to the
point I made earlier; that is, let's put it into language that people
in this country understand. When they do their taxes, they are going to
see a doubling of the standard deduction and they are going to see a
doubling of the child tax credit. If you are a family with kids in this
country, that means that for every child you have, instead of getting a
$1,000 child tax credit, you will get a $2,000 child tax credit. Couple
that with the lower rates--and the marginal rates are going to be a 10-
percent rate, a 12-percent rate--and where those kick in at different
brackets, you are going to see a significant reduction in taxes across
all income groups. That is just the reality. I think it is important
that we at least, as we are talking about this subject, talk about it
in terms of the facts.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also preserves elements of the current Tax
Code that have been working for Americans. Under this bill, homeowners
and those aspiring to own a home will still be able to deduct their
mortgage interest if they itemize on their taxes. Individuals who
donate to charities, to churches, and educational institutions will
still be able to claim those contributions as an itemized deduction.
Working Americans will retain all the current options for saving for
retirement, from individual retirement accounts to the various types of
employer-provided retirement plans, like 401(k)s.
This bill also provides families with permanent relief from
ObamaCare's burdensome individual mandate, which is a tax on lower
income Americans. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Americans will no
longer be required to buy health insurance that they don't want and
can't afford or face significant financial penalties, which today
disproportionately fall on those who make less than $50,000 a year.
This bill also restores the deduction for major medical expenses to
where it was before ObamaCare. For this year and next, Americans facing
the burden of significant medical expenses will once again be able to
deduct any expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross
income. I hope that eventually we will be able to make that change
permanent.
That is not all this is going to do. This is not just going to help
Americans now; it is going to help them for the long term. It is going
to give them access to the kinds of jobs, wages, and opportunities that
will set them up for a secure future. How does it go about doing that?
By rebuilding our broken Tax Code into a modern tax system designed for
a 21st-century economy.
In order for individual Americans to thrive, American businesses need
to thrive. Thriving businesses expand. They hire new workers. They can
afford to offer those workers higher wages. But our current Tax Code
has not been helping businesses thrive. On the contrary, it has been
strangling businesses large and small with high tax rates and
provisions that discourage growth and drive those good-paying jobs
overseas. Plus, our outdated tax structure has left American businesses
at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy.
This legislation changes all of that. This bill lowers tax rates
across the board for small and medium-size businesses, farms, and
ranches. It provides a 20-percent deduction on passthrough income,
reducing the top effective tax rate on this income to no more than 29.6
percent. It permits businesses with gross receipts of up to $25 million
to use the cash method of accounting and to expense their inventory
costs. It allows businesses to expense new investments in machinery,
equipment, and building improvements. And it expands the amount of
startup and organizational expenses that new businesses can write off
up front, freeing up cash flow to get the business up and running.
Accelerating businesses' ability to recover the money they invested
in things like property, equipment, and inventory will encourage new
business growth and help existing businesses--including farms and
ranches--expand their operations, create new jobs, and grow the
economy.
The bill also helps family-owned businesses, farms, and ranches by
providing substantial relief from the death tax. I would have preferred
to eliminate what I think is a confiscatory tax once and for all. But
in this legislation, we double the current exemption to over $11
million, and by doing that, this bill will take a vast majority of
family-owned businesses, farms, and ranches out of the tax's
crosshairs. Too many of these businesses have wasted tens of thousands
of dollars a year on costly estate planning simply to avoid the death
tax and preserve that family business for another generation. That is
money that these individuals would rather be investing in their
businesses and their workers. This legislation allows these businesses
to save critical capital for their businesses instead of forcing them
to spend it to protect themselves from the heavy hand of the
government.
In addition to improving the playing field for small businesses, the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will boost our economy by lowering the tax rate
for larger businesses. Right now, America's global businesses pay the
highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. By reducing the
corporate tax rate to 21 percent, this bill will allow American
businesses to compete and win in the global economy. Just as important,
this bill brings the U.S. international tax system into the 21st
century by replacing our outdated worldwide tax system with a
territorial tax system so that American businesses are not operating at
a disadvantage next to their foreign competitors.
We haven't talked a lot about this, but one of the most important
reforms in this bill is the changes we make to

[[Page S8099]]

the international tax system. This bill also eliminates the incentives
in our current Tax Code that encouraged companies to shift jobs,
profits, and manufacturing plants overseas. This bill makes it easier
for American businesses to bring home foreign earnings to invest in
growing jobs and paychecks in our local communities here in America.
Lowering the corporate tax rate and transitioning to a territorial
tax system will boost wages, jobs, and opportunities for American
workers employed by our Nation's global companies. It will also
increase wages, jobs, and opportunities for workers at the countless
small and medium-sized businesses throughout our country that make up
the supply chain for America's global companies. That is a resounding
win for American workers and businesses and for our economy overall.
As I said earlier, this bill is the product of literally years of
work by Members of both parties. I am excited to be here as we get an
opportunity to take this bill across the finish line later today.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will keep over
$700 million per year in Montanans' pockets. That is not a number that
I calculated; that came right from the Montana Department of Revenue.
And that is just for the individuals in Montana. That $700 million will
be moved from Washington, DC, back to the people of Montana.
I can tell you something: Hard-working Montanans could use a pay
raise. In fact, in Montana, we have some of the lowest per capita wages
in the Nation. Contrast that with what is going on in Washington, DC.
In fact, if you Google ``wealthiest counties in the U.S.A.''--I
challenge you to do that. Take your smartphone and Google ``wealthiest
counties in the U.S.A.'' and look at what you find. The top three
wealthiest counties in America are suburbs of Washington, DC. In fact,
6 out of 10 of those counties are counties adjacent to Washington, DC.
Montanans don't need to send an additional $700 million of their money
back to Washington, DC. In fact, according to the Montana Department of
Revenue, nearly 99 percent of Montanans will see a tax cut under the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. On average, Montanans will keep approximately
$1,600 of their hard-earned money each year.
Moreover, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repeals once and for all
ObamaCare's poverty tax--the so-called individual mandate. This tax has
systematically penalized the low-income for not being able to afford
health insurance. Frankly, repealing this tax is one of the most
compassionate things we could do as part of this legislation.
Adding insult to injury, when you peel back what is going on with
this poverty tax, 42 percent of those paying that poverty tax, that
ObamaCare mandate tax, make less than $25,000 a year. In fact, 82
percent of the penalty payers paying this tax make less than $50,000 a
year. Repealing this tax is the right thing to do.
At the end of the day, the question here is pretty simple: Who
deserves more money? Who deserves more control? Is it right here in
Washington, DC, or is it the American people? Is it the people of
Montana? I think the answer to that question is pretty easy. I believe
Montanans do. So I will be voting for hard-working Montana families so
they can keep more of their own money. As we debate what we should do
with the cash here in Washington, DC, whose money is it anyway? It came
from the people of this country. It came from the people of Montana. I
will be voting for Montana Main Street businesses, for the hard-working
middle class of Montana so we can grow wages--some of the lowest in the
Nation--and grow jobs. I will be voting to return some of Montanans'
hard-earned money back to the people who sent it here in the first
place.
Mr. President, I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, a few moments ago, my friend from South
Dakota was speaking about the bill. He made one statement that I do
agree with, and that is, just because you say something over and over
again does not make it true. Unfortunately, much of what he said is
just not accurate. The truth is that what we are seeing today, in an
unprecedented way, is the looting of the Federal Treasury.
Today marks a great victory for the very wealthy campaign
contributors who have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars over
the years to the Republican Party. These billionaires will see a huge
tax break for themselves at the same time as the deficit of this
country is driven up by about $1.5 trillion.
Today is also a victory for the largest, the most profitable
corporations in America, companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Pfizer,
and General Electric, which, despite recordbreaking profits, will now
see hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks.
At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, where the people
on top are becoming wealthier while the middle class shrinks and 40
million live in poverty, this legislation--according to the nonpartisan
Tax Policy Center--will provide 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1
percent, while increasing taxes on 92 million middle-class households
by the end of the decade. Let me repeat that. By the end of the decade,
this legislation will provide 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1
percent and, incredibly, 60 percent of the benefits to the top one-
tenth of 1 percent, while, at the end of the decade, 92 million middle-
class households will be paying more in taxes.
Does anybody really believe that when we have such a massive gap in
income and wealth inequality, we should be giving 60 percent of the
benefits in this bill to the top one-tenth of 1 percent?
It says a lot about the priorities of the Republican Party when the
tax breaks for corporations in this bill are permanent, while the tax
breaks for working families expire at the end of 8 years.
Furthermore, I hope that every American is listening to what Speaker
of the House Paul Ryan is saying, and other Republicans, when they talk
about how they are going to offset the $1.5 trillion in deficits they
just created by giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy and large
corporations. What Ryan is saying and many other Republicans are saying
is that they are going to come back and offset that $1.5 trillion in
deficits by cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And if I
am wrong on that assertion, I would hope that some of my Republican
colleagues would come down to the floor and say that I am wrong, but I
do not suspect that will be the case.
During his campaign for the White House, Donald Trump said over and
over again to the American people, quote after quote, day after day,
that he would not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Well, I
say to the President: For once in your life, keep the promises that you
made, and tell the Republican leadership now that you will veto any
legislation that cuts Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. I suspect
we will not be seeing a tweet from the President on that issue.
Moving toward passing this very unfair piece of legislation, the
Republican leadership--which controls the House and the Senate--will
move soon to shut down the Congress and head home for a holiday break.
After massive tax breaks for the rich and large corporations, they
believe their work is done, and they are ready to head home.
Well, I respectfully disagree. Maybe, just maybe, before Congress
adjourns for the holidays, we should start paying attention to the
needs of the working families of this country, to the middle class of
this country, and not just the billionaire class.
We need to address the crisis that faces some 800,000 young people
who are currently in the DACA Program. Without the legal protections
afforded by the DACA Program, these young people today are living in
constant fear and anxiety that they may lose their legal status and, in
fact, be deported from the only country they have ever known.
Imagine somebody who is 20 or 25 years of age, has lived in the
United States virtually his or her entire life, went to school here,
now has a job, now is in college, now is in the military, and because
of Trump's disastrous attack on DACA, repealing DACA, 800,000 young
people are worried about whether they are going to be able to even stay
in this country.

[[Page S8100]]

The American people are very clear about how they feel about this
issue. I believe just today there was a Quinnipiac poll that appeared
on this very issue, and this was the question:

Which comes closest to your view about undocumented
immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children? A) They
should be allowed to stay in the United States and to
eventually apply for U.S. citizenship. B) They should be
allowed to remain in the United States, but not be allowed to
apply for U.S. citizenship. C) They should be required to
leave the U.S.

That was the question asked of the American people.
Here is the answer. Seventy-seven percent of the American people--77
percent--say that these young people should be allowed to stay in the
United States and move toward citizenship. Seven percent say they that
should stay in the United States but not gain citizenship. Twelve
percent say that they should be forced to leave the United States.
Republicans, by overwhelming numbers, say that these young people,
these Dreamers who have spent their entire lives in this country, who
know no other country, should be allowed to stay in America and apply
for citizenship. Ninety-one percent of Democrats say that, and 81
percent of Independents say that.
As we speak, young people are losing their legal status. We have to
act on that and act on that now, before we adjourn for the holidays.
Put yourself in the place of a 20-, 25-year-old person living in
extraordinary anxiety. We have to act now to address those concerns. We
have to do what the American people want us to do.
As I think most people know, the Koch brothers are the major funders
of the Republican Party. They have probably given billions of dollars
over the years. Even Charles Koch acknowledges that the right thing to
do is to provide legal status for the Dreamers.
Let me quote from a recent op-ed in the Washington Post by Charles
Koch and Tim Cook, the head of Apple:

The United States is at its best when all people are free
to pursue their dreams. Our country has enjoyed unparalleled
success by welcoming people from around the world who seek to
make a better life for themselves and their families, no
matter what their backgrounds. It is our differences that
help us to learn from each other, to challenge our old ways
of thinking and to discover innovative solutions that benefit
us all. To advance that prosperity and build an even stronger
future, each successive generation--including, today, our
own--must show the courage to embrace that diversity and to
do what is right.
We have no illusions about how difficult it can be to get
things done in Washington, and we know that people of good
faith disagree about aspects of immigration policy. If ever
there were an occasion to come together to help people
improve their lives, this is it. By acting now to ensure the
dreamers can realize their potential by continuing to
contribute to our country, Congress can reaffirm this
essential American ideal.

This is from Charles Koch. He funds the Republican Party. They might
want to listen to him as well.
But it is not just the need to address the crisis facing our
Dreamers. As you know, community health centers providing health
insurance, healthcare, for 27 million people have not been reauthorized
or refunded. We have to address that issue, and we have to address it
now.
Nine million children are in the Children's Health Insurance Program.
While we are busy giving tax breaks to billionaires, we have not had
time to reauthorize a health insurance program for the children of this
country. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
We have disaster relief out there. Folks in Congress will go home to
celebrate the holidays, and will light up our homes. In Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands, they can't light up their homes because many of
them still don't have electricity as a result of the recent disasters
they have experienced. We need to do disaster relief. We need to do it
now for the people of Puerto Rico, for the people of the Virgin
Islands, for the people of Texas, and for the people of Florida.
There are 1.5 million workers who are about to lose the pensions they
were promised, and those pensions, after a lifetime of work, will be
reduced by 60 percent if we don't address the multiemployer pension
plan crisis. We have to do that.
Over 40 million people in this country are dealing with student debt.
They leave college deeply in debt. Many of them are in despair because
of their financial situations--because of their outrageous levels of
student debt. We have to address that.
We have an opioid epidemic that is killing people from coast to
coast. We have to start investing in treatment and prevention.
We have 30,000 vacancies in the VA today. Our job is to make sure
that every veteran in this country gets the quality healthcare he or
she needs. They don't get it with 30,000 vacancies in the VA. We have
to invest in the VA.
There were 10,000 people on disability who died last year while
waiting for the Social Security Administration to act on their
applications; 10,000 people died last year because the Social Security
Administration is greatly understaffed--massive cuts to the Social
Security Administration. The elderly and the disabled in this country
are entitled to have prompt process when they apply for benefits. They
are not getting that. We have to pay attention to that, and on and on
it goes.
The bottom line is that the U.S. Senate should be doing more than
providing 83 percent of the benefits in a tax bill to the top 1
percent. We cannot go home unless we address the very serious crises
facing the working families and the middle class of this country.
With that, I yield to my colleague from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Sanders.
I want to pick up for a moment on his eloquent points and then pose a
question to him about what we will be doing here in a few minutes.
Senator Sanders has eloquently spoken to the needs of the American
people, our veterans, the Dreamers, the disasters. Those are bipartisan
efforts. Mr. Crapo and I want to fix the broken system of fighting
fires.
Senator Sanders mentioned children's health insurance. This bill
borrows $1.5 trillion and is going to end up borrowing a lot of it from
foreign interests. That would fund the Children's Health Insurance
Program for 915 years. So what the Senator from Vermont is doing is
saying: Look at all the constructive areas where we can really meet the
needs of the people, and, instead, we are working on a tax bill that is
going to betray the middle class. It is going to betray the middle
class, and in my view, as the distinguished Senator from Vermont and I
have discussed, this bill--this tax bill--is a textbook case of writing
legislation in an undemocratic way, in a secret way, with provisions
that were airdropped for lobbyists into this legislation in the middle
of the night.
Senator Sanders and I were part of the so-called conference committee
last week where we didn't even have the relevant bill in front of us.
We were asking questions about bills that really didn't exist.
Mr. SANDERS. If I could ask my colleague from Oregon a simple
question--he is the ranking member of the Finance Committee. This is a
bill that deals with trillions of dollars in our entire economy.
Mr. WYDEN. $10 trillion.
Mr. SANDERS. It impacts every person in America. Would he mind
telling the American people just how many public hearings there were to
hear from economists, to hear from the business community, to hear from
labor, to hear from senior advocates, to discuss this rather long and
complicated bill?
Mr. WYDEN. There was not one single hearing to discuss the specifics
of the legislation before us today. The legislation before us today
involves $10 trillion worth of changes in tax policy.
Our colleagues on the other side trumpet this idea that there were 70
hearings. I think what they are talking about is that over the years,
people would come in and talk about this idea or that.
Mr. SANDERS. Talk about taxes in general----
Mr. WYDEN. Right, that is correct. But there was not one single
hearing with respect to the specifics of the bill.
I would like to turn, if I could, to this work that my colleague--and
I am happy to have partnered with him--has played such an important
role in; that is, the consequences of all this reckless haste and
secretive process, which he and I have been working on. In my view, it
is really is legislative malpractice. We have a bill that is full of
mistakes that are going to have unintended consequences, opening many
new loopholes for the wealthy and crafty accountants and lawyers.

[[Page S8101]]

The Senator and I have been working to try to weed out of this
legislation violations of what is called the Byrd rule, which, in
English, basically means you can't stuff provisions into a bill that
really don't deal with tax and spending. By my count, the Senator and I
have already pushed that there are more than 20 Byrd rule violations
that had to be corrected.
Before I ask my question, I just want to give people a little bit of
the idea of the work the Senator and I have been doing over the last
few days. Late Friday night, we were able to remove a particularly
offensive provision that would have turned some churches in America
into partisan, political organizations. Specifically, there was an
effort here to overturn what is called the Johnson amendment, named
after Lyndon Johnson, that barred churches from endorsing partisan
political activity with political candidates. The way that the bill was
written--and the Senator and I fought to get it struck and were
successful--it would have turned churches and sham charities into
political machines where they could be conduits for billions and
billions of dollars in dark money.
Mr. SANDERS. Let me translate that into English. In other words, as I
understand what the Senator is saying, billionaire campaign
contributors could then legally put money into churches, which would
then do the political work that they otherwise would have been doing.
Mr. WYDEN. Absolutely. I think we need to tell America about this
because we have won this round, but the Senator and I are going to be
back at this fight with our colleagues again. In effect, this would
have been Citizens United 2.0. This would have been another version of
the push to have unaccountable, dark money--billions of dollars poured
into elections through churches and sham charities.
Turning to the question now of this evening, it looks to me as though
we have now found several other Byrd rule violations that would seem to
me to be further indications of rash and reckless legislating that does
not serve the American people well.
So I would wrap up by asking my colleague from Vermont--and I want to
tell him it has been a pleasure to work in partnership with him on
this--aren't these Byrd rule violations that we have been going after
and that you are going to discuss again tonight, aren't these just a
textbook case of what happens when you legislate with reckless haste?
Mr. SANDERS. Absolutely. It is not only that mistakes are made; it is
that when you don't open the doors to the American people, to
economists, to mayors, to Governors, to businesspeople, and to leaders
in the labor movement to see what do you want in tax reform--when you
don't do that--and when you conduct your business behind closed doors,
you end up with legislation that represents the needs of the
billionaire class, which also makes a number of mistakes.
In that regard, I would tell my friend that this afternoon, the
Senate Parliamentarian advised that certain provisions of the
Republican tax legislation violate the Byrd rule, including a provision
allowing for the use of 529 savings accounts for home schooling
expenses; the short title--the Tax Cut and Jobs Act--and part of the
criteria used to determine whether the endowments of private
universities are subject to the legislation's new excise tax. These
provisions may be struck from the conference report absent 60 votes.
With that, I raise the following points of order against the pending
conference report:
That subsection 11000(a) violates section 313(b)(1)(A) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974; that subparagraph (B) of section
11032, starting on page 75, line 17 and all through page 76, line 9,
violates section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974;
and that the phrase ``tuition-paying'' as it appears on page 309, line
12, and page 309, lines 14 through 15, violates section 313(b)(1)(D) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from Wyoming.

Motion to Waive

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget
resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and
applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 1, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The waiver is debatable for 1 hour, equally
divided.
Who yields time?
If no one yields time, the time will be equally divided.
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was proud to be a conferee for H.R.
1, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, and I am pleased to join many of my
colleagues in strong support of the conference report for it.
I think, really, the title says it all. This bill will deliver tax
cuts and new jobs for hard-working Americans. I think it will be good
for our economy, it will be good for jobs and for growth, and it will
be good for families and our businesses.
As a starting point, we have tax reform--a huge and a complicated
undertaking that really happens once in a generation around here. It
has been 31 years since we have successfully reformed the Tax Code. I
think we would all say it is long overdue.
This bill reduces taxes in every income bracket, letting Americans
keep more of their money. It doubles the standard deduction to put even
more money back in the pockets of hard-working Americans. It doubles
the child tax credit, which is so important, making more of it
refundable to help parents and our families. It helps our small
businesses. In the State of Alaska, about 99.6 percent of the
businesses in Alaska are small businesses, and it allows owners to do
even more by being able to deduct 20 percent of their business income
from their taxes. It also cuts our corporate rate, currently one of the
highest in the world. We all recognize this is a move that is long
overdue and one that will make us more competitive, help bring jobs
back to this country, and increase investments in America.
I support tax reform, and I am also very proud to be the lead author
of the second title, the energy title, in this bill, which I believe
contains the single most important step that we can take to strengthen
our long-term energy security and create new wealth--creating new
wealth--rather than moving things around.
This has been long fight for us. It has been a fight that has been
going on for about 38 years, give or take. It has been a
multigenerational fight for some of us. What we are doing is
authorizing a program for responsible energy development in Alaska's
nonwilderness 1002 area. This is an area Congress specifically set
aside for its evaluation for its potential for oil and gas.
I have put a lot of charts about Alaska up, but here is Alaska laid
over the United States of America, just to kind of put in context what
we are talking about here with the 1002 area. The area of ANWR itself
is an area of about 19.5 million acres. It is the combined size of
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire, in this area,
and in this portion of the State of Alaska. Contained within ANWR is
additional wilderness acreage. There are about 7 million acres of
wilderness contained in the ANWR area.
I also want to remind colleagues who say we need to keep this 1002
area in a wilderness status--let me tell my colleagues, the 1002 was
never in wilderness, is not in wilderness, and that is not what we are
talking about here.
We have 48 wilderness areas in the State of Alaska, with a total of
about 56.6 million acres of designated wilderness in the State, but the
1002 is not wilderness. This is what we are talking about opening up
for oil and gas exploration.
This is an area--this small area up here--that contains an estimated
10.4 billion barrels of oil. We know we can produce it safely. We know
we are going to need this oil in the years ahead.
Now, some of my colleagues have suggested that somehow or other we
don't need any more oil; that we are exporting oil now. Well, the
reality is that world oil demand is rising; it is not falling. We need
to bring more supply online, and we need to open up our most
prospective areas. So, again,

[[Page S8102]]

when we have a small area that has enormous potential, why would we
continue to deny that opportunity?
The International Energy Agency believes--and they stated it this
year: ``Global oil supply could struggle to keep pace with demand after
2020, risking a sharp increase in prices unless new projects are
approved soon.''
So to suggest that somehow, just because we are exporting oil, we no
longer need to produce it, just doesn't make sense. Exports are making
our markets more efficient, but they don't mean we are suddenly more
energy independent or permanently energy secure. Making sure we are
doing more where we have high prospects makes sense.
Our energy title also includes a bipartisan proposal from Senators
Cassidy, Strange, and King that will increase revenue sharing for the
gulf coast for priorities like coastal restoration and hurricane
protection. Overall, the bill--our title--is projected to raise nearly
$1.1 billion over the next 10 years. Once production begins in the 1002
area, we will likely raise tens, if not hundreds, of billions of
dollars for the Federal Treasury. Again, this is new wealth and new
prosperity at a time when our Nation needs both.
Those are not the only benefits this energy title will bring. We are
also talking about jobs--creating thousands of jobs--in Alaska and
around the country; jobs that pay high wages, put food on the table,
and put the kids through college.
We are in a tough place right now in Alaska. We have the highest
unemployment in the country. I appreciated the fact that my colleague
from Washington talked about jobs and, in fact, noted that in the ties
that bind the State of Alaska and the State of Washington, we do have a
lot when it comes to sharing of jobs. I will remind my colleagues that
when it comes to jobs, it is an estimated 12,000 Puget Sound jobs and
$780 million in labor earnings that are connected with refining Alaska
oil. So our jobs--our resource benefits not just us in Alaska but those
around the country as well.
What we are able to do by accessing this 1002 area also will help us
keep energy affordable, effectively providing families and businesses
with an energy tax cut. That, too, is important in context with this
tax bill.
We also protect national security by reducing foreign oil dependency,
especially in west coast States. Ironically, California and Washington
State, as they see less oil coming from Alaska, as our throughput is
declining, what is happening is that, in order to keep their refineries
going and their jobs continuing, they are having to import oil. Where
is California getting more of their oil from? From the Middle East.
Tell me how that makes any sense.
I appreciate that colleagues come to the floor with a passion about
our State, but know that as Alaskans and as an Alaskan who is the
author of this title, none of what we are doing in this effort to open
the 1002 area will come at the expense of our environment or the local
people. Some of the local people are here in Washington to watch the
vote today. Hearing the voices of those who live there--there is a
town, there is a village, there are people, there is a school, there is
an airport in the 1002 area--a town, residents, community. This is not
an area that is untouched, but it is an area we care about. We care
about the people, we care about the land, and we care about the
wildlife, but we know how to produce energy while protecting our
environment. We have been doing it for decades, and we will continue to
do it going into the future.
Thanks to new technologies, the footprint of our development up north
is smaller than ever before. The amount of land that development pads
occupy now on our North Slope is now 80 percent smaller than in the
1970s when we first began operation in Prudhoe Bay--80 percent smaller.
At the same time, the subsurface reach from those smaller pads is going
to be more than 4,000 percent larger than where we were in the 1970s--
more than 4,000 percent.
What we are able to do is access more resources underground
directionally in an area of 125 square miles. What the technology
allows us to do is almost too hard for people to believe, and so they
continue the same tired rhetoric we have heard for years. The fact is,
we need less land to produce more energy than ever before.
We are going to take care of our land. We are going to take care of
the people who live on our North Slope. We are going to take care of
the environment, and we will protect the wildlife on the Coastal Plain.
The Central Arctic herd of caribou increased sevenfold in the years
since we have been producing in Prudhoe Bay. That is the Alaskan way.
That is what we do there. That is why we have written our language to
be fully protective, and that is why we do not waive any environmental
review process or consultation requirements with Alaskan Natives in any
way. In fact, the only thing that we limit here in this bill is surface
development. In this area of the 1002, in this 1.5 million acres, this
provision, title II, says that 2,000 surface acres will be open--one
ten-thousandth of all of ANWR. That is all we are seeking to do, and we
will do it with care and concern for the environment.
I have listened to colleagues say that we are destroying the Refuge,
that we will turn it into an industrialized wasteland. I am offended, I
am horrified, and it is wrong. It is wrong for those from the outside
looking in, who have taken a nice trip into an area and said: This must
be protected. Your jobs don't matter.
That resource that we rely on for jobs in my State doesn't matter; we
will get it from somewhere else. Well, where are you going to get it
from? Why not work with people who are going to care for the land, care
for the people, care for the wildlife, do it with a level of commitment
to a resource and to a cause that is strong and sound?
For those who come in and say they know best and their idea is to
just lock it up, that is not right. For 40 years, Alaskans have stood
up and said: That is not right.
We will continue in our effort to demonstrate to the rest of the
country and the rest of the world how we are able to operate, how we
are able to be responsible stewards of the environment, to produce
jobs, to help Alaskan people, to help the country, and to help our
allies. This is what we are asking for.
As I close my comments, I recognize that tomorrow is coming up on the
shortest day. We have had some very short days in Alaska. It is pretty
dark there right now. I was home over the weekend. With the passage of
this bill and the long-awaited opportunity to access our resources in
the 1002 area for the benefit of Alaskans and for the benefit of our
country, the days ahead look brighter for all of us.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, tonight, the Republican leadership intends
to force a vote on their tax bill. President Trump has called this tax
bill historic. Indeed, it will make history, but not for the right
reasons. It is a historic transfer of wealth from students, seniors,
and working families to the wealthiest corporations and individuals in
America and, indeed, throughout the world. Historians and voters will
look at the way this bill was written, in a rushed and sloppy manner,
without thoughtful debate--indeed, we have to send it back to the House
of Representatives so they can vote again--and with a reckless and
willful disregard for facts and independent analysis.
In forcing this massive restructuring of our economy through
Congress, Republican leaders have permitted no real amendments and
ignored every nonpartisan analysis of their bill that does not fit
their worldview. As a result, this trickle-down tax bill is quite
possibly the most fiscally irresponsible piece of tax legislation to
have ever been railroaded through Congress over the objections of the
American people.
Some will say: Wait, what about the Affordable Care Act? Let me
remind you, the ACA was paid for. It had to get 60 votes. It was on the
Senate floor for 25 consecutive days. There was a full committee
process, and Democrats accepted many Republican amendments in the House
and in the Senate. That is not the case with this historic bill.
The Trump tax will adversely affect my home State, Rhode Islanders,
in so many ways. The temporary benefits will not cover the long-term
damage

[[Page S8103]]

from this bill or offset the increased costs for things like childcare,
education, healthcare, and housing. The reason the American people
oppose this bill is simple--and they do oppose it--it forces the middle
class to accept yet another Republican tax giveaway to corporations and
the richest 1 percent with little or nothing for them.
It also gives trillions of dollars in permanent tax cuts to
corporations while raising taxes on over half of American families over
the next decade. In doing so, it gives $48 billion to the foreign
investors who own roughly 35 percent of American company stock. That is
right. Many of these tax benefits will go through corporations by
either dividends or stock redemptions to foreign owners, amounting to
$48 billion to foreign investors. That is not putting the American
working man and woman first; that is putting them at the end of the
line. It makes the Tax Code more, rather than less, complicated and
very clearly incentivizes and rewards multinational corporations that
send jobs and stash money overseas.
Moreover, special loopholes for passthrough entities will create a
bonanza for tax lawyers and accountants and people figuring out ways to
get out of paying their taxes. It will not help working men and women
who come in and punch in every morning, work hard, and then go back to
their families. It will not help them at all.
And there is not a single respected economist or tax scholar on the
left or right who concludes that this bill simplifies the Tax Code and
pays for itself--not one.
Republicans know all these facts. They have heard the public's
objections, and they still plan to send this bill to President Trump
for his signature. The President will try to tell the American people
that his great political victory is a win for working people, but they
see all the benefits going to his type of businesses--real estate
passthroughs. In fact, at the last moment, the conference committee put
in a special provision to make sure that real estate entities could
benefit from this bill. That means President Trump's organization
benefits from this bill.
It is not fair. It is not wise. It is not good policy. The American
people know this instinctively. They look at what is going on, and they
see this as it is--a giant gift to the wealthiest corporations and
individuals at the people's expense in so many different ways.
The consequences of this legislation are going to be staggering and
generational. We will not quickly overcome this historic mistake. The
total abdication of fiscal responsibility in this bill is stunning.
Adding trillions more to the deficit will put massive budget pressure
on national defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other
vital programs that keep our commitments at home and abroad. These are
the programs that allow us to keep faith with the American people who
sent us here and also to ensure that we are moving toward a more
peaceful and prosperous world. For future generations facing an
economic crisis, or the challenge of their time, or cyclical economic
downturns that we cannot always foresee, those future generations will
look back on this unnecessary tax giveaway and wonder why today's
Congress was so irresponsible.
In 2001, I was here, and I opposed the Bush tax cuts. At that time,
however, we had an estimated $5 trillion surplus, and we didn't
anticipate the 9/11 attacks. We were at a time where Russia was turning
away from its Communist past to what we thought was a democratic
future. China was just emerging as an economic power in Asia. It is a
totally different situation today. We all know it. My colleagues on the
other side know it. We are challenged by 16 years of war, which we have
made no attempt to pay for, and we are putting our national security
behind benefits for the wealthiest Americans that are enshrined in this
bill, adding $1.5 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the most wealthy in
this Nation and in the world.

Many of the recipients of our largesse--Republican largesse--this
evening will not be Americans. As I noted, a significant portion of
American stock in our companies is held by foreigners. When stock
buybacks take place--and that is what corporations have announced they
will do--a huge amount of these tax cuts will go outside of the United
States, and not help our economy. Maybe it will help some people buy
expensive yachts overseas and expensive French Impressionist paintings,
but it will not help working people in Pawtucket, RI, or Cranston, RI--
not at all. This is a bill that is full of loopholes that will be
exploited for years to come. Indeed, we are already hearing rumors that
we can expect more legislation to ``fix the bill.''
This would be different if we were talking about real tax reform--
real tax reform that benefitted the middle class, real tax reform that
raised the earned-income tax credit, real tax reform that benefited
people who work every day, wage workers particularly--but this bill
doesn't do that. Real tax reform comes as a result of an open and
bipartisan process. It is ideally revenue-neutral, like the 1986 law
under President Reagan, which took a bipartisan consensus, which made
major reform, and which is something that was not only procedurally but
economically sound.
I hope, going forward, that we can work together to prevent and undo
the damage from this bill and enact real, responsible tax reform that
boosts take-home pay, spurs job growth, closes loopholes, expands
opportunity, and strengthens the long-term financial stability and
security of our Nation. But that is not this legislation.
One final point--this Monday, the President announced his national
security strategy, his overarching vision of what will make this
country safe, secure, and strong as we go forward. Part of that
national security strategy is to reduce the debt through fiscal
responsibility. My Republican colleagues are about to increase the debt
through fiscal irresponsibility. This national security strategy isn't
even 24 hours old, and it is being abandoned. It is being abandoned
before literally even the pen is dry on the paper. When it comes to tax
cuts, national security places far to the rear, and we know what is
going to happen. As this deficit grows--and it will grow much larger
than the $1.5 trillion that is projected--it will squeeze out spending.
It will squeeze out defense spending, despite the efforts on both sides
to try to increase support for the military. It is impossible to create
a deficit of this magnitude and not see the consequences both on the
defense side and the nondefense side.
In fact, I am baffled because we have heard so much--particularly
from my Republican colleagues--talk about the need to support our men
and women in the field after 16 years of war. Why aren't we at least
saying: If we are going to borrow $1.5 trillion, let's give it to the
men and women in uniform. No. We are here tonight saying: Let's give it
to the richest people in America and in the world. There is lots of
rejoicing going on throughout the world tonight because when
shareholders' stock is redeemed in the companies they own, they are
going to be wealthier, and they are going to use that wealth not for
America but for whatever reason they want. Again, is it a new yacht or
a new painting?
I just hope that in the waning few hours of this debate, we can move
the consciousness of colleagues and reject this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, we are nearing the finish line this week
on providing Nevadans and all Americans the real tax relief that they
deserve and that they have been promised. As a member of the Senate
Finance Committee, I have been fighting every day for the Senate to
stay in Washington--even 24/7--until the job gets done. Today, we are
getting the job done. That is because I know just how critical middle-
class tax relief is for the people in my home State of Nevada. Let me
tell you why.
The majority of Americans are not only struggling to get ahead, they
are struggling to just get by. It has been reported that nearly 8 in 10
Americans who work full time are living paycheck to paycheck. That is a
slight increase from previous years.
If you live in Nevada, you are more likely to be living paycheck to
paycheck than if you were to live in most other States. To put that
into perspective, housing costs are reported to consume nearly a
quarter of Nevadans'

[[Page S8104]]

paychecks. One report suggests that after the cost-of-living expenses
are taken out of their paychecks, the average Nevadan has a little more
than $700 left. During a recent telephone townhall, I heard from a
teacher in Las Vegas who spoke about her stagnant wages. This teacher,
like most Americans, has not seen a meaningful pay raise in years.
But right now, for many Americans, it is not so much about getting a
raise as it is getting back to where they once were. In Nevada, the
real median household income is $7,000 lower today than it was in 2007.
Let me repeat that. In Nevada, the real median household income is
$7,000 lower today than it was 10 years ago. At the same time,
childcare expenses have skyrocketed. In this country, the average cost
for an infant in center-based care can be as high as $17,082 per year.
By the way, that is more than a semester at the University of Nevada,
Las Vegas. It is more than a semester at the University of Nevada,
Reno. In Nevada, that means that the average single parent could spend
as much as 36 percent of his or her annual income to send an infant to
center-based care.
Given rising housing and childcare expenses alone, middle-class
families in Nevada and around this country are having a hard time
covering day-to-day expenses and planning for their futures. Nearly one
in five Americans has nothing set aside to cover an unexpected
emergency, while nearly one in three Americans doesn't have at least
$500 to cover an unexpected emergency expense. So it is fair to say, in
Nevada at least, that the recession has never really ended.
Under the failed economic policies of the Obama administration,
Nevadans suffered through 8 years of historically low economic growth.
Think about that. In those 8 years, the average economic growth was
less than 2 percent. As a result, wages and workers suffered, job
creation suffered, and middle-class Americans suffered.
We are now at a crossroads. We have a chance to change course. We
have the opportunity to pass meaningful tax cuts that will lift middle-
class families, our communities, and our economy.
If you are against this bill, you are satisfied with the anemic 2-
percent economic growth that was ushered in by the Obama
administration. You accept this dismal growth as the new normal, but I
will never accept this as the new normal. I think we can do better. In
fact, I know we can do better. We have already seen improvement since
President Trump has taken office.
If you are against this bill, you are against giving small businesses
the chance to actually get off the ground and hire workers. You are
against giving them better opportunities to expand, to invest, to
increase wages, and to hire more workers. I know that our small
businesses employ nearly half of all U.S. workers, and I know that this
bill will make it easier for them to continue doing what they do best,
and that is creating jobs.
Lastly, if you are against this bill, you are against tax cuts for
the middle class because that is what this bill is all about, and if
you know that nearly one-third of Americans don't have $500 to cover an
emergency expense, then you know just how important a few extra dollars
per month are to them. I do, and that is why I have been fighting to
get this bill to the President's desk.
Earlier today, I was pleased to see the House pass the conference
report that reconciles our two tax reform bills, and I look forward to
soon having the opportunity to vote in support of this pro-growth
package that delivers critically important tax relief to America's
middle class and small businesses--a pro-growth package that will help
boost jobs, a pro-growth package that will increase wages, a pro-growth
package that will drive growth in our local communities, and a pro-
growth package that will give a Nevada family of four, making $85,000
per year, a tax cut of $2,254 or, roughly, a relief of 20 percent of
its tax liability, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
Today, our small businesses and middle class suffer under an outdated
and unfair Tax Code that crushes job creation and makes it harder for
Nevadans and people all across this country to get ahead.
The fact is simple: After 30 years of disrepair and neglect, our
current tax system needs to be fixed. Everybody knows that it doesn't
work, that it is rigged against our job creators, and that it should be
overhauled. These are the very problems our tax relief package helps to
address.
I also recently spoke with an ambitious and hard-working Nevadan, an
entrepreneur who started his own business while going to school full
time. This young job creator brought up the enormous amount of money
that he is paying in taxes, as well as how complicated it is to
navigate the current system. He also spoke of an uneven playing field
that tipped the system in favor of his foreign competitors. He wanted
to know when Congress would deliver on reforms to boost the
competitiveness of all American job creators.
Lastly, just this past weekend, I ran into a small business owner who
said that he paid $160,000 in taxes last year. He said that $160,000
amounted to two pieces of machinery that he could have installed at his
small manufacturing facility--machines that would have necessitated the
creation of two highly paid jobs--jobs that would have been created but
for our unfair tax system.
From their perspectives and from mine, Nevada has been waiting too
long for a fairer, simpler Tax Code that they can enjoy. Nevadans, like
most Americans, know how important passing this tax relief package is
to our country's economy. Nevadans have seen the increased levels of
economic growth under the new administration and know that this tax
relief bill will add to it.
Let's talk about what this tax bill does and does not do.
This tax bill lowers individual tax rates across the board and let's
taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money.
This tax bill roughly doubles the standard deduction that is used by
most taxpayers, which gives a massive tax cut to the roughly 90 percent
of Nevadans who are expected to use it.
This tax bill includes my amendment to double the child tax credit--
an increase of $1,000 per child over current law--which will go a long
way toward addressing the skyrocketing costs of childcare in my State
and across the country.
This tax bill also includes my amendment to make it easier for
startups and businesses to give lower level employees ownership stakes
in their companies' successes by awarding stock options.
This tax bill protects and expands the medical expense deduction for
our Nation's most vulnerable, as well as preserves popular retirement
savings options, such as 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts.
This bill does not change the tax treatment of the student loan
interest. It does not change graduate tuition waivers. It does not
change the tax treatment of employer-paid tuition or the teacher
deduction.
It preserves the tax exemption for private activity bonds that are
used to finance private projects with a public benefit. These bonds
benefit a wide array of individuals and organizations, such as charter
schools, and are of great importance to the homeschool community.
Overall, this tax bill accomplishes my three major goals of, one,
creating jobs; two, increasing wages; and three, boosting American
competitiveness.
Regardless of the tales that my friends from across the aisle want to
tell you, this bill not only cuts taxes, but it also increases wages.
We have a prime opportunity today to provide real tax relief to
Nevadans and other Americans who have been waiting for a fairer,
simpler Tax Code, real relief that lets the middle class keep more of
its hard-earned money and makes our Tax Code easier to understand.
There is less paperwork and more money in people's back pockets. There
is real relief that also produces more quality jobs, higher wages, and
growth in our communities.
This tax relief bill is a positive step toward restoring Nevadans'
faith in the American dream by providing tax cuts for middle-class
families and jump-starting job creation, higher wages, and economic
growth.
I will continue to work with my colleagues in both Chambers to ensure
that this desperately needed legislation makes it across the finish
line to the

[[Page S8105]]

President's desk before the end of this week.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the tax bill.
I am disappointed. You see, I am one of the many Americans who
believe that we need to reform our Tax Code to benefit middle-class
families. I also believe that we need to make those reforms in a
commonsense, responsible way. Sadly, that is not the approach that was
taken with this legislation.
From the very beginning of this effort, I have been willing to
partner with Republicans or Democrats and with President Trump and his
team. In fact, when President Trump unveiled his tax priorities in my
home State of Indiana, I traveled with him on Air Force One. I wanted
him to know that I was listening to his priorities and that I agreed
with his stated goals of supporting the middle class and keeping jobs
right here in America. I also wanted Hoosiers to know that I was
committed to working with the President to reform our Tax Code in a way
that helped Hoosier families and businesses.
After that trip with the President and in every meeting with the
administration, including two meetings at the White House, my attending
Vice President Pence's speech in Anderson, IN, and in multiple
discussions with top administration officials, I left feeling
optimistic that we could work together to reform our Tax Code to
achieve those goals we had agreed upon. I expected a proposal that was
focused on cutting taxes for middle-class families. I expected a
proposal that would help keep jobs in America and take away tax
incentives from corporations that flagrantly outsource jobs to foreign
competitors in foreign countries. Unfortunately, that is not the bill
that the majority leader pushed through the Senate, nor is it the final
bill that he and the Speaker of the House agreed upon.
The reasons I oppose this bill are plain and simple, clear, and make
common sense. Instead of providing a tax cut that overwhelmingly
benefits the middle class, this bill cuts taxes for the wealthiest
Americans while it raises taxes on a majority of families who will be
making less than $75,000 in the coming years. Instead of closing tax
loopholes like the shameful one that allows Wall Street hedge fund
managers to pay a lower tax rate than a Hoosier firefighter, than a
Hoosier teacher, than a Hoosier policeman, or a Hoosier steel worker--
imagine a hedge fund manager's tax rate being lower than that man's or
woman's who is fighting a fire in Evansville this year. This bill
preserves these giveaways. Think of that. It is outrageous.
Instead of protecting American jobs by adopting provisions from my
End Outsourcing Act--an effort that President Trump has told me on
numerous occasions that he is all-in on and supports--this tax bill
does zero to claw back tax breaks and incentives awarded to
corporations that later decide to outsource American jobs. It also
retains loopholes that allow corporations like Rexnord and Carrier to
continue deducting the moving expenses when they ship those American
jobs to other countries. Imagine that. There is a tax deduction for
moving expenses to ship American jobs to other countries. They left it
alone.
Perhaps, there is no better example of an issue on which the
President and I agree than preventing the outsourcing of American jobs.
Right now in my home State of Indiana, nine companies have outsourced
or will outsource the jobs of 2,200 Hoosiers. This is impacting moms
and dads, sisters and brothers, wives and husbands, our neighbors, and
our friends. This is our opportunity to stand up for American workers
and make it clear that if corporations want a lower tax rate or special
tax deductions, if they want the American taxpayer to invest in them,
then, they must invest in American workers. That is the conversation I
had with the President when we talked about our shared goals for tax
reform, and these are the issues where I know there is common ground.
Gene Sperling, formerly the chief economic adviser to two different
Presidents recently, wrote:

If there is one thing the Republican international tax bill
was advertised to accomplish, it was that it would favor
locating jobs and profits in the United States. It does just
the opposite--expanding the degree our tax system tilts the
playing field against American taxpayers and American
workers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
this article by Gene Sperling, recently published in The Atlantic,
titled ``How the Tax Plan Will Send Jobs Overseas.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Atlantic, Dec. 8, 2017]

How the Tax Plan Will Send Jobs Overseas

companies are going to be able to save a ton of money by locating
factories abroad

(By Gene B. Sperling)

Despite Donald Trump's ``America first'' rhetoric, many
suspected that the tax plan he would support would actually
increase the incentives for U.S. multinationals to move both
profits and operations overseas. I wrote about this
inevitability a few weeks ago, before the details of the
Trump-GOP tax plan emerged.
Now that the bill is advancing, it's clear that things
aren't as bad as many feared. They're worse.
As discussed in the previous piece, Trump administration
economic officials argue that by lowering the corporate tax
rate from 35 percent to 20 percent and moving to what is
called a territorial system--mainly, companies pay taxes on
foreign earnings only to the foreign nation where those
profits are booked and never owe anything to the U.S. no
matter how low the foreign nation's tax rate is--would lead
to more jobs and profits staying in or coming back to the
United States.
Yet, it is clear that a territorial system could have just
the opposite impact: It could give a permanent preference to
foreign income and lead companies to shift more profits to
tax havens knowing that they could permanently avoid
virtually all taxation on such profits. One crucial safeguard
against that perverse impact is to apply a strong minimum tax
on the profits of U.S. multinationals in each country (a
``country-by-country'' minimum tax). If a U.S. company had to
pay a minimum tax of, let's say, 19 percent (as President
Obama had proposed), even if they engaged in complex tax
planning to book $100 million in profits in zero-tax Bermuda,
they would have to pay $19 million in U.S. taxes to ensure
the 19 percent minimum tax was enforced. Under such a
country-by-country minimum tax, you can run, you can shift
profits to tax havens, but you cannot hide from paying a 19
percent minimum no matter where you are. Under this type of
true minimum tax on foreign earnings, U.S. multinationals
would have little incentive to engage in the ongoing race to
the bottom.
As discussed in my previous Atlantic piece, the GOP plan
was rumored to use only a 10 percent minimum tax, and to make
it worse, would make the minimum tax determination based on
the average of a company's total global profits. What was
problematic about this design was that it not only encouraged
companies to move profits to tax havens, but it actually
encouraged them to simultaneously move jobs and operations
such as manufacturing to industrialized countries that had
typical tax rates and to shift more profits to tax havens.
Why? Because if you had $100 million of profits in Bermuda
facing no tax, you might have still had to pay $10 million in
U.S. taxes to meet the new global minimum tax. But if you
moved a factory to Germany that made $100 million and paid 20
percent in taxes there, you could still pay zero on your
profits in Bermuda because the average taxes paid on your
global profits (from both Bermuda and Germany) would be the
global minimum rate of 10 percent. This perverse design means
the more a U.S. multinational shifts jobs and operations to
industrialized nations with similar tax rates to the U.S.,
the more it can get away with shifting more and more profits
to tax havens.
So how did it look in the fine print? As several tax
experts including the Tax Policy Center's Steve Rosenthal,
Brooklyn Law School's Rebecca Kysar, and Reed College's
Kimberly Clausing have written, it is even worse than
anticipated on at least two additional grounds. First, it
turns out that the Republican idea of a minimum tax is that
it only taxes what you make over what they think is a
``routine'' profit, deemed to be 10 percent in the Senate
bill, on ``tangible'' investments (think factories and
equipment, including for manufacturing). As Rosenthal notes,
``because `routine' returns are not subject to U.S. tax, this
definition of `routine' returns could give U.S. firms a
perverse incentive to shift more tangible assets to lower-
taxed overseas locations.'' That means, under the GOP bills,
if you shift less profitable operations to a tax haven you
would pay zero taxes on those operations as long as you are
only making 10 percent a year--whether that is $10 million or
$100 million--while you would pay 20 percent if the
operations were located in the United States. So, the
``minimum'' tax is really a much lower rate than 10 percent,
and would essentially be an invisible, non-existent tax
except on highly profitable operations and income from
intangibles.
Second, this limitation to only excess profits encourages
even more shifting of operations and jobs overseas through
complex efforts to blend different income streams.

[[Page S8106]]

How? Profits from ``intangibles'' like patents do not receive
the 10 percent exemption for ``routine'' returns, so the
minimum tax is seemingly designed to at least capture those
well-known cases where major technology companies shift
intangibles to low-tax nations and book their profits there.
If a company does that and earns extraordinary profits, a
global minimum tax would capture some piece of that. But
again, here is where the GOP bill's global ``averaging''
actually creates the incentives to move jobs and operations
overseas.
Let's say a U.S. multinational has highly profitable
intangibles located in a tax haven that earn $50 million in
income without any tangible investment. If the company has no
other foreign profits or operations, then that income would
face a mere $5 million in U.S. taxes from the 10 percent
minimum tax under the GOP plan. But if the company decides to
build a new $1 billion factory overseas that earns profits of
only 5 percent ($50 million) from the factory, the company
will not pay a penny in U.S. taxes on its income from the
factory or the intangibles. Why? Because when you add the
income together, the $50 million from the intangibles plus
the $50 million from the new factory, it equals the
``routine'' profit of 10 percent on the $1 billion of new
tangible investment, which will allow it to completely avoid
paying taxes on any of the above mentioned profits.
This shows how deeply the tax plan fails when it comes to
incentives to shift profits and operations overseas and to
curtail the obsession of major multinational companies with
international tax arbitrage that has nothing to do with
innovation, productivity or job creation. Indeed, the ability
to blend income from intangibles and routine profits, and
from investment in higher tax nations with tax havens with
zero taxes, leads to a worst of all worlds scenario: an even
greater corporate focus on international tax minimization
through a careful mixture of shifting profits and operations
overseas.
If there was one thing the GOP international tax bill was
advertised to accomplish, it was that it would favor locating
jobs and profits in the United States. It does just the
opposite--expanding the degree our tax system tilts the
playing field against American taxpayers and American
workers.
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, the majority leader's bill before us
today continues the same broken tax system that incentivizes companies
to move jobs to foreign countries, hurting more American communities
and undercutting thousands of working American families.
In Indiana, we know there is no such thing as a free lunch. In the
Hoosier State, we work hard and we expect everyone else to pay their
fair share. The tax bill we are considering cuts taxes for corporations
and the wealthy by asking some middle-class families to pay more and by
making healthcare more expensive for millions and millions of
Americans.
According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal
Budget, if we account for budget gimmicks, the cost of this bill could
reach $2.2 trillion--not billion but trillion dollars.
Here is what that means. This means our kids' and our grandkids'
paychecks, the hard-earned money they make in the years ahead, will be
sent to China to pay for tax cuts that will be given today to the
wealthiest people in America. Our kids and our grandkids will be paying
the bill for this tax cut that puts money in the pockets of the very,
very wealthy. That is almost beyond belief.
We need tax reform that actually benefits Hoosiers who go to work in
the dark and come home in the dark. These are the folks that I run into
at church or who stop by my office or I see at the gas station or at
the diner. They look me in the eye, and they tell me they are working
hard to make a decent living, to pay the bills, to raise their
families, and to have a shot at retiring with dignity. They are not
looking for any handouts. They simply want a good-paying job and a fair
shake. Unfortunately, this bill is a significant missed opportunity to
provide relief to middle-class families and to protect American jobs.
From the very, very beginning of this debate, I have engaged in a
good faith effort to exchange ideas and priorities for what we would
like this tax bill to look like and to work together in a bipartisan
manner. I worked to improve the bill that my colleagues have rushed
through in a largely closed and partisan process. That includes my
support for Senator Rubio's effort to expand the child tax credit for
hard-working families, for which I give him much credit.
Our country is stronger when we work together and when we pass
legislation that focuses on the middle class and on regular families
and that leaves a better future for all our children. Sadly, that is
not what this bill would do. This bill raises taxes on many middle-
class families, makes healthcare more expensive, does not address
outsourcing, and significantly increases our national debt.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we have the opportunity to pass
the most sweeping changes to our Tax Code in more than 30 years. This
historic moment is long overdue, and my constituents in Iowa will
benefit from it.
Since the last tax reform effort in 1986, the Tax Code has grown out
of control in both length and complexity. All told, taxpayers spend
over 6 billion hours annually just complying with the dictates of the
Internal Revenue Code. Moreover, our outdated corporate tax system puts
American companies at a competitive disadvantage as they try to compete
in the 21st century global economy.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will make good on our commitment to provide
significant tax relief to middle-income taxpayers both in my State of
Iowa and in the entire United States, while making the Tax Code
simpler, fairer, and, obviously, more pro-growth.
The bill provides significant tax simplification for the vast
majority of tax filers. Most taxpayers will find that they are better
off simply by taking the standard deduction. No longer will they have
to spend hours sifting through receipts and forms to determine what
they can and cannot deduct.
Middle-income taxpayers can also expect to see significant tax cuts.
A median income family of four could see their tax bill reduced by over
$2,000. This is relief that families will see almost immediately, as
less tax is withheld from their paychecks. This tax relief stems from
many pro-family and pro-middle-class income tax provisions in the
legislation.
First, there is the nearly doubling of the standard deduction. For
families, this means the first $24,000 of their income will be exempt
from tax altogether. As a result, a significant number of lower income
Americans will be removed from the tax rolls entirely.
Second, the middle-income tax brackets are significantly lowered and
expanded to include more taxpayers. This includes reducing the current
15 percent bracket to 12 percent, and the 25 percent bracket to 22
percent.
Third, the tax bill specifically recognizes the costs associated with
raising a child by doubling the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000.
Furthermore, to ensure that lower income families with children are
able to benefit from this expansion, the refundable portion of the tax
credit is increased from $1,000 to $1,400.
While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have attempted to
claim that this tax bill is all out to help the wealthy, I want to make
very clear that this is simply not true. This is evidenced from the
features of the bill that I just discussed, but, also, if you need more
evidence, look no further than the distribution analysis of the bill by
the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation of the Congress of the
United States. According to the analysis of the Joint Committee on
Taxation, on average, every income group will experience a tax cut,
with the largest percentage tax cuts going to the middle-income groups.
Moreover, the tax bill would make the Tax Code more progressive, with
taxpayers earning more than $1 million shouldering a larger share of
the tax burden than they do under current law.
The bill also enacts much needed tax relief for job creators. It
provides a significant deduction on business income for small
businesses, effectively lowering the top tax rate to under 30 percent.
All small businesses down to the smallest family-owned corner store and
the family farmer stand to benefit from this provision. As small
businesses are responsible for creating the majority of new jobs, this
is a key provision promoting economic growth and job creation.
Additionally, the bill lowers the statutory corporate rate down from
the highest in the developed world to 21 percent. The highest rate in
the developed world at 35 percent makes our current corporate tax rate
on American companies the highest of those industrialized nations and
puts us at a

[[Page S8107]]

competitive disadvantage globally, costing American jobs.
Moreover--and this is important for the John Deere workers in
Waterloo, IA, or in any other corporation--economists generally agree
that a significant portion of the corporate tax falls on workers in the
form of reduced wages. Estimates of this burden of the corporate tax on
workers ranges from a low of 25 percent to a high of 70 percent. While
the exact amount may be debated by economists, one thing is very clear.
A corporate rate reduction will result in bigger paychecks for hard-
working Americans.
These business tax reforms are crucial to getting our economy
growing. We can't continue to settle for the anemic growth of less than
2 percent that we have experienced since 2010. Lower tax rates, coupled
with greater expensing of depreciated equipment under the bill, will
encourage new capital investments that are necessary to increase
productivity, generating both higher wages and higher growth.
The bill before us signals the faith we have in the ingenuity and
entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, rather than putting our
faith in government to grow the economy. We do this to get our economy
on the right track, and this legislation will put us on the right
track. In all, tax reform will put more money in the pockets of middle-
class Americans, make U.S. industry and workers more competitive, and
get the economy growing again after 8 years of stagnation--the most
stagnation in any decade since World War II.
This is a historic opportunity to help Americans from every walk of
life. I look forward to joining my colleagues to pass this once-in-a-
generation tax bill and have it signed into law before the new year.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, little more than a month ago, the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act was unveiled in the Senate. Just a few short weeks later,
we are on the verge of passing a colossal bill, publicly available for
just 4 days, that makes sweeping changes to every aspect of our
economy. We are moving so fast that the American people would be
forgiven for thinking we were addressing a national emergency; yet
fires are still blazing in California, power in Puerto Rico is still
not fully restored, and victims around the gulf of Hurricanes Harvey,
Irma, and Maria are still struggling to pick up the pieces and rebuild.
There are indeed national emergencies we should be addressing, but
instead of doing so, Republicans in Congress are focused first on
passing tax cuts for corporations and billionaires--tax cuts that will
add an estimated $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
The process that led to the bill we are voting on today has been
fundamentally flawed from the outset. From the beginning, this bill has
been written behind closed doors by Senate Republicans. No hearings
were ever held on this bill, denying the American people an opportunity
to add their voices to the debate. When the Senate voted on its version
of this bill in the dead of night, Senators only received the text a
few hours before the vote, and even then, the text was hastily put
together, with scribbles written into the margins. We discovered that
lobbyists knew more about what was in it than those of us who had the
responsibility to vote on it. No wonder that it was loaded with last-
minute special interest giveaways.
There is serious doubt this bill will benefit the middle class, as
Republicans claim. What we do know is that it will result in millions
of fewer insured Americans and higher healthcare premiums for millions
more. At the same time, corporations will receive a windfall in
permanent tax cuts that will bust our budget for decades to come. Even
more appallingly, it includes special provisions that will directly
benefit the President and some Members of Congress. It doesn't end
there. Republicans have yet to address the $1 trillion in cuts to
Medicare, Social Security, and other programs vital to the American
people, which will be spurred by the passage of this bill. This bill
cynically and surreptitiously sets the stage for those slashing cuts.
This is a bill that cheats our future for the sake of a tax-cut
windfall for the 1 percent. It does absolutely wonderful things for the
wealthiest taxpayers, like the President, his cronies, and his family.
If he wants to dispute that, he should finally release his tax returns
and prove to the American people that the ``Christmas present'' the
President talks about will not, in fact, benefit his bottom line.
What we do know is this bill does not advance the common good. It
offers little but crumbs on the table and coal in the stockings of
hard-working Americans, while the wealthiest individuals and
corporations reap the rewards of this bill, with the false promise of
trickle-down benefits to everyone else. The wealthiest are doing just
fine, and big corporations already are pulling in record profits, which
they are not investing but salting away. More than 400 millionaires
have urgently told Congress that they don't need more tax cuts.
Republicans will continue to claim that their bill represents serious
tax reform, but the public isn't fooled. Poll after poll shows that the
American people see this bill for what it is: a betrayal of the middle
class and a betrayal of American values. They have seen enough of
trickle-down economics to know that the benefits never flow to them. At
the end of the day, it is clear that this bill was never really about
the middle class; it was about the Republican donor class.
I wish we had gone down a different path, one where both parties
worked together to provide real relief to the working families we all
represent. It belies the storied history of this institution to rush
through such a sweeping bill, through an arcane process of
reconciliation intended to secure the lowest possible number of votes
to succeed, without the benefit of public opinion, or even public
review.
After one of the least productive sessions of Congress that I can
recall, Republicans are so desperate for a win that they will mortgage
away our future. This bill is not tax reform. This is a cartoonish
caricature of what real tax reform should look like. It is dishonest to
its core. It is cynical, and it can only breed more cynicism by the
public. It is bad policy, it is indefensible policy, and it is wrong.
It is said that every generation has a responsibility to leave our
Nation better, brighter, and stronger for the generations that follow.
This tax bill accomplishes none of those goals.
I strongly oppose--I reject--this conference report, and the crass,
partisan path that brought us here.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as in many other industries, the insurance
sector, both property/casualty and life, have become more globalized
than any time in history. Disasters such as 9/11 transformed the
property and casualty industry. The life insurance industry has
followed, with an increasing amount of insurance risk transferred to
affiliates and nonaffiliates around the globe.
This business model is impacted directly by the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act, which moves the United States from a mostly global international
system, where we tax American companies and individuals on their
worldwide income, toward a territorial system. Under the new system,
companies are to be taxed in the United States on the income derived
here and are to be taxed on their foreign earnings by the nations in
which that income is derived.
What we are seeking to do here is to encourage enterprises to start
in the United States, to expand in the United States, and to bring as
many foreign operations home as they can while remaining not only
competitive, but innovative leaders in creating new products and
services. The new 21-percent corporate rate will help do just that.
However, this bill does not take us fully to a territorial system. The
bill applies a minimum tax on certain payments to foreign affiliates.
At 21 percent, the U.S. can compete with virtually any nation in the
world, but if some nations have a corporate rate of, say, 5 percent or
less, then the new system will incentivize companies to move their
operations overseas, so the bill includes a minimum tax. It is called
the base erosion antiabuse tax.
The first year, the base erosion tax is essentially a minimum tax of
5-percent tax without deduction for certain payments made by a U.S.
company to its foreign affiliates. Starting in 2019, that minimum tax
increases to 10 percent.
We do not want companies moving mobile assets around the world to
find the lowest corporate tax rate. However,

[[Page S8108]]

I do not think we should be taxing enterprises on payments that never
actually leave the U.S., but instead are obligations that are combined
with obligations from the foreign affiliate to the U.S. parent. That is
where clarification is needed as to how this base erosion tax will work
in the context of U.S. insurance policies that are reinsured overseas.
Under current law, reinsurance is already subject to a gross premium
excise that serves as an antibase erosion tax of sorts. Adding the base
erosion tax on top of that could be detrimental to these U.S. insurance
companies. However, how the base erosion tax is computed may be
determinative of whether the tax is tolerable. I believe that, with
respect to reinsurance, the base erosion tax was intended to apply only
on net payments actually made.
Under certain forms of reinsurance that are commonly used in the life
insurance industry, called modified coinsurance or funds withheld
coinsurance, underlying investments are retained by the U.S. insurer,
which is subject to tax on the earnings from the investments. Under
these arrangements, the reinsurance payments are taken into account for
purposes of the base erosion tax only when the U.S. insurance company
actually makes payments to its foreign affiliate.
My understanding of the conference report is that it intended to
limit the base erosion payment to the net amount paid to the foreign
reinsurer, taking into account the amounts owed by the reinsurer to the
U.S. party. That result is consistent with one of the fundamental
principles underlying the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017: Assets
generating income should be taxed where those assets are sited. In
determining the amount of base erosion payments, the amount of premium
paid to the reinsurer must be offset by any return premium, ceding
commission, reinsurance recovered, or other amount received the
insurance company with respect to the reinsurance for which such
premium is paid to the reinsurer. Moreover, this treatment is
consistent with the regulatory accounting regime imposed by the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Consistent with those principles, base erosion payments do not
include amounts paid to a foreign affiliate that are subject to U.S.
income tax. For example, payments to a foreign partnership by a U.S.
taxpayer that the foreign partnership certifies are effectively
connected income are not base erosion payments. The income has not been
shifted offshore, and there has been no erosion of the tax base.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today we are voting on the motion to
adopt the conference report on H.R. 1, the Tax Reconciliation Act. I
will be voting against adoption of the conference report.
I have long called for tax reform. We should bring down the business
income tax rate. We should bring back the money being held overseas to
fund the infrastructure improvements we need across the country. We
should simplify the code and help middle-class Americans pay their
bills.
But I have been disappointed by the most recent effort, which has not
been bipartisan at all and has resulted in a bill that will add to the
debt, create huge new loopholes that will encourage companies to move
money around and move jobs overseas to avoid taxes, and will have huge
unintended consequences for our economy.
One of the most troubling developments of this bill was the inclusion
of a provision to repeal a key part of the Affordable Care Act that
would kick 13 million people off their insurance by 2027 and increase
premiums by 10 percent in the individual market. That means less money
in the pockets of American middle-class families. The American people
want us to work together to make fixes to the Affordable Care Act, not
move backwards with a partisan approach to healthcare added into a tax
bill.
This bill also hurts middle-class families by doing a bait and
switch. Under the bill, millions of middle-class Americans would end up
paying more in taxes in the long run. Many of the tax cuts they
receive, if they receive a tax cut at all, would only be temporary.
This bill would allow a one-time opportunity to bring back some of
the trillions of dollars of earnings held overseas by U.S. companies. I
have long supported this, but I also would like to see at least part of
any of the billions in taxes raised by this provision to be used to
fund infrastructure.
The American Society of Civil Engineers' 2017 report card gave our
Nation's infrastructure an overall D-plus grade. There is an economic
imperative to fixing our infrastructure: Businesses rely on our
transportation network to move goods to market. If our deteriorating
infrastructure goes unaddressed, it will cost our economy nearly $4
trillion by 2025, leading to the loss of 2.5 million jobs. That is a
crisis that we have an opportunity to address through a tax bill, but
we aren't. It is a missed opportunity.
If done right, we can close loopholes, bring back money U.S.
companies are holding overseas to fund infrastructure projects here at
home, give local businesses the ability to compete against out-of-State
Internet retailers, support our rural communities, and provide
incentives to keep jobs in America.
I have always said we could bring down the corporate tax rate, but
not by adding $1.5 trillion to the debt. We need to work together to
pass a tax plan that works for everyone, one that helps middle-class
families and Main Street businesses, and without blowing up the
deficit.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this conference
report.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to the comments of my
friends on the other side for several hours. Frankly, it has tried my
patience.
If you boil down the inaccurate assertions, you come up with two
basic points. One, that the bill before us cuts taxes for wealthy
taxpayers proportionately more than it does for middle-income
taxpayers. Two, this bill raises taxes on middle-income taxpayers.
Nothing like some old-fashioned nonpartisan light to cut through the
partisan fog created by my friends on the other side.
I refer to a set of tables developed by the nonpartisan official
congressional tax scorekeeper, the Joint Committee on Taxation, which I
will ask consent to have printed in the Record.
The tables show significant tax cut for middle-income taxpayers.
Let's take a look at taxpayers in which the median U.S. income
reside. I am talking about taxpayers at income levels between $50,000
and $75,000. In 2019, two-thirds of taxpayers receive a tax cut of
greater than $500. In 2021, 61.7 percent receive a tax cut of greater
than $500. In 2023, 54.8 percent of taxpayers will receive a tax cut of
greater than $500. In 2021, 53 percent of taxpayers receive a tax cut
of greater than $500. The individual income tax cuts sunset in 2026.
Let's take a look at another middle-income group, those in the
$75,000 to $100,000 cohort. In 2019, 77.8 percent of those taxpayers
receive a tax cut of greater than $500. In 2021, that figure is 72.2
percent. In 2023, that figure is 63.1 percent. In 2025, that figure is
61.4 percent. The individual tax cuts expire in 2026.
I ask my friends on the other side to shut down their rhetorical fog
machine. Stop the phony characterization of this bill as a tax cut for
the wealthy. Recognize it for what it is, a tax cut for Americans that
is focused on middle-income families.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Tax Cuts and
Jobs Act and the significance of this historic legislation to all
Americans.
It has been more than 31 years since comprehensive tax reform was
passed by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan, and it has
been nearly two decades since the United States has experienced a
period of sustained economic growth of 3 percent or more.
Similar to the Tax Code prior to the last major overhaul, today's Tax
Code is overly complex and burdensome on American families and
businesses. The current code is riddled with nearly 200 tax deductions,
credits, exclusions, and tax breaks that ``cost'' the government nearly
$1.5 trillion in lost revenue each year. These costs unnecessarily
burden hard-working Americans, who spend more than 6 billion hours each
year to understand their tax liability and comply with filing
requirements.
The Finance Committee began to lay the groundwork for tax reform
years ago, during which time the committee held over 70 hearings on how
to reform the Tax Code and promote economic growth. In the 113th
Congress, the committee also formed five bipartisan

[[Page S8109]]

working groups to examine options for reform. This years-long process
has enabled us to produce the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and I am confident
this legislation, based on ideas from both parties, will benefit all
Americans by ensuring our Nation remains competitive in the global
economy.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will make American businesses competitive
again by permanently lowering the corporate rate to roughly the average
rate that our competitors have already adopted. This legislation will
also end the lock-out affect many American businesses face today by
adopting a territorial system. This will encourage American companies
to invest their profits here at home and hire more people.
On the individual side, this legislation will lower individual income
tax rates for all Americans and greatly simplify the code by roughly
doubling the standard deduction. According to the Joint Committee on
Taxation, this will result in fewer than 10 percent of Americans
itemizing deductions, meaning the vast majority of Americans will
benefit from tax simplification.
I am especially pleased the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act preserves the child
and dependent care tax credit and dependent care flexible spending
accounts, enhances the ABLE Act, and sharply reduces the number of
Americans who are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax, a parallel
tax system that adds layers of complexity.
This is historic legislation that hard-working Americans across the
country have long deserved, and I look forward to passing this
legislation tonight to ensure all Americans have more economic
opportunity and prosperity for years to come.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss an important
provision in the tax conference agreement that relates to the 20-
percent deduction for certain passthrough income for agricultural
cooperatives.
I was pleased to see that the conference report fairly treats certain
distributions from farmer cooperatives to their patron. This treatment
will ensure that farmers will not see a tax increase at a time of
depressed agricultural prices.
I would like to clarify a drafting change that occurred in moving
from the Senate language to the conference report language.
Specifically, section 199A(c)(1) provides that the term ``qualified
business income'' does not include any ``qualified cooperative
dividends,'' as defined by the bill. I would like to clarify that in
this sentence, the terms ``qualified business income'' and ``qualified
cooperative dividends'' are mutually exclusive and that the intent is
that these terms are to be treated separately under sections 199A(a)(1)
and (2), as they were under the Senate bill.
Also, I believe that the definition of ``qualified cooperative
dividends'' includes ``per unit retains paid in money,'' PURPIMs, paid
under 1382(b)(3).
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, when we pursue tax reform, invariably
those impacted will voice concerns along the way. I know this from
experience, having done tax reform in North Carolina.
Everyone was for tax reform until it came to protecting their
individualized interests. However, reform was not about protecting tax
benefits for the rich or the like, as some of my colleagues have
suggested--understandably, for political purposes.
Tax reform is what we can do as a Congress to help spur economic
growth. Without growth, we cannot solve our Nation's problems. Having
an uncompetitive tax code hampers the ability of the middle class to
grow and prosper.
Through this process, we have fought to ensure that there are
appropriate transition rules and protections for various strategic
sectors in our economy, and I am proud of the work that both Chambers
of Congress have done through the conference process.
When we debated the Senate's tax reform package on the floor, some of
my colleagues offered amendments on discrete issues, and I believe
that, for many of these issues, we attempted to embrace, as a body, a
process that defines problems and works to solve them.
I also believe that the conference committee did a good job working
with JCT and the Finance Committee to address issues, without
jeopardizing the underlying tax reform measure.
For other issues that were not able to be addressed in theconference
report, I believe that legislating is an exercise of continued and
systematic work. That means we need to come back next year in a
reconciliation process and continue to improve upon this legislation.
As an example of some of the work that we must still do, I do not
believe that we should penalize companies for voluntary repatriation
and believe that there should be targeted transition rules in place to
consider those who have a history of voluntary repatriation and are not
simply doing so late in the year as tax reform became a realistic
possibility. That said, I understand that some things are not always
achievable, and it is tough to treat some companies differently than
others when everyone is making sacrifices.
Another area that I think needs to be worked on in future iterations
of tax reform are tailored transition rules for different strategic
sectors like the energy sector, manufacturing sector, and other
industries that have foreign tax credits stranded overseas.
Additionally, as we evaluate how the tax treatment for passthrough
entities unfolds, we need to ensure that we are appropriately
regulating and taxing capital deployers so that we are fully realizing
their potential contributions to economic growth.
In its totality, I was happy to see that there was common ground
found on issues such as: how JCT scores and evaluates insurance
reserves; how the limitations on business interest deductibility
affects different sectors, particularly those that rely heavily on debt
to operate; ensuring that there is continued parity for pass through
entities in the new territorial system by preserving appropriate export
incentives in the Tax Code; and many others that are so important to
State and local economies.
When I did tax reform in North Carolina as the speaker of the North
Carolina State House, I received many of the same criticisms that I
have received as we have gone through this current reform process. Our
hard work paid off in North Carolina, and I believe that it will pay
off for America--as a global competitor and for all Americans.
Thank you. I look forward to supporting this conference report, and I
look forward to working with my colleagues in the future as we continue
our collective pursuit to make America the most competitive it can be
and as we continue to help America achieve its economic potential.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we commend Senator Hatch for his efforts
on this most important bill. We would like to ask for confirmation on a
question that will be of considerable importance to millions of seniors
housing residents, including those living in assisted living and memory
care residences and in continuing care retirement communities, CCRCs.
As you know, capital for seniors housing, including assisted living
and memory care residences and CCRCs, essentially comes from the same
lending sources that fund other types of real estate. HUD, Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, and commercial banks finance seniors housing through their
respective housing related programs. Seniors housing competes with
other real estate based investments for both equity and debt and it is
critical that our tax law treat these seniors housing units in a manner
that is comparable to other housing.
Provisions relating to the deduction for business interest and to the
deduction for depreciation in the bill include rules governing a ``real
property trade or business,'' as that term is currently defined in the
tax law. Under these rules, the conferees stated that they intended
that a real property operation or a real property management trade or
business includes the operation or management of a lodging facility. We
would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Finance if he agrees with us that the operation or management of
residential rental property housing the elderly, such as an assisted
living residential facility, memory care residence, or a continuing
care retirement community, are not excluded from the definition of a
``real property trade or business'' merely because they provide
necessary supplemental assistive services that meet the needs of aging
seniors.

[[Page S8110]]

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I agree.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with
my friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Senate
Finance Committee, Senator Hatch.
I would like to confirm my understanding of the modification of the
section 958(b) stock attribution rules contained in the Tax Cuts and
Jobs Act. The Senate Finance Committee explanation of this bill, as
released by the Senate Budget Committee, definitively states, ``This
provision is not intended to cause a foreign corporation to be treated
as a controlled foreign corporation with respect to a U.S. shareholder
as a result of attribution of ownership under section 318(a)(3) to a
U.S. person that is not a related person (within the meaning of Section
954(d)(3)) to such U.S. shareholder as a result of the repeal of
section 958(b)(4).''
I would like to confirm that the conference report language did not
change or modify the intended scope this statement. As you know, I
filed an amendment to the Senate bill, Senate amendment No. 1666 would
have codified this explanatory text of the Finance Committee report.
I also want to confirm that the Treasury Department and the Internal
Revenue Service should interpret the stock attribution rules consistent
with this explanation of the bill.
Mr. HATCH. The Senator is correct. The conference report language for
the bill does not change or modify the intended scope of the statement
he cites. The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service
should interpret the stock attribution rules consistent with this
explanation, as released by the Senate Budget Committee. I would also
note that the reason his amendment No. 1666 was not adopted is because
it was not needed to reflect the intent of the Senate Finance Committee
or the conferees for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
I thank my friend from Georgia for his leadership on this issue to
ensure that the stock attribution rules operate consistent with our
intent and do not result in unintended consequences. I look forward to
continuing to work with him on this important issue.
Mr. PERDUE. I thank the chairman for the clarification and appreciate
his outstanding leadership and work on this important and historic
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

DACA

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition. I rise also
to talk about the tax issue and this horrible tax cut, but I can't help
but mention a little bit about what I went through the last hour or so
with some wonderful young people in my office.
First of all, there are 7,000 Dreamers in my home State of New
Mexico. Here is one of them, shown in this picture. This is Carlos.
Carlos was brought to New Mexico from Mexico when he was less than 1
year old, and New Mexico is the only place that Carlos has known as his
home. I had the opportunity to visit with a number of young people who
are very much like Carlos. They have gotten in a bus, they have come to
Washington, they call themselves the New Mexico dream team, and it is a
remarkable story. They told many stories to me about their situations
that sounded very much like Carlos's story. They urge us to protect
them. They are fearful, they are emotional, but they are also strong
and courageous. Let's remember these are some of our very best and
brightest young people. We cannot lose them. We must continue to fight
for a clean Dream Act--no doubt about it--and we need to remember the
11 million undocumented immigrants who are here in the United States
and strive and fight for true immigration reform.
Mr. President, working families in New Mexico want good jobs and good
wages. They want affordable healthcare and retirement security. They
want a job and educational opportunities for their children, but the
Republican's latest tax plan does nothing for regular families in New
Mexico or across the country. It will not create good-paying jobs, not
now nor for our children. It will kick 13 million people off healthcare
and raise insurance premiums. Their plan threatens Medicare, Medicaid,
and Social Security, and it does nothing to improve public education or
bring down the high cost of college.
The Republican tax plan overwhelmingly benefits the rich by giving
huge tax breaks to their campaign donors, to the superwealthy, big
corporations, multinational businesses, and hedge funds. One of the
biggest problems is, the Republican plan will drive up the debt by $1.5
trillion, and that means they will have to take a hatchet to programs
working families rely on. This is not a responsible or a fair tax plan.
It is a hocus-pocus tax sham, and I oppose it.
I have to reflect a little on this first year that we have seen under
President Trump and the Republican majority--what a year of lost
opportunities. If the Republicans had worked with us during this year,
we could have had at least two big bipartisan achievements. We could
have had a bipartisan improvement on healthcare, built on the successes
of the Affordable Care Act, and we could have had a fair tax bill for
all Americans. How sad partisanship and politics got the upper hand.
The Senate and the House majority are pushing this tax scam as fast
as they can to hide it from the American people. We have not had proper
hearings. We have not heard from expert witnesses or had adequate
independent analysis. Even the Republicans don't know what is in it. My
office has met with many New Mexicans raising red flags on the
unintended consequences of this bill. No Member of Congress--no
Democrats or Republicans--has had enough time to digest and understand
this plan.
When it comes to legislation this important, we must follow the
regular order. We must see a full analysis by the Congressional Budget
Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. We must hear from the best
tax experts in the country. The American people must understand the
plan, and every Member of Congress must fully understand its impacts.
We are not there.
Republicans and the President are not being straight about what this
plan will mean for the average American. They aren't talking about how
it will affect the President's own personal taxes. He touts it as a tax
cut for the middle class and working Americans, but not one single
objective analysis says it is designated to help the middle class, and
his Treasury Department's one-page so-called analysis predicting a $300
billion surplus is built on unrealistic growth assumptions that no
serious economist accepts. Even Republicans have said the bill is about
helping their donors and cutting taxes for big corporations.

The American people are not blind. They aren't fooled by the
administration's fake numbers, and they oppose this plan. Recent
polling, as recent as December 13, shows that 55 percent of Americans
disapprove of the bill. Sixty-five percent say the wealthy benefit the
most, and almost all pollsters come out somewhere in that range.
Now, let's look at some of the hard, cold numbers. First, we know the
Republicans propose adding $1.5 trillion to the debt over the next 10
years. This chart shows the difference between the Federal deficit
under current law and the massive increase in the deficit under the
Senate Republicans' plan. Current law is in blue, as you can see here,
and the Republicans' plan is in red. It is pretty dramatic--pretty
dramatic. Republicans represent themselves as the party of fiscal
responsibility, but incurring this amount of debt to give big tax
breaks to the rich is patently irresponsible.
To pay for this debt, the government will have to borrow by selling
Treasury bills, notes, bonds, securities, and savings bonds. Based on
estimates from the JTC and the CBO, the government's cost to borrow to
pay for this debt will be over $40 billion over the next 10 years and
even more after that unless we pay off the debt. The American people
will be on the hook for $1.5 trillion. That is $12,742 for each and
every American household today. My colleagues have come to the floor
saying this tax bill will provide an average tax cut of around $2,000
for 1 year in 2019. What they aren't telling you is, they are also
opening a line of credit on you and your family of $12,000.
This is the new Federal debt that would be taken out in every
American's name every year by the GOP. So much additional borrowing by
the Federal Government can also drive up interest rates. Higher
interest rates mean higher costs for the government to borrow. The
Congressional Budget

[[Page S8111]]

Office estimates that if interest rates are 1 percent higher annually
than projected through 2027, the debt will be $1.5 trillion higher--
that is 6 percent of gross domestic product--and the amount each
American owes on their new forced Federal credit card would go up even
more.
Increased Federal interest rates have real consequences for the
average American. A rise in rates can price out a first-time home
buyer; it can determine whether a young person can afford to buy a car.
The average American consumer does not want to see interest rates go
up. Increased government borrowing and interest rates can take up the
economy's lending capacity and discourage the very private investment
Republicans say they want to encourage.
Giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy also will force massive cuts
in revenue coming into the Federal Government. When I first arrived in
the Senate, Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota was chair of the
Budget Committee. He was a master on the Federal deficit and on the
Federal budget, and he understood the danger of racking up huge
deficits. In 2011, the Budget Committee was concerned that the debt
threatened the national security. The committee majority developed a
budget framework that Senator Conrad presented on the floor that July.
He showed us many charts that day. One showed that the government had a
budget surplus for only 5 of the last 50 years--that was in 1969, 1998,
1999, 2000, and 2001. In those years, revenues were close to 20 percent
of gross domestic product.
Around the same time, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles budget commission
concluded that the Federal Government needed revenue equal to 21
percent, but the Republicans' current tax cut legislation would leave
the Federal Government with revenue of only 17 percent of GDP.
Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers sounded alarm bells in an op-
ed in the Washington Post on December 10, and Larry Summers isn't
alone. Bruce Bartlett was an economic adviser to Presidents Reagan and
George W. Bush. In a September Washington Post op-ed, he freely
acknowledged that he ``had a hand in creating the Republican tax
myth.'' He is referring to the myth that tax cuts lead to robust
economic growth. Mr. Bartlett now says: ``Republican rhetoric around
tax cutting'' is ``wishful thinking. . . . In reality, there's no
evidence that a tax cut would spur growth.''
In other words, tax cuts will not spur economic growth. They will
create more debt, squeeze consumers, and mean steep cuts to vital
government programs. So why is the majority pushing so hard for them?
Why do they want this tax cut bill so badly?
There is really only one reason--for their donors. Representative
Chris Collins of New York was honest about why he has to deliver tax
cuts. He said, ``My donors''--and this is his quote, Congressman
Collins--``My donors are basically saying, `Get it done or don't ever
call me again.' ''
Making the superrich even richer doesn't justify burdening our kids
with huge government debt. It doesn't excuse threatening American
healthcare, retirement security, and other vital programs, but cutting
vital Federal programs is exactly the price the middle class and
working Americans will be expected to pay under the Republicans' tax
sham. Their plan calls for $500 billion worth of cuts, and Speaker Ryan
is already talking about where they will cut. He said:

We are going to have to get back next year at entitlement
reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit.
Frankly, it's the healthcare entitlements that are the big
drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on healthcare
entitlements--because that is really where the problem lies,
fiscally speaking.

He wants to starve the Treasury to benefit the wealthy, and then he
wants to slash critical programs that create jobs, support innovation,
secure our Nation, and help people pay for housing, food, and medicine.
I want to support tax cuts for middle-class families. I want to help
make sure that working people can take home more of their pay. I also
want to make sure we can pay for roads, bridges, schools, scientific
research, and national defense. This bill doesn't do that; it does
exactly the opposite. It takes money from the middle-class families and
gives it to the ultrarich. Then it leaves us with little to support our
communities, little for infrastructure, little to make the United
States of America continue to lead the world in innovation, science,
and economic might, and little to ensure that we take care of those in
need.
This bill also fails Indian Country. While giving billions of dollars
of tax breaks to corporations, this bill does nothing to spur economic
growth or attract investments in our Native communities--not even
basic, low-cost provisions to ensure that Tribes receive the same tax
benefits as other governments, like State governments. Once again,
Tribes have been overlooked by the majority, despite early and vocal
Tribal input on tax parity in Indian Country.
I am prepared to roll up my sleeves and work with Republicans on tax
reform that is fair, simplifies the Tax Code, and keeps American
businesses competitive, but I cannot support tax cuts that lopsidedly
benefit the ultrarich, hurt working families, neglect Indian Country,
and balloon the Federal deficit.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, tonight, once again, Congress is proving
to the American people that Washington is broken. This bill is not a
product of deliberation of the world's most deliberative body. It is a
not a product of meaningful public hearings. It is not a product of
compromise or months of hard work among multiple committees. It is
certainly not the product of a grand legislative idea that was
desperately needed to meet the demands of the public. The bill in front
of us is the product of dysfunction, partisanship, and political
desperation.
Thirty years ago, the Senate passed President Reagan's tax reform 97
to 3. After the conference committee had worked it over, it passed
overwhelmingly with 74 votes. That could have been the case today, but
there was never an attempt to have an honest debate about this bill,
and there was no attempt to get bipartisan buy-in. I reached out to
lend my perspective and Montana's perspective--the perspective of rural
America--but my offer fell on deaf ears, and I never heard back.
I asked the President to work with me. I raised my concerns early,
and they have never made an attempt to address those concerns. There
was no effort to reach across the aisle and build consensus for this
bill.
Once again, the leadership of this body chose to draw a line in the
sand. They chose to empower the fringes and leave those in the middle
out in the cold. As a result, the first major tax bill in Congress in a
generation will likely pass with the support of only one party. That is
not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
As for me, I wanted a tax bill that would ensure that hard-working
Montana families and businesses had a say in this process. I wanted to
construct a bipartisan bill that provided folks with tax relief without
adding to the debt. I wanted to simplify the Tax Code without gutting
provisions that would help build our middle class. Today, we are stuck
with this final bill that does none of those things, and our options
are yes or no.
There are some things in this bill that are good--three, to be exact.
This bill keeps in place important medical deductions that benefit
seniors and help them pay for care as they age. It expands the child
tax credit to provide a boost to families across the country. It lowers
income tax brackets to keep a few extra bucks in your pocket each year.
But when we look at the bill, we have to weigh the good and the bad.
Speaking of those individual tax cuts--the ones I just talked about a
few seconds ago--well, they are only temporary. They are short-term
promises that will disappear with the wind. Estimates show that more
than 80 percent of this bill's benefits will go to the top 1 percent;
60 percent will go to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of our population.
In fact, hard-working families will actually see a tax hike within 10
years.
But for this country's biggest corporations, this bill makes their
tax cuts permanent. So at the same time that taxes start rising for
teachers and farmers and electricians and nurses

[[Page S8112]]

and working folks, large corporations and big businesses will still be
reaping the benefits from the giveaways in this piece of legislation.
On top of huge benefits, this bill makes no attempt to ensure that
these corporations will use the savings to create more good-paying
jobs.
This bill also destroys the foundation of our healthcare system.
Because of this bill, 13 million Americans will become uninsured, and
everyone else's premiums will go up by about 10 percent. It will be
more expensive to see your doctor. It will be harder for rural
hospitals and clinics to keep their doors open. More folks will end up
in emergency rooms--the most expensive medical treatment. They will be
sicker, their treatment will be more expensive, and the rest of us will
be forced to pay for it.
The bad list doesn't stop there. It forces a $25 billion cut to
Medicare. This bill pushes millions of people out of itemizing their
deductions--reducing incentives to buy a home or donate to a charity.
It caps State and local income tax deductions, and this targets middle-
class families. It changes the way we adjust tax brackets for
inflation, which will force future generations to play catchup. It will
force State budgets into the red and put critical healthcare,
education, and law enforcement initiatives on the chopping block. It
opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling, but that
is not the worst thing about this bill. The worst thing about this bill
is it saddles our kids and grandkids with more crushing debt.
In 2008 and 2009, this country was going through one of the worst
economic crises since the 1930s. The debt was increased in that period
of time. People often say that the government needs to be run like a
business. Well, if you have a business, and income is not coming in,
you have to borrow some money. That is what happened. With the economic
downturn, the money wasn't coming in, so our debt went up. On the other
side, if you are in business and you are making a few bucks and times
are better--and they are good--you pay that debt down. Well, this
country is in a lot better shape now than it was in 2008 and 2009. We
should be paying that debt down at this moment in time, not adding $1.5
trillion to it.
I am going to tell you, as sure as I am standing here today, within
the first quarter of 2018, there will be folks standing up on the other
side of the aisle saying that we need to cut Medicare, we need to cut
Social Security, and we need to take away subsidies for everyone,
whether they be farmers, mothers, young families, the disabled, or
veterans. Money that is used to keep our public lands in public hands,
dollars that are used to make education more affordable, dollars for
healthcare overall--they will tell us that we simply cannot afford them
because our debt is so high. But today we are going to tack on $1.5
trillion for the sake of giving the richest of the rich a tax benefit
and middle-class families a temporary benefit that will go away over
the next 10 years.
How they have so quickly forgotten the fiscal restraint that we
talked about when Democrats controlled this body. Our national debt is
already above $20 trillion. This is more than $64,000 for every man,
woman, and child in this country. The path we are on is truly
unsustainable.
It is not the first time we have been down this road. Bush tax cuts
were sold to the American people, and we were told that they would pay
for themselves. Guess what. Today those Bush tax cuts are directly
responsible for one-third of that $20 trillion debt. We know this to be
true. Yet here we are, about to swipe the credit card one more time for
over $1.5 trillion--to put our kids and our grandkids on the hook to
pay it back while we get temporary relief and the large corporations
get permanent relief.
For those of us who were ignored during this process, this is what we
are stuck with. There are some good things but a whole bunch of bad
things--more than I can count on my hands. We can't celebrate the good
things and ignore the bad. Just because we ignore it doesn't mean that
it is not going to come true.
This bill will not strengthen the middle class. It will not improve
our schools. It will not lower the cost of healthcare.
Let's call it what it is. It is a tax giveaway to the wealthy masked
as tax reform, and those who vote yes on this bill will do so at the
expense of our kids and our grandkids. They will be paying this tab
long after we are gone. What is ironic about this is that most of the
people who serve in this body say: I am here to make sure the next
generation has an opportunity. We are taking away their opportunity
with this bill. It will limit their opportunity. It will cap their
potential--all for what? I am not really sure because when I go back to
Montana every weekend, folks aren't stopping me on the streets and
telling me that the corporations and the wealthy need a tax giveaway.
What they do tell me is this: We need to make sure programs like CHIP
are around. We need to make sure Medicare and Social Security are there
for future generations. We need to protect our public lands. We need to
pass a farm bill that works. We need to invest in infrastructure.
Folks, this tax bill takes away all of that potential.
We have been at war for 16 or 17 years. The military needs
rebuilding. It makes it much tougher. Everyone knows what is going on
in North Korea. The potential to have to spend a bunch of money there
is real. Infrastructure--whether it is broadband, highways, bridges, or
water systems--is in dire need of help.
The fact is, the tracks are greased; this bill is going to pass.
Rather than working on the pressing issues around here, the next excuse
is going to be entitlement reform, which means we are going to do our
level best, in the name of the debt, to gut Medicare and Social
Security. Who knows what else will be put on the chopping block to be
ripped away from working families?
This bill ties our hands and prevents us from making the kinds of
investments we need to build a strong middle class, which has been the
envy of the world, and it puts our most vulnerable at risk.
I am going to vote no on this bill because it is a step backward. It
raises the debt. It does nothing to solve the income inequality in this
country, and it pushes the American dream further out of reach.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I want to cover what I think are the seven
worst aspects of this tax bill.
The first thing is that this is not a middle-class tax cut. Credible,
independent analysis of this bill found that the richest 1 percent of
the United States will get $85 billion of the benefits in the year
2019. These Americans will get a tax cut of more than $55,000 per
person while taxpayers who fall in the middle of the road will get a
couple of hundred bucks. Many in the middle class will pay more because
of this bill.
People making $30,000 or less will see a tax increase of about 10
percent. Even foreign investors will do better than the middle class in
this bill. What do I mean by foreign investors? I mean foreign
investors. I mean people who don't live in the United States but who
own stock or are investors in American companies. In 2019, they will
get a $48 billion tax benefit. That is a bigger benefit than more than
half of the rest of the country will get from this bill. You have to
work hard to design a tax plan that helps the middle class less than
this one does. In fact, the Washington Post looked at this plan a few
weeks ago and found that it is the worst tax plan for the middle class
in 50 years. Here is the thing. It shouldn't be that hard to do a
middle-class tax cut; you just do a middle-class tax cut.

The No. 2 reason this bill is horrible is it is primarily written for
special interests. Republicans couldn't give the middle class a bigger
tax break because they needed all of that money for special interests.
Real estate firms will see an immediate 16 percent decrease in taxes
next year. For families who own multimillion-dollar hotels, that makes
this a great bill.
Big banks and financial firms also win. Over the next 10 years,
financial firms will save $250 billion. Over the next 10 years,
financial firms will save $250 billion.
The biggest single beneficiary is Wells Fargo. What I remember from
the last election was that the lesson the voters were teaching us
across America was a populous lesson, that

[[Page S8113]]

they were sick of financial institutions and the very powerful
politically and the very powerful economically running us. Here we are
giving a massive tax break to Wells Fargo, an estimated 18-percent
boost in earnings just for Wells Fargo. This is not a bank that has
been a good player recently. They were mired in scandal after they
bilked customers into buying auto insurance and created thousands of
fake credit card and bank accounts.
People are not getting a tax cut. Corporations are getting a tax cut,
and no one knows how we are going to pay for all of this.
This brings me to No. 3. If passed, this bill will increase the
Federal deficit by a minimum of $1.5 trillion. With $1.5 trillion, we
can pay down every single student loan in the country and still have
enough money left over for middle-class tax cuts. Instead, we are going
to make sure that Wells Fargo investors have another banner year.
There was an entire group of Republicans elected to the Congress on
the premise that the Federal debt and deficit were too high and that we
needed fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility, and now they are
adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
No. 4, this bill is just bad economic policy. It is premised on the
idea that if you provide a tax cut for corporations, they will share
it, essentially; that if you give money to a corporation and they take
that money and they reinvest it in their physical plant, they make
additional developments--maybe they build a new factory, or maybe they
pay their people more. That sounds great. Here is the problem: The
corporate sector is sitting on an unprecedented amount of cash already.
The corporate sector has lots of cash already. So we have a lesson in
what they will do with extra cash, right? If they were going to use
extra cash to pay their people more or invest more in physical
infrastructure or expand their businesses, they would already be doing
that because they are already sitting on record amounts of capital. But
they are not doing that. What they are doing is stock buybacks and
dividends. In other words, they are paying off their shareholders.
When a group of American CEOs was asked what they were going to do
with the windfall money they are about to receive, they did not say
they are going to pay their people more; they did not say they are
going to invest more in expanding their businesses; they indicated that
they are going to do what they have been doing with their record
amounts of cash, which is pour it back into stock buybacks and
dividends.
This is bad economic policy. Forget the moral part for a moment. Even
at the macroeconomic level, this is not smart.
No. 5, this is bad policy because it is a bad process. This bill was
written in secret. It was rushed, and it was 100 percent partisan. We
know it didn't have to be that way.
One of the things I said to some of my colleagues with whom I have a
strong relationship is, listen, why don't we try to do this subject to
a 60-vote threshold? Why don't we try to find bipartisan agreement? And
then, listen, if you find that we are operating with you in bad faith,
if you find that there is no room for compromise, drop the threshold
down and do it with a 51-vote margin, but at least you will have
exhausted the possibility of bipartisanship.
They started with 51 votes. What does that mean? That means they
never wanted to listen to Democrats. That is why this process is so
flawed. And now the House just sent over a bill that is so messed up,
they are going to have to vote again tomorrow. To fix the garbage they
sent over this afternoon, they are already talking about an additional
technical fixes bill to do next year. This is the product that you get
when you don't have public hearings, when you don't have
bipartisanship, and when you don't take your time.
No. 6, this bill is bad for healthcare. People's premiums are going
to skyrocket, and 13 million Americans are going to go without health
insurance.
No. 7, this bill increases income inequality. This bill changes our
tax system to reward wealth over work. For me, American capitalism is
about, you work hard, you have a good idea, and you are rewarded. It is
not about, your dad was rich, he passed the money down, and you are
rewarded. American capitalism is about pulling yourself up by your
bootstraps. But what we are doing with the Tax Code is unprecedented--
except for during the gilded age. What we are doing with the Tax Code
right now is saying: We value already being rich more than we value
someone who is climbing that mountain.
That is a foundational moral question--do we value work, or do we
value wealth? The problem with this bill--and we can go through process
and policy and politics, but the foundational problem with this bill is
that, through this document, we are declaring that we value people's
wealth that already exists. We value passive income more than we value
earned income. And that is not good for the United States of America.
That is the problem with this bill. We are telling people that we value
people who already have money more than people who are climbing that
hill. That is why I oppose this bill so strongly, and I think that is
why people across America--for the very first time, at least in recent
history but maybe in American history, we have a tax cut bill that is
so deeply unpopular because people understand what a rotten piece of
legislation this is. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you, Mr. President.
I rise to speak about the conference report we will be voting on
later this evening. Before I do that, I want to mention a few folks by
name who deserve a big thank-you for the incredible work they did to
get us to this terrific point we are at today.
I wanted to start with Leader McConnell. His vision and leadership
made this possible, and I am grateful for that. I want to mention
Chairman Hatch, who also helped to guide the Finance Committee, which
has jurisdiction over our Tax Code; Chairman Enzi, the chairman of the
Budget Committee--without a proper budget resolution, this moment would
not have been possible; Chairman Murkowski, who has fought for so long
to open up this little tiny postage stamp in an incredibly remote part
of Alaska to prudent energy development, and finally, tonight we are
going to pass the legislation to do that; Senator Cornyn, our whip, who
is also a member of the Finance Committee and played a very important
role; Senators Thune, Portman, and Scott, with whom I worked very
closely for a very extended period of time to try to find the consensus
that I think we have reached among Republican Senators.
I want to mention Senator Corker. I had many long and ultimately very
fruitful conversations with Senator Corker, who approached this in a
very thoughtful and responsible way. I am very grateful for him.
I want to mention some of the staff who worked incredibly hard on
this: Mark Warren, who handles tax policy for Senator Thune; Zach
Rudisill, who works for Senator Portman; Shay Hawkins, who handled this
brief for Senator Scott; Andrew Siracuse, who works for Senator Cornyn;
and Bart Massey, who handled this responsibility for Senator Enzi, and
Matt Giroux. They all did terrific work.
A big special thanks to some of the guys on my staff who did an
amazing job. Randy Herndon joined my team earlier this year and did an
absolutely extraordinary job. Fortunately, he has an incredible wealth
of knowledge about tax policy, and he was able to put that to work for
Pennsylvanians and for Americans in a tremendously constructive way.
Brad Grantz, my legislative director, also helped to guide this
process. Dan Brandt, who is my chief of staff, did some great
quarterbacking.
I should point out the Senate Finance Committee staff who worked
incredible hours and did a great job--Jay Khosla, Mark Prater, Jen
Acuna, and the rest of the Senate Finance Committee staff, and also
Brendan Dunn in the leader's office, who played a very important role.
Speaker Ryan and Chairman Brady in the other Chamber played an
indispensable role in getting us here, as did Tom Barthold, who leads
the Joint Committee on Taxation, quantifying every wrinkle along the
way in the final product, as well as his team.

[[Page S8114]]

I should also mention that the President provided constructive
leadership along the way, and we worked extensively with Treasury
Secretary Mnuchin and the Director of the National Economic Council,
Gary Cohn, from the White House.
This took a long time to put together and involved an enormous amount
of work, but I am so proud of what we have brought to this floor and
what I believe we are going to pass later this evening. The process
started over a year ago when members of the Finance Committee began to
tackle what seemed like a very daunting challenge--the most ambitious
tax reform in 31 years. Could we really overhaul the entire Tax Code
and achieve two very important accomplishments and do it with the very
narrow majority we have, knowing that our Democratic friends did not
want to participate in this process, and try to get this all the way
across the goal line?
I am thrilled to be able to report that I think we have accomplished
those two big things. What are they? No. 1, we were determined from the
very beginning that we would not even attempt to bring a bill to the
floor unless it lowered the tax burden on the families we represent--
individuals, families, middle-income and lower income families. That
was No. 1. No. 2, we wanted to fundamentally restructure the business
side of our Tax Code so that American workers and businesses can
compete and win in a global economy against anybody. I have to tell
you, we did those things, and I think that is why this is going to pass
tonight.
First, on the individual side, this is absolutely a direct tax cut
for the vast overwhelming majority of low- and middle-income taxpayers.
They will simply pay less in Federal taxes. That is the reality.
By the way, most high-income taxpayers will have some tax savings as
well. I don't apologize for that. I am in favor of lowering the tax
burden on everyone. While not every last individual is going to have a
tax cut, the vast majority of people will.
We do it through a variety of mechanisms. I will not go through all
of them, but a couple of the mechanisms that I think people understand
and appreciate are, one, we doubled the standard deduction--what does
that mean? That means that a couple filing jointly, as most married
couples do, the first $24,000 of income they earn doesn't get taxed at
all--zero, nothing. They don't owe a dime to the Federal Government on
the first $24,000 that they earn. That one step alone results in a tax
reduction for many millions of Americans. In addition, we lower
marginal tax rates so that the income people earn above $24,000 gets
taxed at lower rates under our bill than under current law. We also
dramatically increase the child tax credit so that families with
children get this additional benefit on top of the ones I just
mentioned.
The net effect of all of this is that every single income category
pays less in taxes. You don't have to take my word for it; that is the
joint tax nonpartisan review of our bill. And low-income earners
receive the largest percentage of benefits of all.
For people who are listening to this debate, whether in the Chamber
here or watching C-SPAN, I can understand that they could be a little
frustrated because they hear our Democratic colleagues say: This is a
terrible deal for the middle class. Some have even said it is a tax
increase. And they have heard me and other Republicans say this is
absolutely a tax cut for the middle class. Who are they to believe? I
understand that frustration.
Let me suggest that there is a simple way to cut through all of
this--there are two, actually.
No. 1, look what happened on the Senate floor during debate on this.
The same sort of argument was taking place when a Democratic Senator
offered an amendment to take our tax policy for low- and middle-income
families and individuals and make it permanent. If this were a bad deal
for the middle class, presumably all the Democratic Senators would vote
no, but they did not. They voted yes. It was really quite an
extraordinary compliment to our work that they offered an amendment to
take what we did--which is not yet permanent; we weren't able to do
that; we are going to come back and revisit that, and I hope we will
make it permanent--and said: This is so good, we should make it
permanent right now. So I appreciate the compliment. I appreciate the
validation of the tax cut, that this is for low-income and middle-
income families, and I want to work with them to make sure it is
permanent. We should be able to do that.

The second way we know where the truth lies in this debate is in late
January, early February, just check your paycheck. Take a look.
Withholding is going to go down because you are going to owe less money
to Uncle Sam, so you are going to get a take-home pay raise. It is as
simple as that. So the mystery will be all gone when people take a look
at their check and discover that, yes, look at that, I actually got the
pay raise those Republican guys said we were going to get. I am looking
forward to when that happens and, at that point, I think this debate
will shift to other topics. That is my guess.
I also want to touch on the tax reform on the business side because I
think that is what is likely to drive the economic growth and the
opportunities I want to see for the people I represent. It comes in a
context. The context is the weakest economic recovery in the history of
the Republic. After a very severe recession in 2008, we never really
had the booming recovery we have always had in the past. It is not a
huge mystery why. Our Democratic friends had complete control of the
elective government, and they did all of the things they wanted to do.
They had the ability--and they did--huge, repeated tax increases with
no reforms, a virtual takeover of healthcare, an avalanche of new
regulations, and a massive spending binge. They did all of those things
and, unsurprisingly, we got a weak economy, not a strong economy.
One of the specific problems we have had and that has plagued us ever
since that recession is a collapse in the growth of the capital stock,
which caused a collapse in the growth of productivity, and without
productivity, it is not at all surprising that workers aren't getting
raises. The path to higher wages for workers is allowing workers to
become more productive. To be more productive, they need better tools,
and better tools are acquired through investment.
So that was lacking, and that is the heart of what we are fixing. Our
reform goes right to this challenge of lowering the cost of deploying
capital. What do I mean by deploying capital? What I mean is investing
in the very kind of equipment that makes workers more productive and
allows them to earn higher wages.
A simple example is, you go to a construction site and there are two
guys working and one of them is working a backhoe and the other is
working a shovel. They are both digging a hole. They are both moving
dirt. Which one do you think is getting paid more? The guy operating
the backhoe is always making more money because he is able to be so
much more productive than any human can be with just his bare hands and
a shovel. So when we make it more affordable for businesses to go out
and buy new tractors, new equipment, new machinery, that gives them the
chance to put those more valuable tools into the hands of their
workers.
By the way, someone also has to build those things. Someone has the
job at Caterpillar of making that tractor. Someone has the job of
making that vehicle. Someone has the job of making the machinery.
So all of these things coming together are a very powerful driver of
economic growth--not the only one. Not only do we lower the cost of
acquiring that equipment, we also lower the top rate that businesses
pay.
We have arguably the most uncompetitive Tax Code in the world--the
top rate of 35 percent. What we do in our bill is we lower that rate to
21 percent--slightly below the average of the nations we compete with;
pretty close to the average. This is going to free up American workers
and businesses to compete and win in all kinds of fields where we are
getting beaten today. That is going to come to an end because when we
have a chance to compete on a level playing field, American workers and
American business, we compete and we usually win. We are going to get
back to winning.
We also recognize that most businesses in America are not organized
as C corps, they are organized as

[[Page S8115]]

passthroughs--small, subchapter S companies, partnerships. So we have a
corollary, a reduction in tax rates for them. It comes as a deduction
against their earnings. It doesn't apply to all partnerships.
Professional services partnerships, for instance, don't get this
treatment. I would like to revisit that. I think we want to revisit
that because I personally would like to see this treatment expanded to
that category, but the vast majority of businesses--partnerships, S
corps, C corps--are going to experience a significant tax cut that is
going to allow them to compete.
Another big, important feature is moving away from this global
taxation system we have. We have all been so disturbed by the stories
we have read about of American companies being acquired, sometimes by a
much smaller company overseas, not because the economics of the
transaction make a lot of sense but because the Tax Code drives them.
It just makes very little sense, from a tax point of view, to have a
multinational company headquartered in the United States.
So we have been driving these transactions that are terrible. They
usually cost us jobs. They cost us growth. This comes to an end with
this reform. We are not going to have this system where we punish
business for bringing money back home to the United States. This
punishment ends, and it is going to encourage a huge inflow of capital,
of accumulated profits back into the United States, because no longer
will companies be facing a penalty tax unique in the world. That is
over. It is a very constructive development.
What does it mean when you take one of the world's worst business tax
codes and you turn it into arguably one of the best? It means more
investment. It means more people all around the world are going to want
to invest in America. It means more Americans are going to want to
invest in starting a new business or expanding an existing business. It
means more business will be able to afford the tools and the equipment
and the vehicles I referred to earlier. That is the source of economic
growth.
Some of our colleagues on the other side don't seem to acknowledge
that this is a reality, but there is no great mystery here. When you
lower the cost of something, you get more of it, and when we lower the
cost we impose on businesses becoming more productive, we will have
more productivity.
All of this comes at a very interesting time in the economic cycle.
What I am referring to is the fact that we are arguably close to what
economists think of as full employment--4.1 percent, 4 percent. Very
seldom does the American economy go below 4 percent for extended
periods. It means that when this money gets put to work--when companies
go out and start buying this equipment--they need workers to fill the
orders, but then they need workers to operate the equipment. Demand for
workers is going to go up.
What happens when demand for workers goes up at a time when there is
a relatively small number who are not employed? It means upward
pressure on the wages of those workers. This is exactly the dynamic we
have been waiting for and we are going to trigger that and we are going
to watch this happen. I think it is going to start relatively quickly--
probably next year--that we will start to see upward pressure on wages.
That means the people I represent are going to find that they have
options, they have higher compensation, they are getting a pay raise
because their employer--it is not because employers suddenly wake up
one day and decide: Oh, I will just be more generous today. It is
nothing of the sort. This is the only way they can hold on to their
workforce, hold on to the employees they need.
So it is very likely we are going to see an increasing share of the
total economic output in the hands of the workers who produce it, and I
think that is a terrific development.
A couple of other points I want to touch on briefly. One is that this
legislation also effectively repeals the individual mandate of
ObamaCare. Technically, what we do is we zero out the penalty. The
penalty for noncompliance goes to zero, and so that is equivalent to
repeal.
First of all, this is a great strike for freedom, in my view. It is
appalling to think that the Federal Government has the right to force
an American to buy a product against his or her will--a terrible
infringement on the freedom of Americans.
Our Democratic colleagues have described this repeal as a stake
through the heart of ObamaCare. Think about what a damning indictment
that is about ObamaCare. It is a stake through the heart. If the only
way ObamaCare can survive is if people are forced to buy the product
against their wishes, what kind of product could that be? What kind of
business model depends on forcing people to buy your product because
they will not buy it if it is voluntary?
So not only is it a significant strike for freedom, it is also tax
relief for low-income folks. This ObamaCare penalty in Pennsylvania, in
my State--and I think my State is typical--83 percent of the people who
get hit with this tax penalty are in a household that earns less than
$50,000 a year. So this is more direct relief for low- and middle-
income folks.
The last point I want to make--and I see my colleague from Ohio on
the floor. He did amazing, great work getting us to this point. He was
a pleasure to work with and enormously knowledgeable, and I just want
to congratulate him for where we are today.
A quick word about the deficits. Let me start with a very simple
observation. I am convinced that when we pass this legislation and it
is signed into law, the Federal budget deficits will shrink as a result
of this legislation. It is very simple. The reason I say that is the
economic growth, the response to the reforms, the very profound reforms
we are making are going to give us a bigger economy to tax, and the
extra growth, the bigger economy, means more revenue to the Federal
Government. So you could reasonably ask: Well, OK, how much more growth
do you really need, though, in order to offset the lost revenue that
comes from some of the changes you are making? Fortunately, that is a
simple exercise in arithmetic.
We know what the answer is. Whether it is Joint Tax or the
Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analysis is, we will need
to average between two- and four-tenths of a percent of extra GDP
growth--extra economic growth--each year, on average, for the next 10
years. If we do that, then we will have a smaller deficit as a result
of this legislation, not a larger one.
So, for me, what this bill comes down to is a simple question: Do you
believe in America? Do you believe in the capacity of the American
people to restore the vibrant growth we used to take for granted,
decade after decade of annual growth of over 3 percent that caused
people's wages to rise and the standard of living to grow?
We have had this period that has been stagnant, and some of our
friends think, Well, that is what America is now. Just get used to it.
Accept it. That is the new normal--barely 2 percent growth, if you are
lucky. I think that is nonsense, and it is not true.
I still believe in America. I still believe in American workers. I
still believe in our system. I still believe we are capable of
restoring the kind of growth that has always been our birthright.
I think this legislation takes a huge step in that direction. It is a
direct, immediate tax cut and, therefore, a pay raise for the hard-
working people I represent, and it is a series of reforms that is going
to encourage economic growth that will result in higher wages and a
better standard of living as well.
I am thrilled with the opportunity we have tonight, and I urge all of
my colleagues to support this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this special
interest, tax breaks for the rich, trickle-down economics bill that
history shows doesn't work.
I want to start by thanking Senator Wyden from Oregon, the leader on
our side--the Finance Committee has done very good work--and Gideon
Bragin in my office who has been one of the tax reform experts in this
body. I want to thank both of them.
This bill should have been an opportunity for all of us to work
together to put money in the pockets of working

[[Page S8116]]

people. It is pretty simple. Instead of cutting taxes for the middle
class, though, Washington chose to cut taxes for millionaires and
corporations and pay for it by cutting Medicare and kicking people off
their health insurance.
It ought to be pretty simple. If we want to cut taxes--if we want to
talk about cutting taxes for the middle class--if we want to cut taxes
for the middle class, then let's pass a bill to cut taxes for the
middle class instead of giving the money to corporations and the
richest CEOs and relying on a bank shot, hoping it trickles down. Cut
out the middleman. That is what my colleagues claim to want. That is
what the President said to us and the country that he wanted, but that
is not what this bill does. This isn't a middle-class tax cut--not even
close.
According to the Tax Policy Center, 83 percent--you see a Monopoly
man here on this chart--83 percent of the benefits in this tax bill by
the end of the decade go to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country.
Imagine, 83 percent of the benefits go to the richest 1 percent of
people in this country. That is even worse than the Senate bill
passed--which wasn't that great--earlier this month. It was already
pretty bad. Sixty-two percent of the bill's benefits would have gone to
the top 1 percent of households by the end of the decade. Apparently,
62 percent wasn't good enough for the Republican members of the
conference committee. They thought 83 percent of the benefits--83
percent of the benefits--should go to the richest 1 percent in this
country, so the bill has actually gotten worse and worse and worse for
middle-class families.
How did the bill get this bad? It got this bad through massive,
permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, for so-called passthrough
businesses and corporations, which mostly benefit the richest people in
this country. It got this bad through paltry tax cuts for some middle-
class families that expire after a few years.
Get this. The corporate tax cuts are permanent. They last forever.
The tax cuts for individuals, inadequate and immodest as they are,
expire after a few years. Gee, I wonder why they did that. It was
through a new way of calculating inflation called Chained CPI, which
will primarily hurt middle-class families. That doesn't even take into
account the millions of Americans--my colleague from Pennsylvania was
part of it; in the middle of the night they put a new provision in this
bill that will cost 13 million Americans their health insurance. So 13
million Americans will lose insurance under this bill.
All kinds of elected officials, all kinds of us in the House and
Senate have insurance paid for by taxpayers, and my colleagues are
willing to take insurance away from 13 million people, most of whom
have jobs. They don't have jobs that pay what we make. They don't have
health insurance like we have. They don't get pensions like we have.
They are making $8, $10, $12 an hour and can't afford insurance. We, as
privileged elected officials, are going to take insurance away from 13
million people, and at the same time it will raise insurance premiums
10 percent--not 10 percent over time, but 10 percent a year. If you are
paying $500 a month in insurance now, you will pay $550 the next year,
and you will pay more than $600 the following year.
It didn't have to be this way. Our door, as Democrats, has always
been open. Democrats represent half this country. Democrats wanted a
seat at the table and wanted to help write a bill. Let me illustrate.
A number of us in the Finance Committee in both parties, including my
colleague from Ohio, Senator Portman, and Senator Toomey, Senator
Wyden, and others, were invited to the White House to meet with the
President to talk about the tax reform bill. I presented the President
two bills I have been working on. One was the Patriot Corporation Act,
which was pretty simple. It says that if corporations do the right
thing--if they pay good wages, if they provide good health insurance
and pension benefits for their employees, and if they keep their
production in the United States of America--they get lower tax rates.
The other bill, called the Working Families Relief Act, is also
pretty simple. It puts money directly in the pockets of people making
$25,000, $50,000, and $75,000 a year. The President of the United
States looked at me and said: I like the Patriot Corporation Act, and I
like the Working Families Tax Relief Act.
After the hour-and-a-half meeting, which was witnessed by a dozen
Senators in both parties and a number of his Cabinet officials,
including Secretary Mnuchin in the Cabinet room at the White House, I
walked up to the President and said: Thank you for your interest. I
handed him and his chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn--whom I am proud
to say is from Cleveland--copies of the bill.
Then, something started to happen. Then the meetings started in Mitch
McConnell's office. For people who don't work here and live here and
see this, I would point out that down the hall, 100 feet, is Senator
McConnell's office. Pass the Ohio clock--that is my State; pass the
Ohio clock, and 100 feet down the hall is Senator McConnell's office.
The meetings started in Senator McConnell's office. The President of
the United States said that he liked the idea of the Patriot
Corporation Act, liked the idea of the Working Families Relief Act, but
then he turned it over to Senator McConnell. Do you know what happened?
Wall Street lobbyist after Wall Street lobbyist walked in that door and
out that door; tobacco lobbyist after tobacco lobbyist walked in that
door and out that door; oil company lobbyist after oil company lobbyist
walked in that door and out that door; drug company lobbyists from all
over the country walked in that door and out that door.
They walked in that door. They didn't literally carry bags of money
out that door after they made their points and made their pitches, but
they carried provisions in the tax bill that will make their employers
bags of money. They didn't carry bags of money themselves. That would
be uncouth. But they sure wrote provisions in this tax bill that
provide bags of money for their companies--for the tobacco companies,
for Wall Street, for the oil companies, for the drug companies.
Over and over and over, Republicans made clear--not that they would
pass the Patriot Corporation Act even though the President had said
that he liked it, not to pass legislation like the Working Families Tax
Relief Act even though the President had said that he liked it; they
made clear that they are benefiting one class of people--the wealthiest
Americans, corporate CEOs, board members, and stockholders who see
their profits rise and grow their businesses when they ship jobs
overseas.
Remember, we have said many times here as we have tried to end this
tax loophole that if you shut down production in Mansfield, OH, or you
shut down production in Hamilton or Zanesville or Chillicothe or Lima
and you move it overseas, you get a tax break. They open a factory
there and ship it back into the United States of America.
This bill didn't fix it. It didn't close that loophole. It didn't fix
that. It made it worse. It greased the skids for those companies to
shut down faster in Mansfield, Lima, Chillicothe, and Zanesville, OH,
and move their production overseas. They get bigger bonuses, they make
bigger profits, and they get bigger stock dividends.
Republican leaders like to claim that somehow, if you give a big
corporate tax increase, if you cut corporate taxes as this bill does,
about 40 percent, $4,000 would end up in the pockets of every working
man and woman in this country; workers would get a $4,000 raise. Of
course, nobody believed them, but that is what they said: They would
get a $4,000 raise.
Do you know why I know that is not true? Because history shows that
anytime they get big tax cuts, anytime they bring dollars from
overseas, the money doesn't go into employees' pockets. It doesn't
usually go to create jobs. It goes to give more benefits to the
executives.
The other reason I know that is not going to happen--that these
dollars will not go to employees and not go to investing in more jobs--
is that their corporate pals let the cat out of the bag and made clear
they won't. CEOs from the largest corporations, already on record,
state plainly that they are not raising wages; they are not going to
hire more workers.

[[Page S8117]]

What are they going to do with this windfall? I know this will come
as a shock. They are going to keep it for themselves.
Imagine, these CEOs in and out of Senator McConnell's office--the
drug companies, Wall Street, tobacco companies, oil companies, all the
others. Believe it or not, the CEOs of these corporations are already
making $8 million, $10 million, $12 million--some are making $20
million a year. That is not enough for them. Why would that possibly be
enough? If you are making only $20 million a year, you have to do
something to juice it a little bit, so they will keep that money for
themselves. They will do bigger bonuses, they will do stock buybacks,
and they will do dividends.
End this charade. I have heard all this happy talk on the floor about
how this is going to make Americans more competitive and how it will
trickle down to the middle class. If you want to do a middle-class tax
cut, do a middle-class tax cut. Don't bank-shot it. Don't take out the
middleman. Don't give it to corporations and say: Please, oh please, oh
please, give us a middle-class tax break. It never works that way.
Republican leaders had a chance to work across the aisle. I heard
Senator Toomey say that Democrats didn't want to be involved. I heard
Senator Cornyn say that Democrats didn't want to be involved. I like
those two gentlemen. I have worked particularly with Senator Cornyn on
a number of things. We are working on a couple of issues right now.
They know that is not true. They sat in that White House meeting. They
heard the President of the United States say to me and to Senator Casey
and to Senator McCaskill and to Senator Stabenow and to Senator Wyden
and to a couple others--they heard us offer reasonable proposals. The
President was agreeable. Many of them were part of his campaign.
Candidate Trump was saying a lot of these things during the campaign.
But then, lo and behold, they said: Democrats don't want to be a part
of this. Well, not exactly.
We had a bill to expand the child tax credit. We had a plan to reward
companies that create jobs here. All that got jettisoned down the hall
in Senator McConnell's office. Down this hall, down this hall in
Senator McConnell's office, 100 feet away, is where these deals were
cut--these deals with the drug companies and oil companies and tobacco
companies and Wall Street lobbyists going in and out of his office. I
didn't see all of them come out, but I am guessing they had really big
smiles on their faces.
These massive cuts for corporations come at a heavy price for the
middle class. When 1 percent gets richer and richer and richer, we know
the middle class shrinks. These massive cuts come at a heavy price.
This bill will explode the deficit. We know that. Even my colleagues
call themselves deficit hawks when there is a Democratic President, but
following the enforcer in chief, the Wall Street Journal editorial
page--they call themselves deficit hawks when there is a Democratic
President, but all of a sudden, they say: We will grow out of the
deficit.
We know this bill will explode the deficit. We know what the plan is
to deal with the deficit. Do you know what they will do? They will
steal the money Americans have paid into Social Security and Medicare.
How do we know that? I am not just saying it. As a progressive Democrat
in this body, I am not just saying: Of course they are going to cut
Social Security and Medicare. I think that, but do you know why I am
sure of it? I am always pretty sure of it because that is what they do.
But I am sure of it because they said that. They made their plans
crystal clear. Speaker Ryan said that he wants to turn next year to
what he calls entitlement reform.
There are retirement and health benefits that people earn over a
lifetime of work--social insurance. You pay into Medicare over the
course of your life. When you need Medicare, when you are 65, you get
this insurance. You pay into Social Security your entire life. You
either get survivors benefits for your children or you get disability
or you get retirement when you reach the age of 66, more or less. You
pay into unemployment insurance. If you need it--God willing, you
don't, but if you need it, you get help. That is what social insurance
is. You pay for it, and you get help from society. It is societywide
social insurance. But the Ways and Means chairman, Kevin Brady, said
that the next stop for Republicans is to tackle entitlements.
Here is what we know. This bill is going to cause huge deficits. We
know that. They have acknowledged it, and 2, 3, 4 years from now,
Republican Members will come to us--after the lobbyists have been down
the hall in Senator McConnell's office, they will come back and say to
us: We have this huge budget deficit. We are going to have to raise the
eligibility age to maybe to 70. Some of them have talked about that. We
are going to have to privatize Medicare. They will say: We have to make
these programs stronger and sustainable. Nobody thinks they want to
make them stronger. They want to cut them. That is how you save money,
even though you don't in the end.
Here is what is aggravating about this. Think about it. All of us--a
number of people here in this body are past what society has designated
as retirement age, 65. A number of Members of this Congress,
particularly in the Senate, are over 65.
I work in my garden. I work outside. I do things. But I am not
working in a diner, I am not working construction, and I don't use my
arms and shoulders and brain and legs to do my work. We work here. We
work in jobs we are privileged to have, and we get good compensation.
We get a good salary, and we get good benefits. But we are going to
tell a bunch of people who work with their hands and work with their
brains and work with their bodies and work with their arms and
shoulders and whose knees break down over time--we are going to tell
the barber in Barberton, we are going to tell the truckdriver in
Evendale, we are going to tell the construction worker in Conneaut, we
are going to tell the waitress in Warren, we are going to tell the
nurse in Newark that they are going to have to work until they are 70,
sorry. Is that what we are going to do?
Follow this simply. This tax cut causes a huge budget deficit to give
money to the wealthiest people in the country and creates a huge hole
in the budget. Who is going to fill the hole in the budget? Not the
lobbyists walking in and out of Senator McConnell's office 100 feet
down the hall. They are not going to pay for it; they are not going to
have to pay for it. It is going to be the nurse in Newark who has to
work until she is 70; it is going to be the waitress in Warren who has
to work until she is 70; it is going to be the carpenter or
construction worker in Conneaut; it is going to be the barber in
Barberton and the truckdriver in Evendale.
If we pass this bill, 83 percent of the benefits go to the top 1
percent, and this 83 percent, a lot of which blows a hole in the budget
deficit, is going to be paid for by working families. So cut out all
the crap about this being something for working families. It is not.
I will say this for Republicans in Congress: They are making it
pretty easy for the American people to see whose side they are on. You
are either on the side of everyday working Americans, who are working
more hours than ever before and getting too little pay for the hours
they are working--they are either working for them or they are working
for the people in Senator McConnell's office down the hall.
I want my colleagues to just pick through this. I want my colleagues
to think about this picture, this stream of lobbyists in and out of
Senator McConnell's office, this stream of lobbyists from America's
largest, richest corporations--the drug companies, the tobacco
companies, the insurance companies, the companies that tend to run this
government. I want you to think about that.
Are you on the side of the workers who are doing the heavy work and
can't work until they are 70 or are you on the side of CEOs and
politicians who do the bidding of these CEOs? It is a pretty clear
case. It is a picture that is pretty obvious. Americans deserve better.
We can do better for them by starting from scratch with one goal in
mind: If we want a middle-class tax cut, I say to the Senator from
Utah, don't talk about a middle-class tax cut, don't do trickle-down
economics. If you want a

[[Page S8118]]

middle-class tax cut, then give a middle-class tax cut. Give a tax cut
to the middle class. It is pretty simple.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I want to talk tonight about a once-in-a-
generation opportunity we have in this Senate tonight to help middle-
class families, to help grow our economy. I am going to talk about the
facts. I am not going to be making stuff up. I am going to talk about
the real middle-class tax cuts that are in this legislation. I am going
to show you charts that indicate not just what kind of tax relief is
going to be there for you and your family but who is going to pay,
where the burden is.
Despite what you are hearing on the floor tonight from some on the
other side of the aisle, the burden of taxation actually increased in
this tax bill for the wealthiest Americans. In terms of defending the
status quo, which is a situation now where jobs and investment are
going overseas, I think it is an outrage that this body has sat and
watched company after company go overseas because of our Tax Code. To
say we shouldn't fix it, I don't get that. If we don't lower the rate
on businesses and workers who are competing every day when you have the
highest rate in the industrialized world and you have an international
system that rewards revenues being kept overseas--$2.5 trillion to $3
trillion of earnings overseas instead of bringing that back--that
status quo is not acceptable.
We can engage in all kinds of rhetoric here tonight, but if we stick
to the facts, I think we might be able to see why this legislation is
not only going to pass tonight but why so many Americans who are
struggling because they are living paycheck to paycheck are going to be
happy with this legislation. The proof is in the paycheck. People say
the proof is in the pudding. The proof is in the paycheck when people
see their withholding changing--less money being taken out of their
paychecks for taxes--when they see they have a little more take-home
pay and the family's budget is a little healthier, when they see the
economy begin to take off, and when they see the end of this exodus of
U.S. companies going overseas. In the last 13 years, 4,700 American
companies have left our shores and gone overseas--being bought by
foreign companies--that would not have gone if this Tax Code we are
promoting tonight had been in place. That is based on an Ernst & Young
study. Check it out. It is a big accounting firm. So 4,700, and when
they leave our shores, guess what, they take their jobs and investments
with them.
You might wonder why wages have been flat in this country for the
past couple of decades. It is because people who are supporting the
status quo and don't want to change this Tax Code are leaving workers
in America with no opportunities to get ahead because not only are
wages flat but expenses are up. That is called the middle-class
squeeze. It is very real, and it is happening.
I would ask folks, when they are thinking about what you are hearing
tonight on the floor, remember, one side is supporting the status quo.
The status quo is not working. It isn't working for people in America
and people in my State of Ohio who tell me: Rob, I am working hard. I
am playing by the rules. I am not getting ahead.
The statistics bear that out. Yes, some people are getting ahead, but
it is not the guy or the woman working on the shop floor in a factory
in Cleveland, OH, or Columbus, Toledo, Dayton, or Cincinnati because
their wages have been pretty darn flat. Again, their expenses are up,
especially healthcare, which is the largest single one of those
expenses. They want some help.
This legislation gives them that help in two ways: One, real middle-
class tax cuts. We will talk about that in a second. Second, letting
them be competitive instead of competing with one hand tied behind
their backs because they are competing in a global economy, and they
know that.
Give them a chance. Give them a tax code that actually is up-to-date
and competitive and lets them have the opportunity to build a better
life, not just for themselves but for their kids and their grandkids
because that is what they really care about.
Again, I am happy to talk about that opportunity we have tonight, and
it is a rare opportunity because we have not reformed this Tax Code in
any substantial way in 31 years. Think about that. I celebrated my 62nd
birthday today. That means we have not reformed the Tax Code in 31
years. That is half of my life. By the way, 31 years ago, Ronald Reagan
was President. Pete Rose was still playing for the Cincinnati Reds.
``Top Gun'' was at all the box offices. It was a big hit. That is how
long ago that was. During that time, I will tell you that every other
country we compete with, all of them, have reformed their Tax Code,
except us. We have sat back and had this debate. We have had this
gridlock, partisan gridlock, in Washington because we can't get our act
together.
By the way, if you are a worker trying to get ahead, you can't do it
on your own because the Tax Code has you competing with that one hand
tied behind your back. Only this place, Washington, Congress, a
President, can propose, develop, and sign legislation that can help
address this problem. This is our job. I sure hope we will do it.

In 1986, when that tax reform was passed 31 years ago, it led to two
things: one, more economic growth. In the 1980s and 1990s, we did have
economic growth--3, 3.5 percent, even 4.5 percent growth. Think about
that. We are now living, over the last 10 years, with growth, on
average, at about 1.5 to 2 percent. That is a big difference. The
second thing it did is, it got wages up. Wages actually increased
during that period after that tax reform.
We need to do it again. Our economy needs a shot in the arm again,
not just to improve the economy but to improve take-home pay. That is
what this tax reform proposal is designed to do.
We have heard, on the other side of the aisle, how this has moved too
quickly, somehow there hasn't been enough thought put into this. I
think it is long overdue. I think we should have done this years ago. I
also know, from being involved in these issues over the past couple of
decades on the House Ways and Means Committee and now in the Senate
Finance Committee, there has been a lot of thought put into this issue.
Just since I was elected to the Senate in 2010, there have been 70
hearings on tax reform.
Chairman Hatch is in the Chamber tonight. He will tell you, 2 years
ago we had five bipartisan working groups covering every part of the
Tax Code. The bipartisan working group that I cochaired with the
Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, focused on the international side. Do
you know what we decided? We decided we have to have a lower business
rate because it has to be competitive; otherwise, we will continue to
lose jobs in investment overseas, and we decided we have to have an
international system that is competitive and bring back some of that
$2.5 trillion to $3 trillion that is stuck overseas back to this
country for more jobs and investment. Guess what. It was bipartisan
then, and it is in the tax bill now.
Those are the ideas that are in this tax bill before us. They make
sense. In fact, for years, there has been a bipartisan agreement that
our Tax Code is broken, and it is Congress's responsibility to fix it.
I would like to commend tonight Speaker Ryan; Leader McConnell;
Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, who is on the floor; Ways and Means
Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, who has been a strong and fair
negotiating partner with the Senate. I also want to thank my colleagues
who have spent so many hours on this effort: Senator Toomey, whom you
heard a little while ago talking about the economic benefits, as he
does so well, Senators Scott, Thune, Cornyn, Enzi, and Murkowski. They
were all on the conference committee, but many others too. Senators
Collins, Johnson, Rubio, Corker, who all helped us get to this point
and improve the legislation.
The bill that passed the House earlier today, and we are going to
vote on tonight, is the result of years and years of research and
debate. It makes good on the promise we have made to create a tax code
that provides tax relief to hard-working families but also positions
America for leadership in the 21st century global economy.
While we have seen some improvements in the economy recently, we have
seen better economic growth

[[Page S8119]]

numbers. Again, a lot of people I represent are not seeing the benefit
of that. That is why we have to pass this bill.
For years, colleagues on both sides of the aisle have called for
middle-class tax cuts to help ease the burden. This legislation will
finally actually deliver that middle-class tax relief. We have the
opportunity to provide it tonight. Starting January 1--less than 2
weeks from tonight--that tax relief goes into effect. People are going
to see how this tax reform helps them as soon as the IRS can adjust
withholding in paychecks, which I would hope would happen before the
end of February. Again, the proof is in the pudding. The proof is in
the paycheck. People are going to see it.
People can go online now and use a tax calculator to see how it will
affect them and their families. This is going to happen, and it is
going happen soon if we pass this legislation tonight.
Again, the most immediate benefit is for working families and for the
middle class. This bill doubles the child tax credit. It also increases
the refundability of the child tax credit. For those families with
kids, you have the opportunity now to save a little more money to deal
with the expenses of raising a child. It doubles the standard deduction
from $12,000 per family to about $24,000 per family. This, in effect,
creates a $24,000 zero income tax bracket for families and simplifies
the Tax Code. Probably 90 to 95 percent of Americans are going to take
that doubling of the standard deduction, I am told, and that will
simplify their returns but also give them tax relief right away. It
lowers tax rates for families across the board, with the largest
proportional benefit going to those at the lower end of the income
ladder, those who need it the most.
In fact, the combination of these tax cuts for lower income Americans
means that at least 3 million Americans who have income tax liability
now are going to pay nothing in taxes. They will be off the tax rolls
altogether.
I have a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation that affirms
that. At our meeting last week of the conference, you can see where the
Joint Committee affirmed that again. Over 3 million are going to pay no
income taxes at all who pay income tax now. For those who say there is
no benefit there, talk to those 3 million people. They feel the
benefit. In fact, those people are going to be off the tax rolls
altogether because of the tax relief we are passing tonight.
As this chart shows, every income group will receive a tax cut. This
one is for the year 2019, so it is a year after the tax cuts are put in
place, which starts in just a couple of weeks. We have heard a lot from
opponents that the top end, those making $1 million or more, as we just
heard a little while ago, get all the benefits. It is simply not true.
This shows that the biggest percentage cut is among folks making
between $20,000 and $30,000 a year. That is the biggest, a 16.3-percent
cut.
It also shows that the smallest percentage cut is among those making
$1 million or more, a 5.9-percent cut. Again, there is tax relief
across the board here, but the bigger benefit is among folks at the
lower end of the economic scale. In fact, when you look at who pays the
income tax, you will see that those at the top are going to pay a
slightly bigger share of the tax burden under this bill. Today, those
making between $20,000 and $50,000 a year pay 4.37 percent of the
income taxes. Under this bill, they are going to pay a little less, 4.1
percent of the income taxes.
Those who make over $100,000 will go from paying 78.7 percent of the
tax burden to 79.1 percent of the tax burden. If you make over $100,000
a year, you are paying 78.7 percent of the tax burden today, and that
is going to go up. Your share of the burden is going to go up. The Tax
Code is pretty progressive right now, and it gets even more progressive
under this tax legislation.
These are not my numbers. These are the numbers from the Joint
Committee on Taxation, which is the nonpartisan group that scores these
things. Check out the numbers yourselves. Go on the Joint Committee on
Taxation's website, jct.gov, and check it out.
When you don't consider not choosing to buy healthcare insurance to
be a tax increase, which is how the Joint Committee on Taxation scores
ending the individual mandate, every income group of taxpayers gets a
tax cut under this plan every year, for the next 8 years, during the
time this tax cut is in place. Yes, it does expire, as did the tax cuts
in 2001 and 2003. Congress took those up, and for 95 percent of
Americans, we extended that tax relief. I hope we will do that again--I
expect we will--but during these next 8 years, this is real tax relief,
and it is needed.
I reject the premise that choosing not to buy healthcare insurance
under the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is somehow a tax
hike, and I think most Americans do too. Take a look at the Rules
Committee's website at rules.house.gov, and you will see how a typical
family of four at the median income level will save more than $2,000 a
year on its taxes as a result of this plan. The median-income family in
Ohio--and in your State wherever you are--is going to be saving more
than $2,000 a year on its taxes.
Some have told me, as I walk down the halls here, that is not much
money. Do you know what? For families who are living paycheck to
paycheck, that is a lot of money, and it does help. It can be used to
pay for healthcare, to buy gas, to buy groceries, to maybe add a little
more to one's retirement.
Of course, beyond the middle-class tax cuts that are in this
legislation, families and workers are going to benefit from more jobs
and higher wages, as we talked about earlier. This is going to be
because there will be new investment and because there will be more
productivity, which is the thing that is really lacking in our economy
right now. Our productivity is weak. All of the economists agree on
this whether they are right, left, or center. You have to do something
to boost that productivity because that is going to result in higher
wages, and more competition for workers is going to result in higher
wages. That is going to happen because this Tax Code is focused on
increasing wages through more investment.
We have talked about how companies are going overseas now and how the
status quo is not working. It is crazy that Congress allows that to
happen, and fixing it is long overdue. We have talked about the $2.5
trillion, $3 trillion that is stuck overseas right now. We want to
bring that home. We want to add more jobs and investment in this
country.
We did a study in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--a
bipartisan effort. We studied these companies that go overseas through
what is called inversions or by being purchased by a foreign company.
What happens? Do they just move their headquarters overseas? No. We
found out they also move jobs and investment.
This is real. It is happening now. We can fix it. That is what this
bill is intended to do, and I believe you are going to see not just
middle-class tax relief to help with the take-home pay and the family
budget, but you are going to see this increase, finally, not just in
economic growth but in wages. That also makes the family budget a whole
lot more healthy.
I see Senator Cassidy has just come to the floor. Let me address an
issue that has been misrepresented on the floor this afternoon.
I heard one of my colleagues say this bill gets rid of the historic
tax credit. It does not, thanks to the efforts of some of us who
strongly support it, including Senator Cassidy. We actually retain the
current 20-percent credit in the Senate-passed bill and in the final
legislation. By the way, this historic tax credit has been very
helpful. It has been instrumental in generating more private funds to
restore historic buildings across my State of Ohio, including in my
hometown of Cincinnati, as well as in Cleveland, Columbus, and
elsewhere.
We also preserve the important tax credit for urban redevelopment
through the new markets tax credit and the private activity bonds,
which are still in this legislation just as they are in current law. In
Ohio, again, these tax incentives have leveraged a lot more private
sector dollars, spurred economic growth, job creation, affordable
housing, and I think have ultimately increased the tax revenue because,
as people are working and as you get these buildings up and going,
economic growth is generated, and so is tax revenue. They pay for
themselves, in my view. I have shared some

[[Page S8120]]

of those success stories in my home State throughout this process, and,
again, we have successfully maintained those provisions in our final
bill.
The result is, we have a good tax reform bill that achieves the
things that Republicans and Democrats alike have long supported--tax
cuts for the middle class and a more competitive Tax Code for American
workers and companies.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tonight have talked
about this being bad for the deficit. I just have to tell them I
respectfully disagree.
The most important thing we can do right now to get the deficit down
is to get this growth back because economic growth results in more
revenue. One point in economic growth alone puts $2.7 trillion more in
revenue into the coffers of the Federal Government. That is based on
the numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Think
about that--$2.7 trillion more with just one point of economic growth.
The budget score we were forced to use for this legislation estimates
a very conservative level of economic growth--at a weak 1.9 percent
over the next 10 years. That was the last 10 years. We don't want to
repeat that. We don't have to repeat that. The average economic growth
over the past 30 years has been more than 2.5 percent, and over the
last two quarters, we have had economic growth of 3.1 percent and 3.3
percent. The Federal Reserve's and private forecasts are both above the
CBO's growth projections for next year, as an example, to show you why
I think the CBO's numbers are way too small, too weak.
That 1.9-percent growth is not only wrong, but I believe it is
unacceptable. It cannot be the new normal. With the strength of our
economy right now, paired with the pro-growth changes in this tax
reform plan, I believe economic growth will surpass this relatively low
projection that we are forced to use by increasing economic growth at
just 0.4 percent more than this 1.9 percent, this weak projection. In
growing the economy at about 2.3 percent rather than at 1.9 percent, on
average, there is sufficient revenue to pay for all of the tax relief
in this plan plus to begin to pay down the debt.
That is what I believe will happen if you do the right kind of tax
reform. It has to be the right kind. It has to be pro-growth. I believe
what we have done in this bill is exactly that. There is no question
that we are going to have more economic growth and more investment in
America. The current Tax Code is so broken that it is pretty easy to do
that, honestly--to create a more efficient and effective and productive
Tax Code. I believe a more confident America, with rising wages and
stronger economic growth, by the way, is much more likely to address
the very real fiscal challenges we face as a country.

This tax reform bill is not just about dollar amounts and bottom
lines, though; it is about the investment we are making in American
families, American workers, and American businesses. We are giving
families the freedom to spend more of their own money how they see fit,
we are putting faith in American entrepreneurs and workers to compete
and win in the global market, and we are creating a fairer tax system
that levels the playing field and creates jobs and investment here in
America rather than overseas.
Our constituents deserve this; they deserve better than the status
quo. They deserve more than just hollow promises; they deserve a
brighter future. I believe the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will reopen our
economy as the best place in the world to do business and create that
brighter future for all Americans.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I, personally, congratulate the
distinguished Senator from Ohio. He is one of the most intelligent
people in this body. He has had all kinds of experience outside of the
Senate. He is a person whom everybody should listen to. He makes a lot
of sense. He is one of the most valued members of a very strong
committee, with all kinds of valued members on it, but he is one of
those valued members on the Senate Finance Committee, and I have
nothing but respect for him.
Everything he has said here this evening is true. It is mind-boggling
to me that we even have arguments from the other side. We are talking
about pulling this country out of the mess it is in, and it is going to
take this.
I just want to compliment the distinguished Senator from Ohio. He is
a terrific human being, with a tremendous ability, who has had a lot of
experience outside of the U.S. Senate, and who has been successful
everywhere he has gone. He is one of the most distinguished members of
the Senate Finance Committee. He is not talking politically; he is
talking factually. I just wish everybody in this body were on the floor
to listen to him. I have tremendous respect for him. That is one reason
I am getting up here right now.
We can turn this mess around, but if we don't do it soon, it may be
impossible to turn it around. We have been spending this government
into bankruptcy. That is where we are. We keep making excuses so we can
go back and beat our breasts and claim we are doing so much for the
people when we are just spending them right into bankruptcy. It is
making it more difficult for the committees to do their work. I just
wish we could get both sides together once in a while instead of having
all of this inner conflict on everything that comes up.
It is almost like, if a Republican says something, it has to be
contradicted, and I might add, if a Democrat says something, he has to
be contradicted. I don't mind good arguments. I don't mind people
having different points of view. That is what makes this place a great
place. That is what helps the United States of America to be a great
country and a great government, but we don't even listen to each other
anymore.
Where is this bipartisanship that this country really, drastically
needs?
We happen to be in the majority right now. It seems to me that a
decent minority would want to find ways to work with the, hopefully,
decent majority. I think we can be very decent on our side, and I
believe my colleagues on the other side can be very decent. Let's get
rid of the politics, and let's do what is best for America. Let's get
this country out of the mess it is in. The distinguished Senator from
Ohio has shown us some ways here.
Our tax policy is for the birds. We know what we need to do, but
every time you raise a solution, you have somebody saying: Well, that
is not the answer. Then we have the conflicts between the two Houses.
That is good because that is what helps us to refine some of this
legislation.
All I can say is, I just wish all of us would put the country first,
put politics second, be politically astute but at least be open to
rational reasoning, whether it comes from the other side or our side. I
am just amazed at how we can sit and belabor these things day in and
day out and never really get together. We are hurting the country
because we are unwilling to get together. We are hurting the Congress
of the United States because we are unwilling to get together.
I could go on and on as to our unwillingness to get together. I think
it is time for us to wake up and start saying: Look, let's find common
ground. Let's find ways of getting together instead of constantly
fighting each other on every stinking issue that comes up. There are
reasons for differences in politics and reasons for differences in tax
policy, but we ought to be able to at least discuss these differences
without there being total partisanship, which is what we are,
unfortunately, suffering from. I believe we can turn this mess around.
If we do, it will be a banner for everybody to march behind, and it
seems to me it will be an example for the whole world. I would like to
see us do it.
I know there are people on the other side who cannot stand the
President. Yes, he won an election they didn't think he should have
won, but he did win. He has thrown his hands open to the other side
and, I believe, would do more. It was only 7 or 8 years ago when he was
much more moderate than he is now. I think all they need to do is to
reach out and grab his hands and say: Look, we will find some common
ground here in the best interests of our country and in the best
interests of everybody.
It is not bad to fight things out. I don't have any problem with
that.

[[Page S8121]]

That is part of this body, part of what we do. But we actually have to
come to some conclusions that will push the country forward, and we are
not doing that, except on a limited basis that really doesn't amount to
all that much.
We are coming to the end of a very difficult year. The Democrats
thought they were going to win the Presidency, and they didn't. They
especially feel badly about losing to somebody like Donald Trump, who,
I think, has held out his hands and his arms to them and would do so if
they would just embrace a little bit more of what he is trying to do. I
would like to see us do this. I believe he would throw his arms out to
whomever in this body would work with him, and by working with him, we
may be able to get some of our ideas on both sides actually put into
law that may help this country.
I really particularly enjoyed and appreciated the comments from the
distinguished Senator from Ohio. I think he is one of the most
distinguished people in this body. Earlier, I heard the distinguished
Senator from Pennsylvania. He is a brilliant guy who works his butt off
to try to get us into good places. We ought to listen more to these
folks. There are folks on the other side who are brilliant, too, who, I
think, make a real difference.
I particularly enjoy my counterpart on the Senate Finance Committee,
Senator Wyden from Oregon. We are different. We have different
philosophies, but I have never seen a day when he wasn't willing to sit
down and work out our problems, and that to me is pretty important.
Our leaders are good people. I have watched Chuck Schumer for all the
years he has been in the Senate and before, and he is a better leader
than what we are getting here lately. I have watched Mitch McConnell.
Mitch is one of the shrewdest people I have seen in this body since I
have been a Member, and he is open. I would like to see our leaders get
together a little bit more. I would like to see a little less fighting
and a little more constructive work together. I don't expect miracles
because I have been here only 41 years, but I do expect that we can do
much better than what we are doing, and it is going to take both sides
getting together to do it.
We happen to be in the majority right now, and the Democrats should
give us an edge. We should give them the edge when they are in the
majority. I think that I, for one, have done that.
I hope we can put aside our differences and start working together in
the best interest of the country. I believe in this country. It is the
greatest country in the world. People all over the world are praying
that the United States will get it together. They know that we can
lead. They know that we have leadership in the Congress of the United
States. We can get it together if we will.
I appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate
that we have differences. I appreciate that sometimes those differences
put us into pitched battles. That is not all bad, either. But it is bad
if we don't work things out and if we don't look for the good on the
other side in both ways.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to commend the distinguished
chairman of the Finance Committee for his hopes for more bipartisanship
and his concern about the way the Senate is working today. I appreciate
that. I think we all hope that in the new year there will be more
bipartisanship. I think there are some areas where we can work
together.
On this issue, though, I think we have some basic disagreements, and
we are still debating those and articulating our differences before we
cast a vote tonight. I have said for a number of weeks now--not months
but certainly weeks--when describing the bill that is before us, the
prior iteration of the bill in the Finance Committee and the version in
the House, that I thought that each one of them had a few things in
common, in my judgment. This is my sense of the overall bill.
First of all, I think every one of these bills has been a giveaway to
the rich or the superrich and a giveaway to profitable corporations. I
think it is excessive. We have a difference of opinion on that.
This is a tax bill, and yet it will have a substantially adverse
impact on health care because of one basic provision that was added in
the last couple of weeks. That provision alone will cause healthcare
premiums to increase by an additional 10 percent a year, and it will
cause 13 million people to lose their healthcare, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, including, by one estimate, 5 million
fewer Americans benefitting from Medicaid. At a time when we should
invest substantially in the middle class and invest in our children,
roads, bridges, schools, scientific research, skills training, and
broadband in rural communities--we can make the list even longer--this
tax bill prevents that from happening in a significant way because of
the giveaways that I talked about to profitable corporations and the
superrich.
This bill will literally pay for a permanent corporate tax cut on the
backs of middle-class families in the next decade. Congress's official
scorekeeper, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, tells us that
in the next decade, meaning the second 10 years that this bill is in
effect, the bill uses hundreds of billions in tax increases on working
families to pay for a permanent corporate rate cut. I will say that
again. In the next decade, taxes go up for you across America, working
families, to pay for a 14-percentage-point cut for profitable
corporations.
This kind of result, where we have a corporate tax break which
increases debt and someone else has to pay for it down the road, is a
result that only a swamp dweller could support, but unfortunately that
is where we are today.
How about for children? There has been a lot of discussion about the
child tax credit. Thankfully, there was debate about that. We don't
talk about children in this body nearly enough or that tax credit, but,
unfortunately, even the proposals by some on the Republican side
weren't adequate enough. Even the ones rejected may not have been
enough. Under this legislation parents of 10 million children in the
lowest income working families will either receive no improvement in
the child tax credit or a token increase of $1 to $75. The last minute
changes to the bill, which got a lot of publicity in the last couple of
days--those last-minute changes to the bill--will do nothing additional
for these families.
Another 14 million children in low- and middle-income working
families would get something by way of the child tax credit but less
than the full $1,000 per child increase that a family making $400,000 a
year would receive. For a fraction of the hundreds of billions of
dollars going to the very wealthy and profitable corporations, we could
have, in this bill, made sure that every low-income parent gets the
full $2,000 per child tax credit, but because of the way the bill is
written, it doesn't allow that to happen for every low-income parent. I
think that would have been a worthy goal of the legislation, but that
is not where we are. To say that is unfair is a vast overstatement. The
families who need it the most aren't getting the full benefit of the
child tax credit increase, but those who are wealthy get an extra
$2,000 of child tax credit.
I mentioned the Joint Committee on Taxation. Let me give you another
way to look at the bill according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
The JCT estimates that in 2019 alone, the second year the bill is in
effect, were it to pass, more than $36 billion in tax cuts will go to
households worth more than $1 million. That is in the document entitled
JCX-68-17 of the Joint Committee on Taxation. It is a $36 billion cut
for the wealthiest Americans, while over 57 million middle-class
households--my definition for those making under $100,000--will see a
tax increase or tax cut of less than $9 a month in 2019. So for 57
million middle-class households, they will see a tax increase or a tax
cut of less than $9 a month in 2019.
Instead of lining the pockets of the rich with $36 billion in tax
cuts in 2019, that money could have been used to connect Americans to
the internet, especially Americans who live in rural areas. Let me be
precise: 39 percent of the people living in rural America don't have
high-speed internet.
Mr. WYDEN. Will my colleague yield?

[[Page S8122]]

Mr. CASEY. Yes.
Mr. WYDEN. My colleague is making a very important point, and I think
it would be great if he would repeat those figures, because all night
we have had Republican Senators come to this floor and say: Hey, middle
class, just wait until February. Wait until February, and your
paychecks are going to be bulging.
From what my friend from Pennsylvania has just said, using this new
data that we just got from the Joint Committee on Taxation, what we
have picked up--and my friend from Pennsylvania has clearly done his
homework--is that something like 60 million taxpayers with an annual
income of $200,000 or less will get practically nothing--maybe $100 a
year in tax relief or a tax increase. So I think what my colleague is
talking about--I would like him to walk me through the numbers he
used--is that it directly contradicts what we have been hearing last
night, where one Republican Senator after another was saying: It is
just going to be good times come February because your paycheck is
going to bulge.
Would my colleague just repeat what he found?
Mr. CASEY. I want people to make sure that people know the document.
This is the document, JCX-68-17. If you look at the category of
Americans who are making $100,000 or less--that is 57 million
households who make under $100,000--they would see either a tax
increase of one kind or another or a tax cut of less than $9 a month in
2019.
I don't think that is much help when we consider that it is not as if
that is the only revenue available--that all we can come up with is $9
a month--because I just walked through the other number which is
relevant--the $36 billion that will come in 2019, the second year that
the bill is in effect, going to households worth more than $1 million.
If I had to choose, I would say that we should give all of that $36
billion to middle-income families or folks trying to get to the middle
class or at least a substantial percentage of the $36 billion. I have
been asking for months: Why do people making more than $1 million, that
category of Americans, need $36 billion in tax cuts? I don't think they
do.
It is interesting--I want to commend the work of the ranking member
of the Finance Committee. In some of our debates, one of the numbers
that came out in the last couple of weeks was what has happened to the
top 1 percent since 1980. I said several times that they have had a
bonanza. I didn't have an exact number when I said that; now I do.
Since 1980, the share of national income for these folks in the top 1
percent, which is less than $1 million a year, but it is about $730,000
and up, so that is--the 1 percent goes beyond the millionaires and up.
But since 1980, the top 1 percent have had their share of national
income go up from 11 percent to 20 percent, from 1980 to 2014, so it
has almost doubled. So my point is, they have done pretty well since
1980, so why do a big share of them--meaning the million-dollar-and-up
crowd--why should they get $36 billion in this tax bill? It doesn't
make a lot of sense.
So that is one way to look at it. What we could invest these dollars
in--a bigger tax cut for the middle, a bigger tax cut for those
struggling to get to the middle, working families trying to get to the
middle, or other priorities, such as infrastructure. I mentioned just
one idea on rural broadband. I think rural America should get some help
being connected to the internet. That is one way we could focus on
priorities.
Let me give another example--the estate tax. As many people know,
once fully implemented, this bill doubles the estate tax--it exempts
the first $22 million of inheritance from the tax, which is $11 million
per individual. The cost of doing that will be roughly $9 billion a
year. In the earlier versions of the House and Senate bills, that
number was a lot higher. There was a lot higher revenue loss from the
elimination of the estate tax, but even with the changes, there is
still a revenue loss of an estimated $9 billion a year.
Well, what could we do with $9 billion? Well, in the midst of this
debate about the Children's Health Insurance Program, just for 5 years
of the Children's Health Insurance Program, that is roughly the number
that we need. So 1 year of revenue losses from the estate tax equals 5
years, roughly, of paying for the Children's Health Insurance Program.
And that is not done yet. The Children's Health Insurance Program
expired September 30, and I hope that in the midst of all of this work
on tax policy, we are going to get that done. I know that the
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, for years, from the
beginning, has been a strong advocate of the Children's Health
Insurance Program, and I commend him for that, but we have to get it
reauthorized in a few short days.
I wanted to talk as well--I know I probably am limited on time, and I
will move quickly--on the Republican budget because you can't really
read the tax changes in isolation; you have to also consider them in
the context of the Republican budget resolution that passed. That
budget proposal, which did pass, proposes to cut Medicaid by $1
trillion over the next 10 years. So that is $1 trillion with a ``t''
for Medicaid. The Republican budget also proposes to cut Medicare by
over $400 billion over the same period, over 10 years. So the proposal
roughly proposes to cut about $1.5 trillion from just Medicare and
Medicaid. All the while, this Republican tax bill contains almost the
same amount of unpaid-for tax cuts.
We heard recently from Speaker Ryan that he wants to ``reform''
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Well, my view of that is, when
they talk about reform in that context, that means cutting--cutting
funding for programs that working men and women of my home State of
Pennsylvania and the country have paid into to ensure that they have
some retirement savings and a safety net for when tragedies and
unforeseen events occur. Some people refer to Social Security and
Medicare as earned benefits because they are. They have earned those
benefits for Social Security and Medicare.
How about outsourcing? The Republican tax bill gives U.S. companies
that offshore jobs a large tax cut on old profits that is unavailable
to companies that kept jobs and production in the United States. This
means that a company that outsourced to Mexico to take advantage of
cheap labor will pay less taxes on accumulated profits than a domestic
company that kept jobs in the United States. In fact, once the bill is
enacted, some profits from an overseas factory may never be taxed in
the United States, while a company that keeps those jobs here could be
taxed at the U.S. corporate tax rate. This disparity could actually
encourage companies to move production and jobs overseas.
We mentioned earlier the tax cut for major corporations. One of the
great leaders of corporate America for many, many years, Jack Bogle of
Vanguard, said the following a few weeks ago. I don't know what
political party Jack Bogle is in, but he said this most recently about
corporate profits:

Corporate profits after taxes last year were the highest
they've ever been in the history of GDP going back to 1929.
And we are thinking of giving relief to the corporations at
the highest levels ever. Individual wages are at the lowest
level in about 15 years as a percent of GDP.

Those are not my words; those are Jack Bogle's words.
So corporations will have a tax windfall to spend on increasing
executive compensation if they want or increasing stock buybacks or
increasing dividends. All this is with absolutely no guarantees that
workers will see benefits from this tax cut, despite assertions by many
here in Washington about what would happen on wages and other benefits.
Mr. President, I have maybe 3 more minutes. I know we are maybe a
little over time.
There has been a little bit of discussion--not enough--about what
happens to the Consumer Price Index, which is used as a baseline for
measuring programs over time. Maybe the most pernicious tax--and that
is the best word for it--in the bill is the so-called Chained CPI,
which alters the way inflation is measured. This bill raises an
estimated $134 billion on the backs of hard-working Americans by
changing how the Tax Code measures inflation--so-called Chained CPI. So
it is the measurement of inflation that is going to change, and that is
going to have an adverse consequence for untold millions of Americans.
This number grows over time. The Joint Committee on

[[Page S8123]]

Taxation told us that this single provision increases taxes by at least
three times as much in the next decade as it did in the first decade--
potentially as high as $400 billion in the second 10 years. This will
be in full force when a lot of young people are entering the workforce.
Someone who is just starting their professional life will see this tax
increase haunt their paychecks for the next 50 years.

There is a lot we could talk about in terms of missed opportunities
here, but let me conclude with this: There is nothing in this bill that
invests in rebuilding America. I thought we would have an opportunity
to do that, as we seemed to be headed that way a couple of years ago,
but we don't have that opportunity with this bill. We could be using
this opportunity to make a substantial investment in roads, bridges,
schools, water systems, or the like, but that won't happen. In our
State, we have 4,500 structurally deficient bridges, and we wish that
we would get some more help in addition to State dollars going for
those.
There is nothing in the bill to expand college affordability and
nothing to ensure that workers' wages increase. Amendments like that
were offered in the committee. It was all Democrats for the amendment
and all Republicans against it.
Those in the middle class and those working to join the middle class
continue to tread water in this bill, while the superrich zoom ahead.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Tax Cuts and
Jobs Act. We know the world has changed a whole lot in the last 30
years--the way we travel, how we communicate, the way we work, our
hairstyles, the clothes we wear, the movies we watch, the music we
listen to--but one thing hasn't changed: Our outdated Tax Code hasn't
kept up. We simply can't afford to wait any longer. Now is the time to
act.
Hoosiers need a raise. Working families across America need a raise.
American businesses need to remain competitive in what is an
increasingly global and hypercompetitive economy.
The bill we are voting on today will provide real relief to all
Americans, especially middle-class families and those of modest means.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will creates a Tax Code that is simpler, that
is fairer, and that allows Hoosiers to keep more of their hard-earned
money, and that is what they want.
This bill we are voting on today will help create an environment
where jobs and businesses can grow by making permanent a corporate tax
reduction to 21 percent. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the
industrialized world. That is no way to remain competitive.
We will lighten the burden on small businesses with this legislation.
I come from a small business family. My dad worked 6, 7 days a week
growing up. He sold HVAC equipment and spent a lot of time on the road.
I know because he told me that it irked him that when he added up his
profits, he discovered toward the end of the year that over half of
what he earned he paid to various forms of government. We provide
relief to businesses like that.
We shift the structure of the international tax system so that
foreign profits from U.S.-based companies will be invested right here
in American communities, not overseas.
Throughout this process, I have listened carefully to extensive
feedback from the people of Indiana, and I have to say that I am
grateful for all the Hoosiers who weighed in over the course of this
effort. They helped me shape this work product in a way that will more
benefit the people of Indiana today and for future generations.
I heard, for example, from Susan from Indianapolis. Susan said:

Our tax system has become so complicated--the average
person needs to hire someone with expertise to help. If most
of us didn't have to hire help--right there we'd be saving
money.

Susan, you are right, and that is why we have lightened the burden
for millions of Americans with this proposal.
Under this act that we will be voting on this evening, 9 out of 10
Americans can take the standard deduction. We have doubled the standard
deduction, vastly simplifying compliance with a convoluted, unfair Tax
Code that picks winners and losers. We undo so much of that with this
bill we will vote on this evening.
I heard from Debbie from Clark County. Debbie contacted my office
about her business's challenges. Debbie said the following:

We are constantly striving to reinvest in our company
through new equipment and increased wages to hire and retain
good employees. A lower corporate tax rate will allow us to
buy more equipment and offer . . . better wages.

It is common sense, and I am glad that Debbie contacted me to
reinforce what is on the mind of so many Hoosier business owners.
This bill continues and expands the support for Indiana's highest
priorities, and that is why I will be supporting it. Among these
priorities are deductions for contributions to benefit our charitable
organizations essential to communities throughout Indiana and
throughout our country and keeping tuition waivers for graduate
students untaxed. I again thank the graduate students and all the
stakeholders throughout Indiana who had concerns related to this issue.
They weighed in. We made changes to the legislation to accommodate
their concerns, and this will enable Hoosiers to be better equipped to
thrive in this ever-changing global economy in which we live.
We managed to maintain the earned income tax credit so that work pays
more than joblessness. We expanded the child tax credit for families
trying to make ends meet. We protected the adoption tax credit so that
caring adults can become loving parents. We preserved private activity
bonds. These benefit low-income housing and help to build hospitals and
schools and other essential programs in the communities that need them
most.
Now, the bill also makes good on our promise to repeal what many
regard as the most oppressive aspect of ObamaCare--the individual
mandate tax. I promised Hoosiers for years and years that I would get
rid of the individual mandate. Tonight we will be fulfilling that
promise.
In Indiana nearly 140,000 Hoosiers chose to pay this tax instead of
buying insurance they either don't want or can't afford. In my home
State, 81 percent of those who paid this tax made less than $50,000 per
year. This comes from the IRS. And 40 percent of the people who pay
this tax make less than $25,000 a year. Tell me this isn't a tax on the
working poor.
This bill lifts the burden for families in Indiana and across the
country, and it is one of the many reasons that I will be proudly
supporting it. Collectively, this is a no-brainer. This legislation
will lead to an increase in capital investment, which will lead to an
increase in economic growth. This bill will make workers more
productive so that they earn higher wages. This bill, across every
income category, will cause Americans to see a reduction in their tax
rates and more take-home pay--more of their hard-earned money in their
pockets. So many Americans haven't seen an increase in take-home pay in
well over a decade. It is time to provide relief to hard-working
American families. It is time to create certainty for our job creators
so that they can create more jobs.
I look forward to helping to move this legislation across the finish
line this evening. I hope we get some bipartisan support in that
effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, today is a terrible day. It is a terrible
day for millions of working families in this country. They just want
Congress to work for them. It is a terrible day for people who just
want to get on with their lives and not have Congress cost them even
more money.
It is a terrible day for millions of hard-working people, but it is a
great day for giant multinational corporations and billionaires who
fund Republican campaigns across this country. Today is their day.
Every fundraiser, every fat check from a billionaire, and every
champagne-and-caviar party has been about getting to this day--the day
when the politicians whom they put in charge of Washington would pay
them back with a $1.5 trillion giveaway.
Supporters of this bill call it tax reform. It is not tax reform. It
is a heist--a heist that steals from millions

[[Page S8124]]

of middle-class families and hands that money over to the wealthy; a
heist that will hurt Medicare and Social Security and reduce healthcare
coverage by 13 million people in order to hand over money to giant
corporations that are already rolling in profits; a heist that will
hurt our economy and blow a hole in our national debt.
The American people have seen through this scam. They see through
every lie that has been pushed forward. They know this bill doesn't
provide middle-class tax relief. It ultimately raises taxes on more
than 60 percent of working families in this country. They know this
bill does not promote economic growth. Nonpartisan projections have
shown that it will have a negligible impact. Even former Republican
officials admit it. They know this bill will not raise wages for
working people. Corporate CEOs have already said so. Those CEOs have
told everyone who would listen that when they get their truckloads of
money from the GOP tax bill, they will turn right around and funnel
that money to their wealthy shareholders.
They know this bill isn't even to help Americans. A third of those
shareholders who will get truckloads of money from the GOP bill don't
even live in the United States.
Over the last month and a half, we have all watched as one Republican
Senator after another has cast aside every single one of their supposed
principles to get behind this monstrosity of a bill. Real relief for
the middle class is gone. Concern about the national debt is gone.
Concern about economic growth is gone.
There is only one principle left: Reward billionaire campaign donors.
This is not a conspiracy theory. It is not a partisan attack. It is
what Republicans in Congress are saying in public to reporters. As one
of my Republican colleagues said in a moment of honesty, if they don't
pass this tax giveaway bill, ``financial contributions will stop.'' And
a Republican House Member said big donors told him to pass the tax bill
or ``don't ever call'' them again.
Let's call this out for what it is. It is government for sale. That
is how you end up with a $1.5 trillion tax giveaway to corporations at
a time of record corporate profits. It is not supposed to be this way.
Congress is elected by the people. It is supposed to represent their
interests, not those of the people and companies rich enough to fund
campaigns.
Boy, there is a lot of work for us to do. Over the last 30 years,
corporate profits have skyrocketed while wages for working people have
stayed flat. But even though corporations--not families--have been
getting richer and richer, Congress has forced families to pick up more
and more of the cost of our military, our roads and bridges, and our
schools.
Corporations used to pay about 30 percent of the cost of running the
government. Now, it is under 10 percent. But today, the politicians who
run Congress will slash corporate taxes even more and shift even more
of the burden onto working families. Working people will pay more so
that giant corporations can pay less.
There is no better example of this than the bill's treatment of Wells
Fargo. Last year, we found out that Wells Fargo had opened millions of
fake accounts so that executives could goose their sales numbers, drive
up stock prices, and rake in bigger bonuses. It turns out that Wells
Fargo had also charged half a million customers for auto insurance they
didn't need, which meant that a lot of people--including soldiers and
sailors and marines--got their cars repossessed. That sounds pretty
sleazy. But instead of holding them accountable for cheating their
customers, this Congress is on the verge of passing a tax bill that
will shower more free money on Wells Fargo than any bank in the
country. That is right. When this bill passes, the punishment to Wells
Fargo for cheating millions of Americans will be a big gift-wrapped
present worth billions of dollars in tax giveaways.
This tax bill is shameful, and it is the result of a shameful
process. There were no hearings on the bill that overhauls the Tax Code
and shifts around trillions of dollars, no input from a single
Democrat, and no time for vetting by actual tax experts.
Big-time donors are very happy with this outrageous tax heist, but
the American people are angry, and they are right to be angry. Over and
over, again and again, they watched this Congress ignore their pressing
problems, ignore children's health insurance, ignore flat wages, ignore
an opioid crisis, ignore hurricanes and wildfires, ignore working
families who are ripped apart by greedy politicians and politics built
right here in Washington. Over and over, again and again, they watch,
instead, as Washington jumps to do more favors for billionaires, more
favors for giant companies, and more favors for campaign donors.
Today is just one more terrible day for hard-working Americans, just
one more terrible day in Washington where Washington works great for
those at the top and will not lift a finger to help anyone else.
People's anger is understandable. I share it. Sooner or later, a
reckoning is coming, and I promise you this: When it does--when the
politicians who lead this Congress and vote for this tax heist are held
accountable for turning their backs on the American people who sent us
here--then we will be the kind of country we want to be. Then we will
be the kind of country we were meant to be--a democracy where everyone,
even the richest and the most powerful, pay a fair share, and where we
all work to build a better future for all of our kids.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, C-SPAN is an interesting phenomenon. When
I go back home to Illinois, I run into people who say: I saw you on C-
SPAN.
I often joke and say: Do you have trouble sleeping? Why are you
watching C-SPAN?
I wonder who it is that really watches C-SPAN. It could be a lot of
people who are really fascinated by politics. It could be folks who are
finding it difficult to sleep. It could be some older folks who just
pass the time by watching what happens on the floor of the Senate and
the House.
Tonight, I think we have a special audience of C-SPAN. Tonight, I
think it is entirely possible that we are going to have the wealthiest
section of audience and television viewers in the history of C-SPAN. Do
you know why? They have a bill coming up--a bill that is designed for
the wealthiest people in America. So they are probably at this point
trying to figure out how to live-stream C-SPAN onto their yachts so
they can see if this tax bill is going to pass. Why would they do that?
Why would they be tuned in? Because this is the biggest tax break for
the wealthiest people in the history of Tax Code reform. It is.
It turns out that in 2027, 83 percent of the tax breaks in this bill
go to the top 1 percent of wage earners in America. Boy, how can you
sit down and write a tax bill that is so lopsided for the wealthiest
people in America? You had to have said to the staff first: Find out
what taxes are left that the wealthy might pay and get rid of them--
reduce them right and left. And they did.
Imagine that that is your starting point for Tax Code reform in
America--that you are ignoring working families and the reality of the
life they lead, you are ignoring small and medium-sized businesses, and
you are focusing on the wealthiest people in America and the biggest
corporations.
Do you know what I found in Illinois? When you travel around my State
and meet the business leaders and ask them point-blank: Tell me about
Federal taxes, the biggest corporations never complain because the Tax
Code is loaded with escape hatches for the biggest and wealthiest
corporations and individuals. It is small and medium-sized businesses
that pay the most taxes. They are the ones that should have been the
biggest beneficiaries on the bill. Secondly, there are the working
families. People who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, who can't
save money for their kids' future, are worried about their kids'
student loans. Wouldn't it have been great if the Tax Code reform
really focused on them instead of on the wealthiest people in America?
It is a stereotype, I know, that the Republicans worry about the rich
instead of the working folks, but when you look at this bill, sadly,
that is the reality.
Here is the good news, if there is any good news in that terrible
story I just recounted. The American people get it. They understand it.
How in the world

[[Page S8125]]

could you write a bill and call it tax reform and tax cuts, and have
two-thirds of America hate it instantly? They did it. Congratulations.
You put together a bill, which, instinctively, the American people knew
was a bad deal for them. And it is.
When you take a look at this bill, you realize why we are asked to
vote on this Republican tax plan--a plan written behind closed doors
and rushed through Congress on a last-minute rush this year. It is
because the Republicans are bound and determined to have something that
they passed this year. In all fairness, they passed the Defense
authorization bill, but they spent month after month on repeal and
failure to replace our healthcare system, and now, before they leave
town at the end of this calendar year, they are bound and determined to
get this done, whatever it takes, their so-called tax reform plan.

After a year in control of Congress and the White House and
extraordinarily few legislative achievements to show for it,
Republicans are forcing through this partisan tax plan only a few short
weeks after it was unveiled.
You may not remember unless you were watching C-SPAN that night--I
came to the floor when we were finally given the Senate tax bill. It
was about 500 pages long. As I was going through it, on page 257--I
remember the page--I looked at it, and I thought, what is this? There
was a page in the middle of the tax bill with all sorts of scribbled
handwriting that was absolutely impossible to read. Now, remember, this
is a Tax Code that is going to have an impact on individuals, families,
and businesses to the tune of millions of dollars, and here was a page
in it that no one could read. Do you know why I know no one could read
it? I submitted it to the Record, and the clerk of the Senate came and
found me afterward and said: Senator, you can't put this in the
Congressional Record because we can't read it. That is what was going
on here in writing the Tax Code of the United States of America. It was
a slapdash, hurried effort that sadly does not reflect the best of this
institution or the best of the Members who are part of it.
Why would they do this? Because if this bill were subject to proper
scrutiny, as it should have been--you only really reform the Tax Code
once every several decades--a monumental giveaway to corporate America
would have emerged, a tax break or giveaways to the wealthiest
Americans.
So while most families are focused on getting ready for the holidays,
my Republican colleagues and friends are hoping most Americans will be
too busy to notice them passing a tax bill that will raise taxes on
middle-income families.
This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world,
the U.S. Senate, and my Republican colleagues threw regular order and
bipartisan input right out the window of the Capitol. They have spent
the past 2 weeks behind closed doors writing the final version of this
tax bill. Only last Friday evening--last Friday--we finally saw the
text of this tax plan fully released, fully revealed. There are more
than 1,000 pages of new Tax Code, and that is what we are expected to
understand and to vote on in a matter of days.
Are the memories of my Republican colleagues so short that they have
forgotten their repeated calls of ``read the bill'' when we considered
the Affordable Care Act? Did they forget their criticism of that
process, which took place, incidentally, over many months,
characterized by transparency, multiple bipartisan hearings, and
included well over 100 Republican amendments? Have they forgotten all
the criticism they leveled on that effort to try to provide health
insurance for more Americans?
This is no way for major legislation to be written, this tax bill
before us. It certainly reflects the best wishes and hardest work of
many of the lobbyists and corporate donors who benefit my Republican
colleagues.
Is it any wonder that after this rushed process, the initial analysis
of the final bill shows that millions of working families in Illinois
and across the Nation will be hurt, while the wealthiest 1 percent of
wage earners in America receive a massive windfall? Sadly, it is no
surprise.
In their plan, Republicans chose to make essentially all individual
provisions to the tax bill temporary in order to pay for massive,
permanent corporate cuts that will overwhelmingly benefit the
wealthiest investors. The result? As I said, when the bill is fully
phased in by 2027, more than half of all Americans will see their taxes
increase under the Republican plan. These are tax increases that will
be felt particularly hard by those households in the bottom 60 percent
and those families with kids. By 2027, while middle-income families pay
a higher tab, the richest 1 percent of Americans will receive a
whopping 83 percent of all the tax cuts under this plan. I just can't
believe they pulled this off, that the Republicans figured out how to
give 83 percent of the tax breaks to the top 1 percent of wage earners
in America and sell it as tax reform to help working families. It is
indefensible.
This devastating result was baked into the DNA of this Republican
plan from the start. There is no greater example of this than
Republicans' determination to erode State and local tax deductions. It
used to be a standard principle in American taxation that you wouldn't
tax people on the money they paid in other taxes. We didn't tax a tax
until this bill came along. We used to say that if you pay a State
income tax or State sales tax or State property tax, we are not going
to impose a Federal tax on your tax payment--no tax on the tax. They
didn't buy it. They changed it. They put limits on the amount of
deductions that you could take for this. What does it mean? Ask the
Realtors in my State, the homebuilders, and they will tell you that
this is going to be a damper on economic growth in the State of
Illinois--a growth that we desperately need in my State to create jobs
and opportunities.
This deduction is taken by nearly one-third of all taxpayers, and
taxpayers in my home State benefit from it among the most in the
Nation. The principle is simple: Under the new Republican plan,
Illinoisans will start paying Federal taxes on the local, State, and
property taxes that they pay, and they don't receive the deduction that
historically has been there.
Republicans apparently feel differently because in the face of weeks
of warnings from Realtors, homebuilders, local school districts, State
and local officials, and first responders about the increased
difficulty that the elimination of this deduction will create, it
didn't deter them one bit, and every single Illinois Republican
Congressman ignored all of this and voted for this terrible plan. It
means higher tax bills for middle-income families in my State and many
others and a strain on crucial State and local investments in
education, infrastructure, and public safety.
That isn't the only hit to middle-income families. Here is the one
that I find the most reprehensible. Millions of people will lose health
insurance because of this tax reform bill. It guts one of the major
provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
After failing miserably to achieve one of their campaign promises to
repeal the Affordable Care Act and take away healthcare from millions
of families, Republicans slipped into this tax bill a provision that
undermines the Affordable Care Act. The net result of it is an increase
of 10 to 20 percent for health insurance premiums for those buying in
the marketplace, and--this is a kicker--13 million Americans are going
to lose health insurance because of this health reform bill that is
brought to us by the Republicans.
I don't see how you can go home to any State and say: Good news. I
gave a tax break to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest
corporations, and average working folks here are going to lose their
health insurance. How can you stand up and say that is good for your
State or for this country?
Republicans' efforts to take away healthcare from families and give
tax cuts to the wealthy shouldn't surprise us. The surprise here is
that so many of the so-called fiscal hawks--how many times have I heard
my Republican colleagues come to the floor and pose for holy pictures
when it comes to the national debt. Oh, it goes over and over again,
the speeches they give when there is a Democratic President. Now that
there is a Republican President, political amnesia has set in.
It turns out that this Republican tax reform--giving tax breaks to
the

[[Page S8126]]

wealthy and not to the middle-income families of America--will add $1.5
trillion to our national debt. Who will pay off that debt for these tax
breaks to the wealthy? I am afraid it is our kids and our grandkids.
Somehow these fiscal hawks are able to convince themselves that cutting
taxes on the wealthy is worth a new burden on our kids.
When you get past all the fancy rhetoric, the bottom line is,
Republicans believe that we can afford to add $1.5 trillion to the debt
if it means giving tax cuts to the wealthy but that we can't afford it
as a nation when we know we are going to need it to make massive
investments in things that mean a lot to working families. Shouldn't we
have put more money into fighting the opioid crisis that claimed almost
2,000 lives last year in my home State of Illinois? Shouldn't we have
put more money into helping kids go to college so they aren't burdened
with student loans that change their lives? Shouldn't we have put more
money into medical research? Couldn't we have put more money into
investing in our infrastructure? No. The Republicans say there is a
much higher priority--tax cuts for wealthy people.
What does make sense to my constituents and millions more across
America is that $1.5 trillion increase in national debt poses a real
threat to our economic future and a threat to the future of Medicare
and Medicaid.
Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, Republican leader, said they are
going to take care of the added deficit and debt by cutting entitlement
programs like Medicare and Medicaid. I would say to Paul Ryan, my
neighbor from Wisconsin, you are in for a fight, my friend--and it will
not be just the Democrats; it will be a lot of folks in Wisconsin who
aren't going to stand for that outcome.
Americans deserve better than what the Republican leaders in Congress
have brought to us in this bill--rushed through without bipartisan
consideration and without review by experts. This may be a ``big
political win for the Republican Party and their donors,'' but it is on
the backs of hard-working families.
Some of these consequences that we face are already dangerously
clear, others, which we will only discover as we pore through the fine
print of this 1,000-page bill--we can only guess what they will mean.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I come from a different world. I come from
the real world. I have been here just a couple of years, but this sort
of rhetoric that we have heard on the floor of the Senate over the last
few weeks is amazing to me. The disinformation, the known misleading
statements that are made--that doesn't exist for very long in the real
world because there are rules and regulations out there where that is
taken care of. But it seems that if you are good at it in this body and
can get away with it long enough, that what Vladimir Lenin once said is
true, and that is this: It doesn't matter what you say is true; it only
matters that you say it and say it and say it, and pretty soon, to the
common folks in your country, it becomes true.
Well, I think we have lived through a century where we have done
nothing but disproved that as a free society here and as a leader of
the free world.
I think what is at stake tonight in this vote is bigger than just a
few changes in our Tax Code. Good grief. We can work for the next 10
years and not clean up every detail in this Tax Code, but this is a
first step to bringing sanity back to our country.
Let me put a little perspective on this. Let's talk about what
President Trump inherited when he took office in January of this year.
We had 8 years of the lowest economic growth in the history of the
United States--1.9 percent. We had the lowest workforce participation
rate in over 40 years.
In the last 8 years, we borrowed 35 percent of every dollar that was
spent by the Federal Government--this body borrowed before you and I
got in the Senate.
Under the last administration, for 6 years of those 8 years, the
opposing party in this body had a supermajority for 2 years and they
had a majority for 4. So for 6 years, that party had the White House
and they had a majority in the Senate at least. In those 8 years, they
doubled our national debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion this year,
even though last year--or the last year of the last administration,
2016--our Federal Government collected more Federal tax than any other
year in our history, and the last few years have been the same.
With all that borrowing, even when the last administration said: OK,
we need to fix infrastructure, we need to get the economy going--they
put $1 trillion into fake infrastructure investments, and none of these
parameters moved. We still had no economic growth.
This is the same party that liberalized Social Security and Medicare
to the point where they are not sustainable. And in just 14 years--14
years--both those trust funds go to zero. This is not about going to
Medicare and Social Security and finding money to give to the rich;
this is trying to figure out how to get the economy going so we can
save Social Security and Medicare. It is no more complicated than that.
But what we are hearing here are words like ``shameful'' and
``ridiculous.'' I think what President Trump walked into was shameful
and ridiculous. For the United States--the wealthiest country in the
history of the world--to have those sorts of performance parameters is
ridiculous. It is shameful. There will be a day of reckoning, and it is
today. Our President took that seriously, and he said that job No. 1 is
growing the economy.

Let's put that in perspective. He said, in the first year of his
administration, he wanted to focus on three things that would grow the
economy. One is he wanted to pull back on regulations. I am here to
tell my colleagues that over 860 of the most onerous regulations and
rules have been reversed so far this year.
The second thing President Trump said was he wanted to work on
energy. Well, we got the Keystone Pipeline working. He actually moved
on stopping the Clean Power Plan that was thwarting the energy
production in this country, and, in this bill tonight, we will open up
ANWR production to give us capability on the energy side of our
economy.
The third thing the President said he wanted to do was to change our
archaic tax plan; not to give money to the rich but to open our
companies and our workers to be more competitive with the rest of the
world.
For the last decade--maybe even the last 30 years--I have lived this
in my career. For 40 years, I have watched U.S. competitiveness decline
and decline and decline. Why? Because of two reasons. Our Federal
Government grew out of any proportion. In 2000, the size of our
government was $2.4 trillion. Last year, it was $4 trillion. That is
under one Republican administration and one Democratic administration.
We have put regulation on top of regulation. We liberalized all of our
social programs to the point we cannot afford it.
The other thing we did is we loaded onto this tax situation where we
lost our competitiveness with the rest of the world. The rest of the
world lowered their tax rates while we actually increased ours, they
reduced their regulations while we increased ours, and we just simply
lost our competitive edge, such that today, two out of every three
acquisitions regarding a U.S. company are U.S. companies being bought
by a foreign company. Now, that is a C corporation. In many cases, it
is an S corporation. Why is that? It is because of the difference
between our 35 percent corporate tax rate and the average of 18 percent
in Asian countries and 21 percent in Europe. All we are doing is trying
to reach some point of being reasonably competitive with the rest of
the world.
This President walked into a disaster, and what we have seen in the
first year are dramatic results: Two million new jobs have been created
this year, 860 regulations reversed, and illegal crossings on the
southern border are down 60 percent.
We passed a bill in this body 97 to 2 that allows a department head
in the Veterans' Administration to remove people for cause, for lack of
performance. Guess what. So far this year, over 500 people have been
asked to leave because of performance reasons in our

[[Page S8127]]

Veterans' Administration. That is something both Democrats and
Republicans should be proud of.
We also see a Department of Education that has removed 300 people for
the same reason. CEO competence is at a 20-year high. Consumer
confidence, despite what the other side wants to tell us, is at a 16-
year high, and many studies are proving that today.
Tonight I want to clear up some of the absolute, unbelievable
mistruths and myths about this bill that are being perpetrated. We
heard several just in the last hour on this floor. The first, the great
one--I love this: This tax plan is only going to help the wealthy. We
are going to tax the low-income people in America, and we are going to
give it to the billionaires.
Let me just give some examples here. A median-income family today--a
family of four who works, with two kids, who makes a median income of
$73,000 a year is going to get a $2,200 tax reduction. That is a 60-
percent reduction in their Federal tax rate.
A single working mother, as an example, with one child at home--now,
this is a parent who has to find childcare, has to find a way to work,
gets very little help from family or friends, doesn't own a home--I
know many people like this--that person is going to get a 75-percent
tax cut in this bill.
Beyond that, today, 52 percent of households in America--this is
before this bill--pay zero Federal income tax, but this bill goes
further. Up to 6 million people will potentially be removed from the
tax rolls because of this bill. I am just a simple business guy, but I
just look at the facts. These are mathematical facts here. There is no
projection, no opinion. This is part of this bill that belies half of
the mistruths we just heard in the last hour on this floor.
The second one is a process question. Of course, this is what we
always hear the minority party say. I dare say, as an outsider, I heard
Republicans say this in the last 6 years. There is no transparency, no
regular process, no regular order. Well, in the last few years, there
have been over 70 public hearings--Senate hearings in committee--about
tax reform. This particular bill has been in full regular order. Yes,
it was done in reconciliation, but that is regular order. I personally
would have preferred not to have done that, but it is within regular
order.
It went through committee. Amendments were put up and debated and
passed in committee. Then the bill was brought to the floor. We voted
on amendments on this floor, and then it went to a full vote and was
passed--or will be passed tonight.
The third myth: This tax plan will not generate economic growth. This
is a really rich one because most of the people saying that have never
written their signature on the front of a check. They just simply
haven't been in business. Yet these are now the newfound experts in
this body who say: Well, this is not going to grow the economy. Of
course, it is not; we need bigger government to grow the economy.
Haven't we proven that?
No, we have disproved that. If anything, over the last 8 years, we
have proven that bigger government does not correlate with a better,
growing, competitive economy. What this bill simply does is it gets
government back out of the way, to some degree, helps us become
competitive with the rest of the world, and ignites this economy.

Let's just look at what is being said about this. First of all, it
has been estimated that nearly 1 million new jobs will be derived
because of this bill. It is estimated that annual incomes of working
Americans will go up somewhere between $4,000 and $9,000. That is in
addition to the tax cuts. That is because the demand for labor in a
growing economy will create rising wages.
The other side says: Well, to get rising wages, you need to increase
minimum wage. That is the wrong way to look at this. This bill, I can
tell from personal experience, will create demand for labor, and that
labor will increase in price.
GDP will grow somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the next decade.
I actually believe it will be much more than that. The big one, in my
mind, is by eliminating the repatriation tax, and, by the way, we are
the last country in the world to still have this archaic tax, which we
collect no tax on today, but eliminating that brings over $2.6 trillion
back into this economy.
The other side says: Well, that is not going to go to the economy, it
is going to dividends or to pay down debt. Guess what. In a
capitalistic society, it is all contributory. It all adds to the
benefit of growing the economy.
Capital formation is part of what created this miracle in the first
place. The last 70 years in America has been, I would argue--as a 40-
year experienced veteran of the business community here, as the only
Fortune 500 CEO in the Senate and in all of Congress, I would argue
that this economic windfall we have experienced over the last 7 years
in America is based on three things: On the top of the best workforce
in the history of the world, it is innovation, capital formation, and
the rule of law. Quite frankly, because of regulations in this body
over the last 15 years and because of our Tax Code, we have taken those
for granted. Tonight we begin to reverse that.
The next claim I want to debunk is that this tax plan adds $1
trillion--I love this one--will add $1 trillion to the debt. This is
from the other side that administered more than doubling our debt in
the last decade. No other President in the history of our country,
prior to the last administration, added $10 trillion to the debt of
this Nation.
There is no bigger debt hawk in this body than I, and I can tell you
this is what brought me into the political arena. This $20 trillion in
debt is the beginning, it is not the end of the story. Unless we do
something today about our Federal debt, it is going to grow $11
trillion, is the latest estimate, over the next decade. Most of that is
on the mandatory side.
To solve this debt crisis, clearly we have to grow the economy, but
we will not solve the debt crisis only by growing the economy. We will
not solve it unless we start by growing the economy.
We are told by the Joint Committee on Taxation and by the
Congressional Budget Office--and both of these modeling groups I have
personal problems with--but even if you take their worst-case
scenarios, you only have to grow the economy two-tenths of 1 percent
per year. That is going from 1.9 percent, which is the average baseline
of the last 8 years, growing it by two-tenths of 1 percent to 2.1
percent over the next decade. There has only been one time in one
decade in the last 70 years where this economy didn't grow more than
2.5 percent, and in that decade it grew 2.3 percent. So in no decade
since World War II have we grown less than 2.3 percent.
In addition, CBO says we have to grow 2.2 or 2.3 percent. The last
two quarters are already over 3 percent. The fourth quarter looks like
it will be as well if we pass this tax bill tonight.
It just seems to me that people who have experience in the real-world
economy know that investing in our workers is the best investment we
can make, and that is what this tax bill does. Don't be confused by the
rhetoric.
Members of the other body in the last hour say there is going to be a
day of reckoning. There is, because I believe that the other side has
failed the working poor in this country. The best example is ObamaCare,
perpetrated by the supermajority, 60 votes on the other side, and we
know it is now collapsing under its own weight, but this is what they
have done to the working poor in America.
In 2014--and it has been that way over the last 3 years as well--but
2014 is the last year we can get from the IRS. Under ObamaCare, the IRS
fined 8 million people in America $2 billion, and the irony is, half of
those people make less than $25,000. Now, that is outrageous, and for
those same people to beat their chests now about this being for the
rich, it is even more outrageous.
I will close with this. The biggest argument they make is that this
is for the rich, and the rich are not paying their fair share. The top
1 percent today pay about 40 percent of all tax revenues that we have,
and the top 10 percent pay over 70 percent. That was true before this
bill, and that is going to be true after this bill.
What is going to also be true is the fact that the working men and
women of America will find that their place of employment, whether it
is a one-man self-proprietorship, a one-woman self-

[[Page S8128]]

proprietorship, or a major corporation, those companies, in a global
economy, are going to find themselves more competitive because of what
President Donald J. Trump is doing in this tax bill and what we are
backing up tonight. I argue that this is a historic day, not just
because of tax relief for the working men and women of America, or
building competitiveness for those same people around the world, but
for our kids and grandkids so we can begin to deal with this huge
growing debt.
People say: Well, you are adding debt. No, this is an investment,
and, by the way, it is not $1.5 trillion. They know that $500 billion
of that--one-third of it--is this policy versus law. They know that,
but it still makes a better story. They also know that $200 billion of
that are fake costs because it says if you eliminate the way it is
scored right now, if you eliminate the repatriation tax, the Joint
Committee on Tax and the Congressional Budget Office, in their infinite
wisdom, say that is going to cost you $200 billion. We don't collect
$200 billion in repatriation tax. As an outsider, I cannot believe we
sit here and talk about these fake numbers that way.
The President of the United States has a vision for our country. We
need to rise up and be competitive again in order to deal with this
long-term tax situation but, more importantly--or as importantly--to be
able to afford to do the right things for our people. When we have
hurricanes, when we have fires, we don't have the resources to do that.
Every dime we are spending behind these hurricanes and behind the fires
and behind all of the things we are doing is borrowed. Every time we
spend on our military, it is borrowed money. The only way to eventually
change that is to begin to grow our economy. This is only one of many
steps that are required, but this tonight becomes historic because you
can't do the others unless you make this economy competitive.
I want to praise our President tonight for having the guts to stick
through this process. We are going to pass this bill tonight and make
America great again because we are going to make America competitive
again.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the American people understand this bill.
They understand this bill will hurt middle-income families, and they
know this bill will add to the deficit. They understand the Joint
Committee on Tax has scored the bill as adding to the deficit. I hear
so many of my Republican friends talk about these deficit hawks. We
follow the recommendations of our professionals. This bill will add to
the deficit. That is why the American people believe this tax bill,
which has been advertised by Republicans as a tax cut, is not good for
America. It is an extraordinary thing to get the majority of Americans
against a bill that is purported to be a tax cut, because they
understand it is not a tax cut for middle-income families.

Let me give one number. The corporate tax rate under this bill will
be reduced from 35 percent to 21 percent. That is a substantial
reduction in the corporate tax rate. Now, understand that only about 5
percent of the largest businesses in America pay the corporate tax
rate. It isn't a rate paid by small businesses. This is paid by
megacorporations. They are getting a tax cut.
When we look at the cost of that tax cut as scored by the Joint
Committee on Taxation--the professionals--it is about $1.5 trillion of
business tax relief. Guess who pays that $1.5 trillion. It goes on our
national debt, and middle-income taxpayers are going to be asked to
foot the bill.
They get that. They understand this doesn't help middle-income
families. You are not helping middle-income families when you raise the
estate tax limits so fewer families pay the estate tax, which already
affects only the 0.2 percent wealthiest in America. They are getting a
break. Already, we have a concentration of wealth in America. The top 1
percent owns close to 40 percent of the wealth in America. They
understand that doesn't help middle-income families because they
understand that we have seen in America the shrinking of the middle
class and that we have had an increase in income and wealth disparity
in America.
That is not good for our economy. That is not how you grow an economy
or how you grow a middle class. This bill will not grow a middle class.
This bill will make even more extreme the income and wealth disparities
in this country.
They also get it when we talk about what is temporary and what is
permanent. I really appreciate my friends talking about the deficit. Of
course, they don't include the fact that many of these tax provisions
are only temporary, such as the major tax relief for individuals. That
is temporary in nature. The business tax is permanent.
I hear my Republican friends saying that we will just extend it. If
you extend it, the deficit is even larger than the $1.5 trillion. As to
the individuals and the middle-income families who get some of the
benefits of this bill, when we add it all up, they lose. The benefits
they get are temporary, but business tax relief is permanent. This bill
is an assault on middle-income families.
When we take a look at how we are going to have to pay off that
deficit and who is going to pay off that deficit, it is going to be
middle-income families left holding the bill. We know that. That is why
this bill is not popular. That is why we know that it is not good for
middle-income families and it is not good for our economy.
But they even go further. It has been pointed out in the Senate that
they have added a provision that is now in the conference report which
takes out an essential part of the Affordable Care Act on individual
responsibility that would ultimately leave about 13 million Americans
without health insurance.
Why was this done? It was done for two reasons. First, Republicans
have been trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and these 13
million people who have benefits today are going to lose it. But a
second thing is that you can use those savings--and they are not real
savings; we are talking about less money being used to help people get
health insurance--to provide additional tax cuts for wealthy Americans
and corporations. So you are knocking 13 million people out of health
insurance and using that money in order to extend these tax breaks for
higher income and businesses. That is unconscionable.
What is going to come next when you are not even subtle about this?
They now are going to say that the deficits are bigger than previously
expected. I hear my friends on the Republican side. They are deficit
hawks. Well, you are not deficit hawks when you deficit-finance a tax
cut. That is not helping this country.
So what comes next? Well, we are going to have to cut Medicaid and
Medicare. Who suffers when you cut Medicaid and Medicare? It is going
to be middle-income families again.
Then we have to take a look at the Federal budget. We have heard some
of my colleagues already talk about this. I see plans right now that we
are going to take it out on the Federal workforce--the Federal
workforce, which has already contributed about $182 billion to the
deficit, through getting pay adjustments below the cost of living,
having freezes, going through continuing resolutions, sequestration,
and government shutdowns, asked to do more with less.
We are talking about critical services to the American people,
whether it is research done at the National Institutes of Health,
whether it is food safety, whether it is veterans services, or whether
we are talking about dealing with the opioid crisis in America. All of
that is in jeopardy, and we know that. We know they are coming back
with cuts in these programs because we now have a bigger deficit as a
result of giving corporations these big tax cuts--not all businesses,
just the biggest businesses--and giving the high-income people this tax
relief. That is why the American people do not like this bill.
We talked about creating jobs. I heard my friend again talking about
creating 1 million jobs under this tax bill--spending $1.5 trillion and
creating 1 million jobs. We had bipartisan legislation in the last
Congress that took a couple hundred billion dollars of one-time only
revenues and said the responsible thing would be to use that to seed
infrastructure. If we could get

[[Page S8129]]

that up to about $300 billion, we create 4 million jobs. So that is 4
million jobs for $300 billion. Here we have 1 million jobs, by their
own number, and spending $1.5 trillion. It is a terrible investment for
the American people. We can do better.
This bill is also an attack on our States. It is an attack on
Marylanders. It is an attack on the State of Maryland. Marylanders will
come out much worse under this bill. There are many reasons for it, but
one of the major reasons is that the bill eliminates the deduction for
State and local taxes. I am going to talk for a moment about that
because I did serve in the State legislature, as did many of the
Members of this body. I believe we should respect State and local
government. It is the same taxpayer who pays local taxes, pays State
taxes, and pays Federal taxes. Ever since we adopted a Federal income
tax, one of the only provisions that remains intact throughout the
entire history of the income tax is to say that we are not going to tax
on tax. We are not going to impose taxes on State and local taxes.
That, of course, was one of the reasons why a constitutional amendment
was changed, to allow income taxes, and now we are breaking that
commitment on Federalism.
We are really breaking the constitutional spirit to tell our State
and local governments that we are going to impose taxes on taxes and
make it more difficult for them to raise the revenue they need in order
to finance State and local services.
In Maryland, about 45 percent of Marylanders use the State and local
tax deduction. We happen to rank No. 1 in the Nation on the number of
taxpayers that use State and local tax deductions on their Federal
income tax returns.
The average amount in Maryland on deductions for State and local
taxes is $12,900. That is the average. So the average taxpayer in
Maryland is going to pay more taxes as a result of the $10,000 limit
imposed in this bill. But it even gets worse for Marylanders, and I
think this is going to be typical in a lot of States around the Nation.
Maryland has an itemized deduction. It has standardized deductions on
their income taxes, as many States do. But I think Marylanders are
going to be surprised to find out they may not qualify for itemizing
their deductions at the Federal level because, as a result of the
changes that have been made here, only about 5 percent of the people in
this country will still use the itemized deduction.
So go and do your Federal taxes, then go do your State taxes,
expecting to be able to deduct the State items, only to find that if
you haven't deducted at the Federal level, you can't deduct at the
State level because we harmonize in our enforcement with the Federal
Government. You didn't think about that when you put this provision in
the bill.
I heard my friend say we had hearings. We didn't have hearings on
that provision. We have never had a hearing on that provision. We never
brought State people into our committee and say: What happens if we
raise the deduction? What impact does it have on the States? What are
the impacts on the States if we eliminate State and local tax
deductions? We haven't had those discussions.
Quite frankly, it is going to be more challenging for our States and
local governments to meet their needs. They have the primary function
for educating our children and keeping our communities safe. That is a
primary function of local government, and sanitation and dealing with
public health. It is going to be much more challenging for our State
and local governments to be able to do their finance. Did we consider
that when we took up this bill? The answer is no. There are so many
consequences to this bill that have not really been thought out. Let me
just give a few.
There is a reason why people concerned about the real estate industry
are concerned about this bill. The limitations we put on the deductions
of property taxes and the limitations that have been increased on the
amount of interest you can deduct on mortgages will all have an impact
on property values. Properties that Americans own will be less valuable
with the passage of this bill because they will not be able to get the
same tax advantages as they had prior to it. Have we thought about that
impact? Have we thought about what that does to wealth and middle-
income families? Have we thought about what impact that has on assessed
evaluations on local governments that depend upon property taxes? There
has been no consideration of that.
I met this week with leaders in our nonprofit community in Baltimore.
We went over some of the issues they deal with in providing help to our
community. Several were faith-based-type charitable groups. I went over
what impact it is going to have with the restrictions on the number of
people who are now going to be using itemized deductions.
One of the charitable faith-based groups I met with told me that the
overwhelming majority of their givers are in the middle income. Today,
they are able to take a deduction because they use itemized deductions.
Under this bill, most of those families are going to fall within the
standard deduction and will no longer be itemizing their deductions on
their Federal tax returns.
Now, they don't know what impact that is going to have. But when
their givers find out there is no tax advantage to that gift, you know
it is going to have an impact. We know that. Charitable giving is going
to be down. I hear my colleagues talk frequently that a lot of what we
do to help people is that we rely upon the private sector. We rely upon
the charitable groups. Did we have the courtesy to bring them into a
hearing to understand the impact this is going to have? No, it is going
to have a negative impact on our nonprofit charitable groups, and that
is another consequence of this legislation, that we don't have the full
impact to understand.
Let me talk just a minute about this 20 percent deduction on
passthrough income. Just so people in this country understand, this is
a rather complicated provision that was added to the bill. It provides
additional tax relief for businesses that do not use the C tax rate.
These are our partnerships, our S corporations, our limited
partnerships, and our sole proprietorships. Understand what we are
trying to do here. Because we have cut the corporate rates so low--down
to 21 percent from 35 percent--we recognize that other businesses now
are going to be at a disadvantage. That is true. So we are trying to
figure out some way to give them tax relief.
Now, I have heard my colleagues talk about simplifying the Tax Code.
This provision does anything but simplify the Tax Code. It has what is
known as guardrails as to how we calculate how much you can take, up to
the 20 percent of the distribution, as a nontaxable event. That
guardrail affects the type of business you are doing, it affects the
amount of assets you have, it affects the amount of salaries you give,
the labor that is done within it, whether it is actually services
performed by the partnership or not. My goodness, it is a minefield for
accountants and tax lawyers to now develop shelters.
I am old enough to remember the 1986 tax debates here in the United
States Congress. I was not part of the Congress. I was in the State
legislature at the time. I remember the effort to get rid of shelters,
because shelters are an inefficient way that you set up business
structures in order to minimize taxes. Well, this passthrough provision
is going to be used as shelters. There is no question about it. We have
had no hearings at all as to how we are going to deal with that
problem.
Then I heard one of my colleagues on the Republican side talk about
how this is going to bring all these jobs back home.
Let me make this clear. What this bill does is move toward a
territorial tax system. What does that mean? That means companies today
that outsource some of their work to another country will be able to
pay only that country's tax rate rather than the U.S. tax rate. That
means that in some cases they will be able to pay less in taxes. What
they can now do--because we are harmonizing to a territorial tax, we
are rewarding some companies to outsource.
Do we understand what the lower tax rates for corporations--what the
net impact will be on jobs in America? All we hear is: Oh, we are going
to create new job opportunities because we have lower rates for
businesses. But we don't

[[Page S8130]]

tell the American people that they can keep those jobs overseas and pay
a lower tax rate. Let's be honest about that.
Why didn't we have a hearing on that part? The consequences are far
from understood.
I have heard several of my colleagues talk on the floor of the Senate
about preserving credits, that we preserve this credit--like you are
getting credit for leaving something in the Tax Code. Let me say
something. Credits are important. In the city of Baltimore, we have
used low-income housing tax credits, historic tax credits, and new
market tax credits to generate a lot of economic activity. It is very
difficult to put together a major economic program within our urban
centers. I could point to West Baltimore and how we have used all those
tools for urban redevelopment. I could point to our arts district and
how that has been used.
I know this. Credits are not going to be worth as much under this
bill as they were before because we have changed the value of a tax
credit. What impact is that going to have? I don't know. The problem
is, none of us know, but it is going to have a consequence. It is going
to affect economic growth, and it is not going to be positive. We
haven't taken steps to try to counter that.
I noticed there were some changes in the renewable energy sector. I
don't fully understand all the changes, but I do know those who are
involved in wind and solar believe that what we have done will make it
more difficult for them to get investors. It sort of looks as if,
perhaps, this was an effort to help the fossil fuel industry.
When you look at the ANWR provision, which opens up the pristine
areas of the Arctic to drilling in Alaska, you know that this bill is
tilted toward fossil fuels rather than having a level playing field for
America's energy. I worry, is this the first step to mid-Atlantic
drilling off the Atlantic coast off of Maryland? I worry about the
impact it could have on the Chesapeake Bay.
I must confide that I have been in conversations with some of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, asking whether we will cooperate
on a corrections bill. I find that amazing. We haven't passed this bill
yet, and we are talking about the process to correct the mistakes that
are clearly in this bill. That is not the way we should be legislating.
We know that we are going to have to revisit the passthrough provisions
because we know they are not drafted right. We know the tax credits are
going to need additional time. We know the energy provisions are going
to have to be revised. We know we have done damage to middle-income
families who are going to demand we correct this. Why don't we get it
right the first time? Why do we have to look at passing a bill that we
know is badly flawed?
The last point I want to make is, there has been a commitment that
when we take up a tax bill--don't we want to simplify the Tax Code, so
Americans understand it better and feel more comfortable that everyone
is being treated fairly? Secondly, the one argument I hear from all
stakeholders is: Make the Tax Code predictable so that we can plan.
Give us the rules. Don't change the law all the time. Don't put
temporary provisions in there because Congress has a habit of missing
extender dates. We have already missed extender dates in this Congress,
and now we are talking about leaving town this week while we have
provisions that have expired, such as the Children's Health Insurance
Program.
What does this tax bill do? It has numerous provisions that expire,
some within a short period of time, adding uncertainty to our Tax Code
and the planning of our Tax Code. This bill is anything but simplifying
the Tax Code, and it is certainly not providing predictability.
The American people get it. That is why they believe this bill should
not be passed. It is an assault on middle-income families. It is
dangerous to our national security because it increases our deficit. It
will hurt millions of people who will lose their health coverage, and
it should be defeated.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wicker). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few moments
talking about why my colleagues and why the American people should be
supportive of this very important legislation, historic legislation,
that we are debating on the Senate floor. It is particularly historic
for my State, the great State of Alaska. There has been a lot of
misinformation on this bill, and we are seeing a robust debate, which
is fine.
I don't need to repeat all the arguments on both sides, but I will
say that my colleagues on the other side have seemed to focus on one
particular point. They are coming here and making this point again and
again; that is, the point that this bill will supposedly raise taxes on
the middle class. We are hearing it, and everyone is saying it. The
problem with that argument is, it is fundamentally untrue. The truth
will be in the paychecks of the American people, which they will see in
a few months.
Let me talk about some of the provisions that are in the bill. The
bill will be a middle-class tax cut for the vast majority of Americans.
Here are some of the provisions. These are in the bill. These are the
facts. The bill doubles the standard deduction. For an individual, the
standard deduction goes from $6,300 to $12,000. For married couples, it
goes from $12,700 to $24,000. That is in the bill. That is important
for middle-class families. It doubles the child tax credit. The child
tax credit is doubled from the current $1,000 to $2,000, so more
parents can claim it. It is in the bill. That is a fact. And it lowers
rates. In fact, it not only lowers rates for middle-income Americans,
it lowers rates on every single income bracket in the IRS code. That is
a fact.
Bottom line, an average family of four making $75,000 a year will
have about 200 more dollars per month in take-home pay under this
bill--$2,400 a year. A single parent making $41,000 a year will see
their tax bill decrease by $1,300. That is a 73-percent decrease. That
is a fact. It is in the bill.
Let me mention one other critical way in which this tax bill will
bring middle-class and working-class tax relief. It will get rid of the
very regressive and unfair individual mandate of the Affordable Care
Act. About 20,000 hard-working Alaskans and over 6 million Americans
have to pay a tax, a penalty to the IRS for not buying something--
health insurance--that they cannot afford. Let me repeat that. They are
penalized for not buying something that they can't afford. Think about
the absurdity of that.
Here is why this is such an important middle-class tax cut. When we
get rid of that penalty, close to 80 percent of the 6 million Americans
who pay the ObamaCare individual mandate tax--close to 80 percent of
them--make $50,000 or less. Think about that. Tonight, we are getting
rid of that tax, that unfair penalty, and that will undoubtedly bring
tax relief for the middle class.
This bill also decreases taxes on small businesses and companies so
that they can reinvest at home in our great Nation, hire American
workers, give pay raises, and help grow our economy.
Many of these ideas, doing these kinds of things, have been
bipartisan policy ideas for years when we have talked about tax reform.
Let me give you one. In 2012, President Obama said that our current
business tax structure hurt American business and inhibited growth. He
said that the tax system ``provides tax breaks for moving jobs and
profits overseas and hits companies that choose to stay in America with
one of the highest tax rates in the world.''
That is from President Obama. It was true then, and it is true today.
Something has to be done, and we are doing it tonight. The bill will
also give small businesses and large companies a chance to help grow
our economy. You have heard Senator after Senator come to the Senate
floor. My colleague from South Carolina has talked about this
eloquently for years. It is an issue I care deeply about. But here is
the issue. We have had a lost decade of economic growth. For over 10
years, we have not hit 3 percent GDP growth once in a year.
It is an issue I care deeply about. As a matter of fact, I come to
the floor and I talk about it a lot. One thing I have noticed in my 3
short years in the Senate is that I am not sure I have seen my
colleagues from the other side ever come here and talk about the need

[[Page S8131]]

to rev up the economy or about the fact that 1\1/2\, 2 percent growth,
which is what we have had for almost the last 13 years, is not good for
the country. I think, unfortunately, a lot of them believe in this idea
of the new normal--that America hitting at 1\1/2\, 2-percent GDP growth
is America hitting on all cylinders. Don't believe it.
We talk about GDP growth. What is that? It is really a proxy for the
health of the U.S. economy. It is a proxy for the American dream. In
the last 10 years, that economy has been sick. For millions of
Americans, the American dream, which is based on a strong American
economy, has been a mirage. We have to change this. This should be a
bipartisan issue. Getting back to traditional levels of 3 percent or
higher GDP growth should be something 100 Senators agree on. This bill
is going to help us do that.
Finally, I would like to talk about something in the tax bill that
will greatly benefit my State and our country; that is, opening the
1002 section of the nonwilderness Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for
American energy development. A lot of my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle have talked about this, but I am going to tell you this. I
can't begin to describe the elation that will be felt by many--so
many--in my State when this passes. The vast majority of Alaskans
support this provision and have supported it for decades. Hundreds, if
not thousands, of Alaskans have worked tirelessly to get it passed
since the 1002 area was set aside by this body in 1980 for possible
energy development.
Don't believe all the rhetoric about ``Oh, that area is off-limits.''
That area is actually on-limits. In 1980, the Congress said: We know
there is a lot of energy there, and we should look at the opportunity
to explore it. Congress, come back and make the call someday.
Hundreds, thousands of my constituents, my fellow Alaskans--and I
know some are in the Gallery right now, right above me--have been
working on this for decades, and I want to thank all of them. But we
have been stopped. We have been repeatedly stopped. You are seeing some
of the arguments, many of which are truth-challenged. So I am being
polite to all of my colleagues.

Year after year, we have tried. The last time that we made a big
effort in this, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle killed
this provision in 2005. It was a crushing evening in 2005 when this
provision did not pass. It was a crushing evening for the late, great
Senator Ted Stevens, particularly when then-Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid said that killing the ANWR provision and beating Ted Stevens
was ``one of the joys of my life.'' That is from the former Senate
minority and majority leader.
Voting for the provision to unlock ANWR tonight will be one of the
joys of my life, and I am certain that Ted Stevens will be joyfully
watching from above, smiling.
Last month, a group of Alaskans came to DC to testify before Senator
Murkowski's Energy and Natural Resources Committee about the importance
to America, to Alaska, and to our communities of the energy provision
in this bill.
Matthew Rexford, who lives in Kaktovik, AK, which is a village that
is actually in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, provided riveting
testimony. Let me quote from that testimony:

My fellow Inupiat and I firmly believe that attempts to
permanently block development in the 100--an area
intentionally NOT designated as wilderness because of its oil
and gas potential--is a slap in the face to our region and
its people. It's exactly the same thing as saying ``It's okay
for everyone else in this country to have a THRIVING economy,
but you can't have one at all.''

To you people living on the North Slope and you people living in
Kaktovik: Sorry, you can't do it.
Matthew went on to talk about how responsible oil and gas development
supports local communities by providing jobs, business opportunities,
and infrastructure investments, like schools and hospitals and
clinics--things that most communities in America have in abundance. We
don't have those in abundance in my great State.
He said that the industry ``has moved our people away from third-
world living conditions--we refuse to go backward in time. It has
provided other basic services most Americans may take for granted''
that communities like his don't have.
Increasing domestic energy production will not only be good for my
State and for communities like Kaktovik, but it will also boost our
country's economy, and--this is a very important point--it will
strengthen America's national security.
My colleague from Maryland, for whom I have a lot of respect, just
talked about how this is going to hurt our national security. I
couldn't disagree with him more. Producing more energy responsibly--
oil, natural gas, renewables--and making the United States the world's
energy superpower once again will dramatically increase our Nation's
national security. This is something that we should all agree on.
I have served in the Marines for over two decades, and I have served
as a U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, whose portfolio included global
energy issues. I have seen how energy can be used as a tool for good,
productive diplomacy and for troublesome power grabs by our Nation's
foes. When we don't have to import energy from countries that don't
like us or when we have the opportunity to actually export energy--
American energy--to our allies, this dramatically strengthens our
Nation's national security.
The Presiding Officer and I both sit on the Armed Services Committee.
We have heard for years from the Department of Defense's military and
civilian leaders. Whether he be Secretary Carter, a Democrat, or
Secretary Mattis, a great Marine general, they have all consistently
emphasized this point: Making America the world's energy superpower
will help with jobs, will help with our economy, and it will
dramatically help our Nation's national security.
Let me conclude by telling a story that really emphasizes this point.
Last year, I attended the Halifax International Security Forum.
National security leaders throughout the world attended. I was in a
meeting with a great national security leader of this body, Senator
John McCain, and we were meeting with a senior-level Russian dissident.
We asked him at the end of the meeting: What more can we do in our
country to help push back against the Putin regime and the activities
that it is undertaking to undermine U.S. interests around the world and
in our own country? What more can we do?
He looked at us and said: The No. 1 thing that you can do is to
produce more American energy.
Let me repeat that. In terms of national security, the No. 1 thing
that we can do is to produce more American energy. We do it more
responsibly and with the highest environmental standards of any place
in the world. Opening the 1002 area in using those high standards--the
world's highest standards--with the most advanced technology, will
produce more American energy for the betterment of my State, my
constituents, and for the whole country. We are on the cusp of passing
a bill that will put more money in the hands of the middle class, grow
our economy, and fulfill a 40-year-long dream for Alaska.
The might of America has always been and will always be in the
ingenuity of our people--the ability of Americans to make decisions for
themselves, to live their lives as they see fit, to build, to grow, and
to make a better tomorrow for the next generation.
The American dream does not have a price tag, but it can be stymied.
It can be stymied and stunted by an overbearing Federal Government that
wants to hinder the freedom of the individual and an overbearing
Federal Government that crushes economic hope and opportunity through
overtaxation or overregulation. It does this by telling someone like
Matthew Rexford, who is from a small village more than 5,000 miles from
here, that he and his people cannot make better lives for themselves
and for their children by developing resources on their own land.
That is going to end tonight. At long last, that is going to change,
and the vast majority of Alaskans--Democrats and Republicans, Native
and non-Native--are going to celebrate. I believe, when the American
people realize and experience the positive benefits of this bill
through stronger economic growth, better jobs, and more take-home pay,
that they are going to celebrate too. I

[[Page S8132]]

urge my colleagues to vote for this historic legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to be on the floor
tonight with my friend the Senator from Alaska. The Navy salutes the
Marine Corps and salutes him for his service before.
Now I just want to follow up on a couple of things that he mentioned.
He need not stay on the floor if he doesn't want to, but he is more
than welcome to as he spent a little bit of time criticizing the
individual mandate.
Harry Truman used to say that the only thing new in the world is the
history that we forgot and never learned. So I just want to take a
minute and talk about the history of the individual mandate.
The individual mandate was not invented by Barack Obama. ObamaCare
was never invented by Barack Obama--the idea for exchanges in all 50
States and the sliding scale tax credit to buy down the cost of
healthcare in those exchanges. The idea to have an individual mandate
so that everybody has to buy healthcare and that if you are not
eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, you need to get healthcare and that,
if you don't, there is a fine was not Barack Obama's idea. The idea
that employers of a certain size and with a certain number of employees
have to provide healthcare coverage for their folks was not a Barack
Obama idea. The notion that the insurance companies could not deny
coverage to folks who had preexisting conditions was not an idea that
was invented by Barack Obama.
ObamaCare with those five provisions--exchanges in every State, a
sliding scale tax credit to buy down the cost of the care, the
individual mandate to make sure that everybody is getting coverage, the
employer mandate by which the employer has to cover the employees, the
prohibition against insurance companies in their not providing coverage
for those with preexisting conditions--had its origin from right here
in the U.S. Senate in 1993--right here in 1993.
The legislation was introduced by a Republican Senator from Rhode
Island, Chafee. It was cosponsored by 22 other Republican Senators,
including the chairman of the Finance Committee--one of the people I
most admire here in this body.
Those five ideas didn't go anywhere in 1993, but do you know who took
them? A Governor of Massachusetts took those five ideas and said: Maybe
we could use those five ideas to cover everybody in the State of
Massachusetts. Governor Mitt Romney created RomneyCare. Do you know
what? For the most part, it worked. It covered just about everybody
there. Initially, it had problems with affordability, but it has done
better over time.
When we worked on the Affordable Care Act, we took that Republican
Senate proposal from 1993. We took RomneyCare from 2006, and we
included it in the Affordable Care Act because it was a market-based
approach to making sure that everybody who didn't get coverage from
their employers and who were not eligible for Medicaid and were not
eligible for Medicare could get coverage.
We see in this legislation before us tonight not just changes to the
Tax Code but also a further effort to destabilize the exchanges, which
is something that the current administration spends a lot of time
trying to do. It is a Republican idea. It is a market-based approach.
They happen to be good ideas. They happen to work in Massachusetts, and
they could work in the 49 other States if we didn't have an
administration and my colleagues here in this body and in the House who
were trying to destabilize the exchanges.
I hope that when this legislation passes and we repeal the individual
mandate that we will not just repeal it. Why do we have it in the first
place? It is to make sure that young, healthy Americans are going to be
getting coverage in the exchanges. You can't just have sick and elderly
people in the exchanges. You have to have some young, healthy people in
there too. That is why we have the individual mandate. If we are going
to get rid of it, we need to replace it with something that works at
least as effectively. That is one of the things that we need to work on
in our going forward between now and 2019 when the individual mandate
is repealed under this legislation.
I had the privilege of serving as the Governor of my State of
Delaware for 8 years. During those 8 years, we cut taxes in 7 out of
the 8 years. We also balanced our budgets for 8 years in a row. We paid
down some of our debt. We earned AAA credit ratings for the first time
in the State's history. We still have them. For those 8 years, we had a
general assembly whose majority was Republican in the House and whose
majority was Democrat in the Senate. Do you know what we did? We
actually worked together. We worked together in that we used sound
budgeting practices, and we used sound economic analyses and forecasts.
We worked together, but neither side got everything it wanted.
In Delaware, we have something that we call the Delaware Way. I
describe it with the letter C--four Cs--communicate, compromise,
collaborate, civility. That is it. That is the Delaware Way--
communicate, compromise, collaborate, and use some civility. We don't
do much of that around here, and we are the worse for it.
During those years that I was privileged to be Governor and we cut
taxes for 7 out of the 8 years, I would read each tax proposal with
four questions. One, is it fair? Two, does it foster economic growth or
impede it? Three, does it simplify the Tax Code or make it more
complex? Four, what does it do to the deficit? Do we end up with a
deficit? Do we end up with a balanced budget? Do we end up with a
surplus? I asked those four questions.
Twenty years later, as we took up tax reform here in the U.S. Senate,
I asked the same four questions. Is it fair? Does it foster economic
growth? Does it simplify the Tax Code? What does it do to the budget or
to the deficit situation that we face? Those are the four questions.
Others have already talked about fairness. Let me just say that when
you look at what is going to happen in the first couple years after the
passage of this legislation, lower income folks, families, are going to
get a tax cut too. It is not just the wealthy; low-income families will
get a tax cut, too, for a couple of years. Families making $30,000 will
benefit. They will end up lowering taxes for the first 2 years after
the implementation of this legislation. After 3 or 4 years, families
making $40,000 or less will be on the losing side. After 5 years,
families making $50,000 will be on the losing side. After 8 or 9 years,
families making as much as $75,000 will not be paying less taxes, they
will actually be paying more taxes.
Meanwhile, folks whose income is half a million, $1 million, or more,
for the most part will realize very substantial reductions in their
taxes--very substantial reductions--and as that income goes up, the
greater those reductions will be in their tax obligation. Some people
ask: Is that fair? It depends on whom you ask. If you happen to ask
people who are making $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 a year, maybe not.
It is fair for a while but not for long enough.
I mentioned the 8 years I served as Governor of our State and how we
balanced our budget to pay down debt and got an AAA credit rating. More
jobs were created in those 8 years than any 8 years in the history of
the State of Delaware. I did not create any of them. I did not create
one of them. I helped create a nurturing environment for job creation
in our State so that little businesses could get started and grow into
bigger businesses and bigger businesses could make a profit and hire
more people. The Tax Code is an important ingredient in nurturing an
environment for job creation and job preservation--not the only
ingredient but an important ingredient.
Senator Cardin stood right in front of me a little while ago and
talked about how important it is to have certainty and predictability.
That is almost as important as the tax rates, to actually know what we
are going to face and not face, the uncertainty of rates going up or
down and the rules changing in the years to come. But I would like to
run through a short list of other ingredients needed in the nurturing
environment that I don't believe we are addressing in these changes to
the Tax Code.
One is commonsense regulations, regulations that protect us, protect
our

[[Page S8133]]

health, our environment, and do so in a way that is cost-effective.
Another way to create a nurturing environment is to make sure that we
are producing, out of our high schools, colleges, universities, and
community colleges, people who can read, write, think, use math and
have technology skills in science and engineering. The inability to
come out of these schools and go to work in the millions of jobs that
are going unfilled these days is because the skill sets that are
demanded by employers for these millions of jobs are not met by the
people who are looking for work, for the most part, except for about
800,000 people--the DACA folks who fill 800,000 of those 3 or 4 million
jobs that are unfilled.
What is another ingredient? Access to capital, the ability of a
business to get money, to raise money to be able to invest in plant and
equipment and in employees in the workforce.
Another is access to foreign markets to be able to sell the products
or the services we provide to other countries around the world, get
into those markets.
Another is energy costs. My colleague from Alaska said in his
comments that one of the things we ought to be in America is the
superpower of energy. Who invented nuclear energy? We did. We are the
Saudi Arabia of coal. We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. We
create, as far as I know, as much electricity from wind and solar as I
think any nation on Earth, and we need to do a whole lot more, and we
can.
With regard to healthcare costs, we pay way too much money for
healthcare in this country. Actually, we have a pretty good idea of how
to bring it down. One of those good ideas is the exchanges, and if we
stop undermining them and degrading them and destabilizing them, they
would actually work like they do in Massachusetts and a bunch of other
States.
Public safety is a key ingredient among the forces and factors that
are helpful in creating that nurturing environment.
Investing in research and development that could be commercialized in
terms of jobs and economic opportunity is hugely important.
There is also protecting intellectual property, protecting against
cyber attacks, transportation, infrastructure. Earlier this year, the
Nation's Society of Civil Engineers evaluated our transportation
infrastructure in this country, and again this year, D--``d'' as in
dog--because our roads, highways, and bridges are in deplorable shape
in many parts of this country. Did we invest any money in that in this
tax bill? If I had $1 trillion to invest in this country to strengthen
our economy, I would put it in infrastructure, roads, highways,
bridges, ports, airports, broadband, just deploying broadband in vast
areas of the country and rural areas of the country where we don't have
access to the internet. That is what I would do. We don't do any of
that in this legislation.
In terms of economic growth and job creation, what we are told by
most economists is, sadly, a lot of companies will make extra money
from--realize greater profits from the changes in the Tax Code, the
majority of them. According not to me but to economists who are a lot
smarter than I, a good deal of that money is not going to further
investments in plant and equipment, not into their workforce, it will
be turned into dividends and stock buybacks and not to create the kind
of economic growth we all want.
Let me talk a minute about the third question I always ask about tax
reform proposals; that is, does it simplify the Tax Code or make it
more complex?

During our markup, our vote, and debate in the Finance Committee on
the proposals, one of my colleagues--I think it was Senator McCaskill--
had a stack about this tall of the Federal Tax Code. One of our expert
witnesses from the Joint Tax Committee was asked: Will this legislation
that is before us tonight actually make that stack of books that make
up the Tax Code--is it going to make it smaller?
He said: No, quite the opposite--it is going to make it larger. Now,
the idea of doubling the standard deduction, enabling more people to
not have to itemize their taxes--that makes the Tax Code simpler. That
is a good idea. But overall, when you look at all the other changes in
this legislation, that stack which represents the Tax Code is not going
to go down; ultimately it is going to go up.
Those are not my words but the testimony from the Joint Tax
Committee.
Lastly, what is going to be the effect of these tax changes? What is
going to be the effect on the budget deficit? And here is where I think
we really missed the boat. When Bill Clinton became President in 1993,
we were in a deficit. We were in a recession, and he became President.
Eight years later, when he turned the reins over to George W. Bush--in
those 8 years, more jobs were created than in any 8-year period in the
history of the United States. On top of that, in the last 4 years of
that administration--1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001--we had a balanced
budget and a surplus. When the reins of leadership were turned over to
the next administration, George W. Bush's, I think CBO was forecasting
a budget surplus of at least $5 billion, probably more. There was a
concern that we were actually growing the surplus too fast.
Well, it didn't take too long for the surpluses to be eliminated, and
when that administration came to an end, we were in the worst economic
recession since the Great Depression. We called it the great recession.
We went from 4 years of surpluses to the worst economy since 1930. That
is what Barack Obama and Joe Biden and a new Congress in 2009
inherited.
I know some of my colleagues think that there has not been any kind
of economic recovery. Just look at where we were in 2008 and 2009. For
the last 8 years, we have had economic growth and job creation for 8
consecutive years. I don't think we have ever seen that kind of
sustained economic growth in the history of our country.
Instead of paying down debt after 8 years of economic growth and job
creation, we actually, last year, increased the deficit by $666
billion. With this legislation, we are going to add another roughly $2
trillion to our debt over the next 10 years.
This is a missed opportunity, folks. It doesn't have to be this way.
There are good ideas in this legislation. The corporate tax rate is too
high. Let's bring it down. I am for that. The standard deduction ought
to be doubled. I think Democrats are for that. The child tax credit
ought to be increased, maybe doubled, made refundable to help lower
income families too. I am for that. The capital gains rate maintained
where it is--I am for that. The repatriation of overseas profits--I am
for that. There are a lot of things I think could actually serve as a
foundation on which we could come to an agreement on bipartisan
legislation. As far as I am concerned, we never really had a fair
chance.
I will close with an African proverb. My friend Senator Scott is
about to follow me, and he has heard me say this before. The old
African proverb says: If you want to go fast, travel alone. If you want
to go far, travel together.
If you want to go fast, travel alone. If you want to go far, travel
together. We should have traveled this road together. If we had, we
would have maybe some short-term pain but long-term gain. But I fear
that with this legislation, it will be just the opposite. There will be
some short-term gain but I figure, in the long run, long-term pain.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and will pass it on to my
friend from South Carolina.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate for a
long time, and I have to admit it has been interesting, but it has been
prolonged way beyond where it should have been.
My friends on the other side make much about this process, demeaning
the Members and staff who really put it together.
This bill was marked up in the Finance Committee. It is the first
reconciliation bill to be processed in committee in the Senate in over
12 years. During that period, Democrats held power for 8 of those
years; Republicans, 4 of those years.
The reconciliation bill that made up part of the Affordable Care Act
never went through the Finance Committee. That reconciliation bill
never went through any real Senate process. To be fair, the Affordable
Care Act repeal bill that my side proposed didn't go

[[Page S8134]]

through the Finance Committee either. As difficult as it was, as
chairman, I put out a chairman's mark, modified it, permitted debate
and amendments, and put it to a vote, all in conformity with committee
rules. We had a full Senate debate, amendments, and votes. So I don't
want to hear tonight or at any time that the process deteriorated. It
didn't deteriorate.
Mr. BROWN. Will Senator Hatch yield for a question?
Mr. HATCH. No, not just yet. I am going to finish these remarks.
I am going to insert in the Record an analysis of winners and losers.
The analysis is dated today. It was produced by the nonpartisan Joint
Committee on Taxation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BROWN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I would just
like to ask Senator Hatch a question.
Mr. HATCH. I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BROWN. I want to state my objection. There is objection, Mr.
President. I would like to state my objection. May I state the reason
for my objection?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, then I will withhold the unanimous consent
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, may I state the reason for my objection?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have just withdrawn the request. I will
insert it later when it is more expeditious to do it.
The announcements I have been talking about is dated today, and it
was produced by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. I would
like to put it in the Record. We will do that, if we can. I hope my
colleague will allow me to do that, and I will ask consent that it be
put in the Record.
That analysis shows that middle-income taxpayers are winners. That
nonpartisan data shows--sorry, my writing is not too good here--well,
it shows that they are winners, and that is the clear impact of this
bill. That data cuts through the rhetorical fog generated by my friends
on the other side.
My friends on the other side focus on the year 2027--10 years from
now--when, guess what, that is the year past the sunset of tax cuts on
the individual side. Focus on the years the cuts are in effect, and you
will see the middle class are really winners. There is no question
about it if you focus on it.
I ask unanimous consent that this report, ``A Distribution of Returns
by the Size of the Tax Change for the Conference Agreement for H.R. 1,
the `Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,' '' by the Joint Committee on Taxation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

A DISTRIBUTION OF RETURNS BY THE SIZE OF THE TAX CHANGE FOR THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT FOR H.R. 1, THE ``TAX CUTS
AND JOBS ACT''
[Calendar Year 2019]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of Returns
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Decrease Tax Increase
INCOME CATERGORY (2) ---------------------------- Tax Change ---------------------------
Greater Than Less than Greater Than
$500 $100-$500 $100 $100-$500 $500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000......................... 0.7% 3.5% 95.6% 0.1% 0.1%
$10,000 to $20,000........................ 5.6% 38.9% 52.4% 0.4% 2.7%
$20,000 to $30,000........................ 17.2% 30.5% 47.1% 1.0% 4.1%
$30,000 to $40,000........................ 30.1% 32.0% 32.4% 1.9% 3.7%
$40,000 to $50,000........................ 51.2% 21.7% 20.2% 2.8% 4.2%
$50,000 to $75,000........................ 67.7% 14.7% 10.2% 2.8% 4.6%
$75,000 to $100,000....................... 77.8% 10.4% 4.1% 3.0% 4.8%
$100,000 to $200,000...................... 87.0% 4.1% 1.7% 2.0% 5.1%
$200,000 to $500,000...................... 93.0% 1.8% 0.6% 0.9% 3.7%
$500,000 to $1,000,000.................... 93.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 5.9%
$1,000,000 and over....................... 85.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 13.8%
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, All Taxpayers.................. 48.3% 17.2% 28.9% 1.7% 3.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
(1) This table is a distributional analysis of the proposal in revenue table JCX-67-17, excluding the following
sections: I. Tax Reform for Individuals: D.4.-.7., E.1D.-E.2., F., and 1.2-1.13. Under section H., the
distributional analysis does not income the effect of the cost-sharing reductions and change in Medicaid
spending.
(2) The income concept used to place tax returns into income categories is adjusted gross income (AGI) plus: [1]
tax-exempt interest, [2] employer contributions for health plans and life insurance, [3] employer share of
FICA tax, [4] worker's compensation, [5] nontaxable Social Security benefits, [6] insurance value of Medicare
benefits, [7] alternative minimum tax preference items, [8] individual share of business taxes, and [9]
excluded income of U.S. citizens living abroad. Categories are measured at 2017 levels.
(3) The categories reflecting the size of tax change are indexed for inflation.

A DISTRIBUTION OF RETURNS BY THE SIZE OF THE TAX CHANGE FOR THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT FOR H.R. 1, THE ``TAX CUTS
AND JOBS ACT''
[Calendar Year 2021]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of Returns
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Decrease Tax Increase
INCOME CATEGORY (2) ---------------------------- Tax Change ---------------------------
Greater Than Less than Greater Than
$500 $100-$500 $100 $100-$500 $500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000......................... 0.4% 2.4% 96.8% 0.1% 0.2%
$10,000 to $20,000........................ 5.8% 33.2% 55.1% 0.7% 5.1%
$20,000 to $30,000........................ 14.6% 27.7% 49.0% 1.4% 7.2%
$30,000 to $40,000........................ 25.2% 28.9% 36.4% 2.5% 7 0%
$40,000 to $50,000........................ 45.6% 21.2% 22.5% 3.3% 7.4%
$50,000 to $75,000........................ 61.7% 15.2% 12.3% 3.6% 7.2%
$75,000 to $100,000....................... 72.2% 12.2% 5.0% 3.9% 6.7%
$100,000 to $200,000...................... 82.4% 5.2% 2.1% 3.0% 7.3%
$200,000 to $500,000...................... 88.5% 2.5% 1.1% 1.8% 6.1%
$500,000 to $1,000,000.................... 90.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 8.4%
$1,000,000 and over....................... 80.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 18.8%
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, All Taxpayers.................. 44.8% 16.2% 30.5% 2.3% 6.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
(1) This table is a distributional analysis of the proposal in revenue table JCX-67-17, excluding the following
sections: I. Tax Reform for Individuals: D.4.-D.7., E.1.-E.2., F., and I.2.-1.13. Under section H., the
distributional analysis does not income the effect of the cost-sharing reductions and change in Medicaid
spending.
(2) The income concept used to place tax returns into income categories is adjusted gross income (AGI) plus: [1]
tax-exempt interest, [2] employer contributions for health plans and life insurance, [3] employer share of
FICA tax, [4] worker's compensation, [5] nontaxable Social Security benefits, [6] insurance value of Medicare
benefits, [7] alternative minimum tax preference items, [8] individual share of business taxes, and [9]
excluded income of U.S. citizens living abroad. Categories are measured at 2017 levels.
(3) The categories reflecting the size of tax change are indexed for inflation.

[[Page S8135]]

A DISTRIBUTION OF RETURNS BY THE SIZE OF THE TAX CHANGE FOR THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT FOR H.R. 1, THE ``TAX CUTS
AND JOBS ACT''
[Calendar Year 2023]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of Returns
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Decrease Tax Increase
INCOME CATEGORY (2) ---------------------------- Tax Change ---------------------------
Greater Than Less than Greater Than
$500 $100-$500 $100 $100-$500 $500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000......................... 0.2% 2.0% 96.9% 0.6% 0.3%
$10,000 to $20,000........................ 5.1% 29.2% 56.4% 4.3% 5.0%
$20,000 to $30,000........................ 13.1% 26.6% 50.6% 2.7% 7.0%
$30,000 to $40,000........................ 19.8% 28.6% 40.3% 3.7% 7.5%
$40,000 to $50,000........................ 39.9% 20.0% 27.2% 4.9% 8.0%
$50,000 to $75,000........................ 54.8% 15.2% 15.7% 5.5% 8.8%
$75,000 to $100,000....................... 63.1% 14.6% 7.4% 5.3% 9.7%
$100,000 to $200,000...................... 73.6% 6.4% 3.1% 4.6% 12.3%
$200,000 to $500,000...................... 70.1% 3.6% 2.1% 2.8% 13.4%
$500,000 to $1,000,000.................... 83.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.8% 15.2%
$1,000,000 and over....................... 65.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 32.0%
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, All Taxpayers.................. 39.7% 16.0% 32.2% 4.0% 8.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
(1) This table is a distributional analysis of the proposal in revenue table JCX-67-17, excluding the following
sections: I. Tax Reform for Individuals D.4.-D.7., E.1.-E.2., F., and I.2.-I.13. Under section H., the
distributional analysis does not income the effect of the cost-sharing reductions and change in Medicaid
spending.
(2) The income concept used to place tax returns into income categories is adjusted gross income (AGI) plus: [1]
tax-exempt interest, [2] employer contributions for health plans and life insurance, [3] employer share of
FICA tax, [4] worker's compensation, [5] nontaxable Social Security benefits, [6] insurance value of Medicare
benefits, [7] alternative minimum tax preference items, [8] individual share of business taxes, and [9]
excluded income of U.S. citizens living abroad. Categories are measured at 2017 levels.
(3) The categories reflecting the size of tax change are indexed for inflation.

A DISTRIBUTION OF RETURNS BY THE SIZE OF THE TAX CHANGE FOR THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT FOR H.R. 1, THE ``TAX CUTS
AND JOBS ACT''
[Calendar Year 2025]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of Returns----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Decrease Tax Increase
INCOME CATEGORY (2) ---------------------------- Tax Change ---------------------------
Greater Than Less than Greater Than
$500 $100-500 $100 $100-500 $500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000......................... 0.3% 3.3% 95.6% 0.6% 0.3%
$10,000 to $20,000........................ 6.1% 29.4% 55.2% 4.3% 4.9%
$20,000 to $30,000........................ 13.8% 25.8% 50.0% 3.4% 7.0%
$30,000 to $40,000........................ 19.7% 26.9% 41.8% 4.3% 7.4%
$40,000 to $50,000........................ 38.9% 18.2%- 29.0% 5.6% 8.3%
$50,000 to $75,000........................ 53.0% 15.2% 16.2% 6.2% 9.5%
$75,000 to $100,000....................... 61.4% 14.5% 7.3% 6.0% 10.9%
$100,000 to $200,000...................... 70.7% 6.8% 3.1% 5.1% 14.4%
$200,000 to $500,000...................... 75.1% 3.8% 1.8% 3.3% 16.0%
$500,000 to $1,000,000.................... 80.2% 0.8% 0.6% 0.8% 17.6%
$1,000,000 and over....................... 63.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.8% 35.0%
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, All Taxpayers.................. 38.9% 15.8%- 31.9% 4.4% 8.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
(1) This table is a distributional analysis of the proposal in revenue table JCX-67-17, excluding the following
sections: I. Tax Reform for Individuals: D.4.-D.7., E.1-E.2., F., and 1.2.-1.13. Under section H., the
distributional analysis does not income the effect of the cost-sharing reductions and change in Medicaid
spending.
(2) The income concept used to place tax returns into income categories is adjusted gross income (AGI) plus: [1]
tax-exempt interest, [2] employer contributions for health plans and life insurance, [3] employer share of
FICA tax, [4] worker's compensation, [5] nontaxable Social Security benefits, [6] insurance value of Medicare
benefits, [7] alternative minimum tax preference items, [8] individual share of business taxes, and [9]
excluded income of U.S. citizens living abroad. Categories are measured at 2017 levels.
(3) The categories reflecting the size of tax change are indexed for inflation.

A DISTRIBUTION OF RETURNS BY THE SIZE OF THE TAX CHANGE FOR THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT FOR H.R. 1, THE ``TAX CUTS
AND JOBS ACT''
[Calendar Year 2027]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of Returns
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Decrease Tax Increase
Income Category (2) ---------------------------- Tax Change ---------------------------
Greater Less than Greater
Than $500 $100-$500 $100 $100-$500 Than $500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000......................... 0.3% 1.1% 96.6% 1.8% 0.2%
$10,000 to $20,000........................ 1.9% 1.4% 72.9% 19.8% 3.9%
$20,000 to $30,000........................ 3.4% 2.3% 72.0% 17.2% 5.1%
$30,000 to $40,000........................ 4.9% 4.8% 69.4% 14.6% 6.3%
$40,000 to $50,000........................ 6.2% 7.0% 65.6% 14.6% 6.6%
$50,000 to $75,000........................ 6.0% 10.9% 61.5% 15.0% 6.6%
$75,000 to $100,000....................... 8.9% 17.8% 54.2% 13.5% 5.6%
$100,000 to $200,000...................... 16.2% 24.2% 34.1% 17.8% 7.7%
$200,000 to $500,000...................... 32.8% 18.1% 15.3% 17.6% 16.2%
$500,000 to $1,000,000.................... 54.7% 7.9% 4.5% 7.3% 25.6%
$1,000,000 and over....................... 58.2% 2.4% 1.1% 1.9% 36.4%
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, All Taxpayers.................. 8.6% 10.4% 59.9% 14.8% 6.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
(1) This table is a distributional analysis of the proposal in revenue table JCX-67-17, excluding the following
sections: I. Tax Reform for Individuals: D.4.-D.7., E.1.-E.2., F., and I.2.-I.13. Under section H., the
distributional analysis does not income the effect of the cost-sharing reductions and change in Medicaid
spending.
(2) The income concept used to place tax returns into income categories is adjusted gross income (AGI) plus: [1]
tax-exempt interest, [2] employer contributions for health plans and life insurance, [3] employer share of
FICA tax, [4] worker's compensation, [5] nontaxable Social Security benefits, [6] insurance value of Medicare
benefits, [7] alternative minimum tax preference items, [8] individual share of business taxes, and [9]
excluded income of U.S. citizens living abroad. Categories are measured at 2017 levels.
(3) The categories reflecting the size of tax change are indexed for inflation.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, we have had an opportunity for the last
several hours to go back and forth to debate the benefits or the
negatives of this bill. This is a historic night for America 31 years
in the making. If you are watching this debate at home, you might be a
little confused. As Democrats and Republicans continue to talk about
the same bill using very different perspectives, folks must be
wondering where is the truth.
I would like to spend a few minutes clarifying some of the important
points, some of the misinformation that is coming from the left. First,
this is not a healthcare bill. Our friends on the left have suggested
that somehow, some way this bill will eliminate coverage for millions
and millions of

[[Page S8136]]

Americans, and they will lose their coverage. The only thing this bill
actually does is it eliminates the penalty for those folks who decide
not to buy health insurance. In other words, this bill reduces the tax
burden on families who are working paycheck to paycheck. One-third of
the families who pay the penalty are families who make less than
$25,000, and 80 percent of the folks who pay the penalty make less than
$50,000. Contrary to popular belief on the left, no one loses their
insurance, but they will have the option to do what is in their
family's best interest, what is in the individual's best interest.
We have sought for ways to work with our friends on the other side
because we know this legislation is not about the Republican Party, it
is not about conservatives, nor is it about liberals. It is about
Americans--Americans who for too long have worked too hard and have
seen too little in their paychecks.
The government does not create jobs. No matter what either side says,
we don't create jobs, but we can, through this tax reform package,
increase take-home pay by taking less out. Now, some may ask the
question, What does that mean taking less out? Well, for your average,
single parent in America who makes the average income of $41,000, as my
good friend from Alaska already stated, that individual household will
see about a 73-percent cut in their taxes. Said differently, that means
an increase in their take-home pay.
Now, I was thinking about folks back at home in South Carolina--one
person in particular--Sherrie, who is a single mother with two kids and
trying to start a new business. Here is an opportunity to have just a
little more margin at the end of each pay period--$1,300. These are
real dollars, and my friends on the left seem to suggest that a 73-
percent cut in the typical single-parent household's tax burden is not
an increase.
Well, the story continues. For the average family in America making
$73,000, they are looking at a tax cut of 58 percent--over $2,000 more
in their paycheck. When I talk to my friends who are typical
Americans--Michelle and Joe living in South Carolina, working hard,
raising two beautiful kids--having a 60-percent cut in their taxes is
real middle-class relief.
This is a bill that delivers, and the good news is, only in about 7
or 8 weeks, the average American will have an answer to which side is
right; is it the left or is it the right? The fact is, they will be
able to take a look in their own paychecks and determine for themselves
the benefits of this tax cut.
When we think about the things we should be working on to restore
confidence that the average person has lost in the government, we do
that by making sure our tax proposal speaks to the average family. So
we do double the standard deduction for individuals from $6,300 to
$12,000; for single-parent households from $9,300 to $18,000; and for
two-earner households, we essentially create a zero-percent tax bracket
for folks living at the Federal poverty level of $24,000. By doubling
the standard deduction to $24,000, we have essentially created a zero-
percent tax bracket.
The good news is, it gets better. For those folks with children in
the house where your child tax credit used to be $1,000, now the child
tax credit is $2,000, with 70 percent of that amount being refundable--
an increase from what it used to be.
So many folks on the other side have talked about whether this is
simplification, but when 95 out of 100 tax filers can simply use the
standard deduction, it means that, yes, on the back of a clean piece of
paper, someone can determine their tax burden. This is good news. Of
the 6 billion hours spent annually doing their taxes, we are going to
cut that number down significantly.
For our friends living in blue States where the SALT, State and local
tax, debate has been so important, we have decided to sweeten the SALT
solution by allowing a hybrid of either your property taxes or income
taxes to be used within that $10,000 threshold.
We have even made it easier through 529 plans to prepare and to pay
for education, K-12, as well as college.
The one thing I will say that we have heard a lot of from our friends
on the other side--and you will hear more of it tonight--it is FEAR. It
is an acronym that means false evidence appearing real. It is not the
truth, but fear sells. It seems as though my friends on the other side
have decided, if you just keep saying it, it must be true, and over and
over and over--and we will hear it more when I am finished--there are
folks demonizing this legislation.
The facts are simple, and Senator Cardin said it himself. I wrote it
down when he said it because I was like: Wow. That is a clear, concise,
true statement. Senator Cardin said major tax relief for families, our
bill.
We are on the verge of resetting American competitiveness. By
lowering our corporate tax rate, we will allow the jobs of the future
to be created here at home. With a 20-percent cut in your qualified
business income, we will see small businesses prospering, and when they
prosper, they will hire more folks. When I was in the gym this past
weekend, a small business owner who runs a battery company with seven
employees said, on January 1, he is hiring a new person.
A survey done of 7,000 manufacturers, the vast majority said that
with this tax cut, they will hire more people, they will increase
wages, and they will improve benefits. This is good news from a global
perspective, this is good news from a small business perspective, and
this is good news from an individual perspective.
It is time for us to complete the people's business and vote yes for
tax cuts, vote yes for an improved business climate, and vote yes for a
global competition where American companies and American workers are
winning.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, one thing is for sure, this is not the
people's business. This is the business of the powerful and privileged.
Well, this is really a bank heist. How big is this bank heist? Well, it
is about $3 trillion being delivered to the very richest Americans.
Let's add it up. Changing the tax brackets for those who earn more than
$200,000, $673 billion; changing the individual alternative minimum tax
which only affects the very wealthy, $637 billion; changing the estate
tax, $83 billion; changing the corporate tax rate, most of which goes
to the advantage of the wealthiest Americans, $1.35 trillion; changing
the corporate AMT, $40 billion; and the passthrough legislation that
favors the wealthiest LLCs, $414 billion. Add it all up, and it is well
over $3 trillion. There it is--$3 trillion. It is $3 trillion for the
very richest Americans.

Is that the middle-class tax cut? Think about how much this is per
person here in the United States of America. About $8,000 per person in
America is being taxed so they can give $3 trillion to the very richest
Americans. Is that a fair, square deal?
What if we were to spend $3 trillion on the middle class? What if we
were to do that? What if we were to invest a trillion dollars of it in
infrastructure? It creates a lot of jobs today, and it creates the
foundation for a lot of jobs tomorrow and the year after.
What if we were to spend a trillion dollars on healthcare? We could
go a long way in terms of greatly amplifying the success and quality of
the work from our community health clinics--making sure, basically,
that healthcare is a fundamental, affordable right for every American.
We can do a lot on healthcare with a trillion dollars.
What could we do, I ask my Republican friends, with $1 trillion in
education? How about spending $500 billion to strengthen our K-12
system and another $500 billion to strengthen and to make college
affordable for every single American?
This $3 trillion this bill gives to the richest Americans is the
biggest bank heist not just in American history but in the history of
the world, happening here tonight and brought to us by the powerful and
the privileged.
This is absolutely unacceptable. While the rich gloat over all the
gold they are piling up--3 trillion dollars' worth--middle-class
Americans get coal in their stocking. This tax scam so favors the
wealthy that 83 percent of the benefits goes to the richest 1 percent.
Is that the middle-class bill? I don't think so.
This bill sends jobs overseas, hurting middle-class Americans.

[[Page S8137]]

This bill increases our national deficit and our national debt,
making it much harder to have programs that provide a foundation for
families to thrive.
This bill destroys healthcare for 13 million Americans. Analyst after
analyst says it will also raise insurance premiums for everyone else
who buys healthcare. Wow, talk about clobbering the middle class by
destroying healthcare for 13 million people and raising the premiums on
healthcare for everyone else buying insurance.
So over here, we have the pile of gold--$3 trillion for the richest
Americans--and over here, we have the loss of jobs shipped overseas. We
have the increased price of healthcare. We have 13 million American
people losing their healthcare.
Then we have the second phase of the Republican plan, which was
announced by the Speaker of the House last week. This week we pass $3
trillion for the wealthiest Americans, but what do we do after that? We
go after Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. That is the plan we
heard from the Speaker of the House.
This is a diabolical bill. This is an abomination in a government of,
by, and for the people.
How does it come to pass that we even have this bill under
consideration? I will tell you how. It is a cycle of campaign
corruption. Megabillionaires fund the campaigns for the Senate and then
have people come in here to pass this bank heist for the billionaires.
That is the cycle--Citizens United allowing unlimited funds invested by
third-party campaigns. Corruption in campaigns produced this tax scam,
this bank heist, this abomination against the people of the United
States of America.
Now, Oregon has about 1 percent of the population in the United
States. So what would be their share if we would, instead, invest that
$3 trillion in infrastructure, healthcare, and education? For Oregon,
that would be $30 billion. That is 30,000 $1 million grants to invest
in infrastructure that is needed all over our State, to invest in more
teachers all over our State, and to invest in lower cost tuition so
every child can go to a public university without debt.
But that is not what we have tonight--no. My friend across the aisle
says that we are going to wave the magic wand and we are going to give
all this money--all of this gold, all this $3 trillion--to the richest
Americans, and jobs are going to automatically appear. But it has been
analyzed by the experts. They say this barely increases the growth of
the economy--just a smidgeon, almost immeasurable.
Then, there are these countereffects. You have the challenge that
this bill will create a lot of money for companies that are going to
buy machines to replace people who work--accelerating the automation in
America that destroys jobs. This bill is going to send jobs overseas,
destroying the foundation for success for millions of American
families. This money is going to be used for stock buybacks and
dividends, enhancing the wealth of the already wealthy. That is why the
experts say this is not going to create a phenomenal growth in our
economy, a phenomenal number of jobs.
I would like to see us fight for middle-class Americans, fight for
infrastructure and jobs, fight for healthcare, and fight for education.
These are the foundations for thriving families, but that is not what
we have tonight, and that is why anyone who believes in government of,
by, and for the people should defeat this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, tonight the Senate will vote on a tax bill
that will provide large corporations and wealthy individuals with a
massive tax cut. The bill will result in well over $1 trillion in debt
that will be passed on to our children and our grandchildren.
The bill will result in dramatically lower taxes for people who earn
their living off of stocks and investments, for people who inherit
millions of dollars from their parents, and for the CEOs of
multinational companies. By the time the bill is fully implemented, it
will lead to higher taxes and higher healthcare costs for millions of
hard-working Americans who show up each and every day to do their job
and to earn a living.
This bill we are voting on today was written in secret in an entirely
partisan fashion, without input from nearly half of the Senate.
But it didn't have to be this way. If we wanted to give middle-class
families a real tax cut, we could have. Instead, we are voting on a
bill that has benefits for middle-class families that will expire just
to pay for permanent tax cuts given to multinational corporations.
If we wanted to reform the Tax Code, to take away loopholes for
offshoring our jobs, and to help create good-paying jobs here in the
United States, we could have. Instead, we are voting on a bill that
does nothing to target offshoring or job creation.
What will it do? Well, CEOs have told us directly that they are going
to buy back stock, which mostly benefits the wealthiest shareholders
and the CEOs with stock options.
When we know that over a third of the stocks that trade on the market
are held by foreign investors--foreign investors are holding half of
the value of the stock market--it is just impossible to argue that this
bill is focused on Michigan families.
If we wanted to make the Tax Code simpler for small businesses, we
could have. Instead, we are voting on a bill that includes some of the
most complicated provisions you could possibly imagine for a small
business owner.
If we really wanted to tackle our fiscal challenges in a responsible
way, we could have. Instead, we are voting on the most fiscally
irresponsible bill that I have ever voted on, adding $1.5 trillion to
the debt that our children and grandchildren will be responsible for,
all while doing next to nothing for middle-class families.
This is not the way we are supposed to make policy in this country.
The bill that is on the floor tonight is here without any hearings. We
didn't hear from a single expert on the specifics of the bill--not a
single economist, not a single small business owner, not a single
middle-class family. It is simply wrong.
I urge my colleagues to vote no and to defeat this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, we need bipartisan tax reform. We
should simplify our Tax Code. It has been filled over many years with
all sorts of junk that was put there by high-powered lobbyists, rather
than because of the public interests.
Unfortunately, this bill has nothing to do with tax reform. In fact,
it is hard to believe you could take a tax code that is already stacked
in favor of the very wealthy and the very powerful and make it even
more favorable to the very wealthy and very powerful, but that is
exactly what this Republican tax plan does.
Exhibit A about how this has nothing to do with tax reform has to do
with the carried interest loophole. Many may recall that during the
last campaign, whenever Candidate Trump talked about the need to reform
the Tax Code, what was his No. 1 example? He said: We have to get rid
of the carried interest loophole for hedge fund managers. Go back and
run the tape. Every time somebody asked him what was broken about the
Tax Code, that is what he said. In fact, he said:

The hedge fund guys are getting away with murder. They're
making a tremendous amount of money. They have to pay taxes.

That was Candidate Donald Trump.
Well, here we are. Shortly, we are going to vote on the final
Republican tax plan. And guess what. In a tax plan that is over 500
pages, nowhere do they get rid of the carried interest loophole for
hedge fund managers. Hedge fund managers are still going to get a
better tax rate than the people who work for them--a better tax rate
than their secretaries and a better tax rate than their assistants. So
in Candidate Trump's words, in this tax bill, it looks like those hedge
fund managers are still ``getting away with murder.''
That is why it is a farce to call this tax reform. It is stacking the
Tax Code more in favor of the very wealthy and the very powerful. In
fact, if you are a millionaire in America, you are going to get an
average annual tax cut of $70,000. That is great if you are a
millionaire. At the same time, millions of middle-class taxpayers are
going to pay more.

[[Page S8138]]

The folks who get the biggest windfall are big corporations. Their
tax rate will go from 35 percent to 21 percent. Who are these folks?
Well, primarily, they are the folks who are already the wealthiest
people in this country, but I bet a lot of people will be surprised to
learn that 35 percent of the stockholders in those American
corporations are foreign stockholders. Thirty-five percent of the folks
who have stock in these companies are foreigners.
In the year 2019, foreign stockholders are going to get a $48 billion
windfall from that big corporate tax cut. In that same year, 11 million
Americans will pay more taxes. So money out of the pockets of middle-
class American families will go into the bank accounts of foreign
stockholders. That doesn't sound like America first to me. It doesn't
sound like middle-class taxpayers first to me.

In fact, I want my colleagues to see just how skewed this tax bill
is. I mentioned that about 11 million Americans are going to see their
taxes go up right away, but if you take the tax cut for every working-
class family in every State Donald Trump won in the last election and
you add up all of their tax cuts, it is still $5 billion less than what
foreign stockholders get in the year 2019.
Think about that. These are families who make about $100,000 or less.
If you take the tax cut that every family in every State that Donald
Trump won, and you add them all up, all those tax cuts, it still comes
out to less than foreign stockholders are going to get in the year
2019.
I will tell you, when the American public finds out what is in this
tax plan, they are going to get madder and madder. I heard Speaker Ryan
say: Well, people are going to see the result, and they are going to
like it. The more they see the results, the madder they are going to
get. Here is the thing, it gets worse with time. There are some things
that do well over time; this gets worse.
When this bill fully kicks in, the tax cuts for American families
expire. They are small, relatively, to start with, then they expire,
but the tax cuts for corporations, they are big and they are forever.
You know what that means. That means those foreign stockholders are
going to have their tax cuts go on forever.
In fact, when this fully kicks in 10 years from now, those foreign
stockholders are going to get a $23 billion windfall in that year, but
average American families making $75,000 or less--$75,000 or less--on
average, are going to see their taxes go up. They will see their taxes
go up when this fully kicks in to give that windfall to foreign
stockholders.
That is a bad deal for America. It is a bad deal for the middle
class. We should say no to this tax bill. We should start over and do
real tax reform that benefits middle-class families and those working
their way into the middle class.
This is not it. Let's start over. Let's vote this down.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, tonight is a momentous evening, but it is
also a sad evening. It is a momentous evening because the Senate is on
the verge of passing historic tax cuts that are designed to bring back
jobs and economic growth, to create millions of new jobs, to raise
wages, and to cut the taxes on working families, but it is a sad day
because it is a day of a demonstration of Democratic partisanship that
is ill-befitting for the institution that is the U.S. Senate.
For two centuries, tax reform has been a bipartisan endeavor. For two
centuries, Democrats have been willing to work with Republicans on
cutting taxes.
In 1981 and in 1986, when Ronald Reagan enacted historic tax reforms
and tax cuts, Democrats participated. Indeed, a Democrat, Tip O'Neill,
was Speaker of the House. In the House, then a conservative Democrat,
Bill Graham, carried the Ronald Reagan tax cuts. In the Senate, in
1986, one of the leaders was then a liberal Democrat, Bill Bradley,
from New Jersey.
Those Democrats, the so-called conservative Democrats, the Democrats
interested in cutting taxes on working men and women have disappeared
from this institution.
When the House first passed tax cuts, zero Democrats voted for it--
zero--not a single Democrat in the entire body. When the Senate passed
tax cuts, zero Democrats passed it. We can expect tonight not a single
Democrat will break from party discipline. Why? Because they are so
united in their rage at President Trump that they are willing to tell
middle-class voters in their State: We don't care.
Tonight every Democrat is going to vote against doubling the child
tax credit. If you are a single mom at home and you have three kids,
right now the child tax credit is $1,000. In just a couple of weeks, it
is going to double to $2,000 per kid, which means $6,000 in tax credit
in your pocket, and every single Democrat in this body is going to say
to the single moms: Tough luck. We aren't cutting your taxes. What a
sad statement.
We have seen floor speech after floor speech after floor speech where
Democrats claim this tax cut is going to raise your taxes. There used
to be a standard for veracity in this body, but the beautiful thing is,
when one political party makes representations to the American people
that aren't just a little bit wrong but are wildly outright falsehoods,
that tends to become public.
The beautiful thing is in January the American people are going to
see. So I am going to encourage the American people, in January, take a
look at your pay stubs. The Democrats are claiming wildly, falsely that
somehow your taxes are going to go up. Let me tell you, for virtually
every American taxpayer in this country, your taxes will go down.
In the Old Testament, when someone came forward and claimed he was a
prophet, the test the Old Testament provided is, if you claimed you
were a prophet, the people were to demand, make a short-term
prediction, and let's see if it comes true. Well, the Democrats have
made a short-term prediction. They told the American people: Your taxes
are going to go up. In January, take a look at it. I guarantee you, for
that single mom, when you look at the child tax credit, your taxes are
going down.
Every single income tax bracket is going down. Not only that, the
standard deduction that you could take is doubling for a couple from
$12,000 to $24,000. The first $24,000 you make, you pay zero, nothing,
nada. Yet the Democrats, with their friends, their compliant friends in
the media, have succeeded in scaring people to think a historic tax cut
is somehow a tax increase.
The beauty of it is, for every voter at home, determine if they are
telling the truth or if they are misleading you because they are so
filled with partisan animosity for the President that they can't vote
for a tax cut. It is a sad state of affairs.
Despite that, this bill is going to pass. Despite that, we are going
to see job creators, we are going to see farmers, we are going to see
ranchers, and we are going to see small businesses growing because the
taxes on each of them are going to go down. We are going to see the
taxes for working families go down.
By the way, there is one subset of people whose taxes will go up
under this, the rich people in high-tax Democratic States. The irony of
all the high dudgeon from our Democratic friends pounding the table
about this is a tax cut for the rich, the only people whose taxes are
going up are the really rich. The middle class, their taxes are all
going down. The working class, their taxes are going down. Every
taxpayer, their taxes are going down, except rich people in Manhattan
and San Francisco. Some of them, their taxes may go up.
You see this Kabuki theater of Senators on the Democratic aisle
pretending: We won't defend the rich people by claiming we are
defending the working class. Well, the facts are the facts are the
facts, and the facts are the taxes for the working class are going
down. Those are the facts, and you will see that.

I ask everyone watching at home, go look at your pay stub in January.
If they weren't telling the truth, if you see in your pay stub you are
paying less taxes, you ought to stop and ask: Gosh. Why did 48
Democrats in the Senate all tell me something that was false? Why did
they say something that is not true in my family?

[[Page S8139]]

It is even sadder than that. One of the most important elements of
this tax reform bill that we are getting ready to pass is an expansion
of educational opportunities for parents. It is an amendment I
introduced and this body passed. It was divided 50-50, and the Vice
President cast a tie-breaking vote. It expanded 529 college savings
plans.
Right now, 529 plans are immensely popular. Parents and grandparents
can save for college education for their kids and grandkids in a tax-
advantaged way. The amendment I introduced that this body adopted
expands 529 college savings plans to also include K-12 education, to
also include letting parents spend up to $10,000 per child per year
from a 529 plan on public school, on private school, on parochial
school, or on religious school, and as the amendment was passed, on
homeschools. It puts the parents in charge; it puts the grandparents in
charge, saving their own money--not taxpayer money--their own money.
It is the most significant Federal school choice legislation that has
ever passed the U.S. Congress.
You know what we are in the middle of, right? The Democrats have
raised an objection. They raised an objection to all of it. They were
horrified that a benefit could go to 50 million schoolkids, that
parents would be able to save for those schoolkids. They raised an
objection under the Byrd rule, which is an obscure procedure rule that
nobody at home knows what it is, but they objected to it. They said:
You can't benefit 50 million schoolkids.
Indeed, as we argued in front of the Senate Parliamentarian, one of
the arguments the Democrats said is: This is really popular with the
American people. We don't want to do something that is really popular
with the American people. This is a big policy change. They love 529
plans, and now the parents of 50 million schoolkids--schoolkids in
Texas and every other State--will be able to save for the education of
their kids, and that has the Democrats horrified because every single
Democrat voted against the parents in their State saving in a 529
system for K-12 education.
Well, the Senate Parliamentarian issued a ruling earlier tonight
rejecting most of the Democratic claims but, sadly, adopted one small
portion of it. I think that claim was an error. I think the
Parliamentarian's ruling is contrary to Federal rule.
Let me tell you what the Democrats are objecting to because there was
a moment for conscience to strike them. The Democrats' position--they
have raised a point of order. The Senator from Vermont stood up and
raised a point of order and said they want to exclude homeschoolers
from 529 plans. There are 1.8 million kids who are homeschooled right
now.
To every kid who is being homeschooled right now, to every parent, to
every mom who puts in the time--some dads but a lot of moms who put in
the time day after day after day homeschooling their kids, what every
Democrat is standing up to do right now is saying: We are going to
discriminate against homeschoolers. We are going to cut you out. Why?
Because the Democratic Party can't stand the audacity of a parent who
would take it upon himself or herself to educate their child free of
centralized control. So their point of order is to carve homeschoolers
out of this.
Now, one of the provisions they want to carve out is a provision that
says homeschooled students can pay from a 529 college savings account
for tutoring. Every Senate Democrat is getting ready to vote against
tutors for children at home.
Another provision they are objecting to that is going to be carved
out says that parents can pay for 529 plans for books, for additional
materials, can pay for a student in high school who is duly enrolled in
community college, can pay for that out of their own money in a tax
advantage plan. Do you know what the Democrats are saying? If you are a
student signed up in a community college, we, the Democratic Party,
object to you paying for that out of the tax advantage plan.
Let me tell you what is most striking, a provision the Democrats are
arguing to strike provides that parents with a child with disabilities
can pay for educational therapy from a 529 plan that is their own
savings that they put together, and the Democrats are saying to the
parents with kids with disabilities, no, you can't.
Let me ask my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, are you
prepared to look into the eyes of a kid with disability and explain why
you said you are cut out? Every other child in America has the ability
to have their tuition paid for from these 529 plans, but children with
disabilities being homeschooled, the Democrats--and not one, not two,
every single Democrat--stand united. Why? Because they can't stand the
President. They are angry at the President.
That is fine. If they are angry at the President, stand up and yell
at the President, but don't take it out on kids who are homeschooled.
Don't take it out on kids with disabilities. The Democrats have an
opportunity to demonstrate they are not going to punish children with
disabilities because of their partisan anger. We have right now a
motion to waive this mean-spirited, vindictive point of order that
discriminates against homeschoolers and carves out kids with
disabilities.

I would ask my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle--there are
going to be issues we disagree on, but the vote to allow parents of
children with disabilities to spend their own funds in a tax-advantaged
fund to provide for educational therapy for those kids with
disabilities--that ought to be 100 to nothing. All of us should agree
on that. We might disagree on other things, fine. The death tax, or as
Democrats like to call it, the estate tax--we can disagree on that. But
educating kids with disabilities--you are really standing up raising
that objection?
I would ask my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle: Don't do
that. Don't discriminate against the homeschoolers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield back all remaining time for the
majority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican time is yielded back.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the issue with the Cruz amendment is
straightforward. The Byrd rule states that the primary purpose of a
budget bill is to address spending and taxes. If, on the other hand,
you are debating a major policy change and the budget impact is merely
incidental, the provision just doesn't comply with the Byrd rule. That
is the case here.
The Cruz amendment has a modest budget impact, but the impact is
vastly outweighed by the profound impact, as a matter of social and
education policy, of providing Federal support for homeschooling for
the first time. In fact, last week, the Senator from Texas called his
section 529 homeschooling provision ``the most far-reaching Federal
school choice legislation bill ever passed.'' I agree with the
Senator's assessment of his amendment. The issue of Federal support for
homeschooling is, in fact, major policy. There is no question that
there are parents who want to homeschool their kids. I am certain that
many of them are very conscientious. Yet this is the first time the
Federal Government would provide Federal support for homeschooling.
That is why the Parliamentarian ruled against Senator Cruz.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Enzi motion to waive the
Byrd rule point of order, which we will vote on shortly.
I also want to close for the Finance Democrats on this tax issue with
some brief remarks. My colleague from Texas once again has been saying,
as many Republicans have done tonight: Middle-class folks, wait until
February. Your paychecks are going to be bulging.
Here are the facts. We just got them from the Joint Committee on
Taxation--a specific table that shows that 60 million taxpayers with an
annual income of $200,000 or less will get $100 a year in tax relief or
a tax increase. That looks to me like a third of all taxpayers are not
exactly going to have bulging paychecks the way we have heard from our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
The fact is that some of the rhetoric we have heard from Republican
colleagues tonight didn't sound half bad, so it is a real shame that
the rhetoric doesn't resemble the plan on paper.
As I indicated, this bill is not centered on a middle-class tax cut.
The

[[Page S8140]]

fleeting sugar high the bill provides offers some middle-class families
a modest amount of help, but it is basically a distraction from the
giveaways to the multinational corporations and powerful donors.
One of our Republican colleagues tonight repeated that if passed, the
deficit is going to drop when the bill is enacted. I just have to say
that fantasy is over. Even independent conservatives are saying that
there is no third alternate reality in which Republican tax bills
perform magic.
I want to close tonight by saying to the public that I would really
like to wrap this up with a warning: The American people should know
that the far-right architects of this tax plan are going to be coming
for your Social Security and Medicare before you take your Christmas
tree down. That is the end game. That is what Americans need to know is
coming next. And on this side of the aisle, we want the American people
to know that we are going to be on their side.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Ron Wyden
for the excellent job he has done in leading the opposition to this
bill. I am incredulous that someone on the other side of the aisle said
that this will decrease the deficit. That is just amazing. The lack of
factual fidelity for what is in the bill and what the other side is
saying is unparalleled--unparalleled. I want to thank Senator Wyden for
his valiant efforts in pointing that out. I want to thank Senator
Sanders and Senator Cantwell as well, the ranking members of our
committees, who worked so hard on this bill.
In closing, very soon the Senate will vote for the final time on the
Republican tax bill. When future generations look back at the short and
messy history of the Republican tax bill, its most enduring lesson will
be what it has taught us about how not to legislate. After only a few
months of frantic, backroom negotiations by only one party, we are left
with a product as sloppy and as partisan as the process used to draft
it. Even today, three provisions of the bill were found to violate
Senate rules. So now, all of a sudden, the House will have to vote
again tomorrow. That is a perfect microcosm of the hasty and reckless
process--can we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. SCHUMER. It is a perfect microcosm of the hasty and reckless
process that produced this legislation.
If my Republican friends think these are the only mistakes that will
be found in their bill, they are sorely mistaken. Many more will almost
certainly be unearthed. But the bigger issue is the failure of this
legislation to live up to each and every one of the promises made by
Republicans about what it would mean for our country.
What has been sold as a middle-class miracle will instead deliver a
hefty windfall to the wealthy and only paltry, temporary relief for
some in the middle class. Others will see an increase right from the
get-go. So all of the talk--no middle-class person will pay a tax
increase--gone, gone. And in a few years, a majority of the middle
class will see their taxes go up. What kind of middle-class relief is
that?
What has been sold as a deficit reducer will instead balloon the
deficit by at least $1.5 trillion, maybe more. Our children and
grandchildren will be asked to clean up the mess made tonight by our
Republican colleagues in their eagerness to give the very wealthy, the
very powerful corporations, a big tax break.
What has been sold as a bill to give people more freedom to choose
their healthcare will instead raise premiums and reduce the number of
Americans with health insurance by 13 million. The number of people who
get a small tax cut and still have to pay more than that tax cut in
premium increases is large. What a huge mistake my colleagues made by
eliminating that provision in the healthcare bill, because the middle
class is going to pay the price.
What has been sold as a job creator and wage-booster will do little
of either, as companies--large, big, powerful companies--are already
initiating stock buybacks instead of hiring more workers and raising
wages. Is that what you intended? Give them more money so they can buy
back more stock, increasing the wealth of corporate CEOs, increasing
the wealth of the very wealthy, sending billions of dollars overseas to
overseas investors. That is what is happening already. Corporation
after corporation has said: Aha, with this new money, we will do even
more stock buybacks.
Ultimately, the American people will learn that Republicans have
squandered their so-called ``once-in-a-generation opportunity'' on
corporate welfare and taxes for the rich, financed by tax increases and
healthcare increases on the middle class.
The Joint Committee on Taxation just released a report that found
that by 2027, nearly 145 million middle-class families earning under
$200,000 will either get tax hikes--can we have order, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. SCHUMER. This is serious stuff. We believe you are messing up
America. You can pay attention for a couple of minutes.
Nearly 145 million middle-class families earning under $200,000 will
get either tax hikes or a tax cut of less than $100. Eighty-three
percent of the middle class will either pay more in taxes or get little
but crumbs. Is that what you intended? Is that this great bill that is
helping the middle class? Absolutely not.
Meanwhile, according to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of
earners in our country will reap 83 percent of the benefits of the tax
plan. The top 5 percent--the top 5 percent--will reap 99.2 percent of
the benefits. Is that what you intended? That is what you are doing.
The very, very wealthy--the highest spectrum--get almost all the
benefits. Some bill for the middle class.
The raw numbers are a staggering indictment of the Republican tax
plan, as they have been throughout the course of this debate. The data
reveals what the Republican tax plan truly is--a tax scam that will rob
middle-class families to pay for corporate tax breaks and giveaways to
the wealthy.
In an age of extraordinary income inequality, when the upper echelons
of our economy are capturing an ever-greater share of the pie, the
Republican tax bill is like pouring gasoline on a raging fire, making
income inequality, as bad as it is now, even worse. It will exacerbate
all the bad trends in our economy that over the past few decades have
produced dramatically more wealth for the already wealthy, while
producing less work and less pay for working people. That fundamental
imbalance in our economy will be made even more precarious. What a
disgrace. That is what this bill is. It is an absolute disgrace.
It is not just an ideological difference; it is something
dramatically opposite of what America needs. There is no reason for a
single middle-class family to pay more while every single corporation
pays less. If you want to help the middle class, give them a real tax
break. The rich get far more dollars back than the middle class. That
is fact--an irrefutable fact.
On top of that, as Senator Wyden warned everybody a few minutes ago,
this tax bill will endanger Social Security and Medicare. Republicans
have already said, led by Speaker Ryan, that they will use the deficit
they are about to create as an excuse to come after those earned
benefits. The AARP is very reluctant to take stands on bills like this,
but it was so bad for the elderly, the AARP felt compelled to publicly
oppose it.
Elderly Americans are not the only ones who should be worried,
although they certainly should be. If you are 40, 45, or 50, working
hard, trying to put money away for retirement while sending your kids
to college, and you are counting on these programs to be there when you
retire, know this: Cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are
likely to fall on your shoulders because of this monstrosity of a bill.
The Republican tax bill is the first shoe to drop. The second will fall
on the social safety net that allows millions of hard-working Americans
to retire with dignity and security.
For all of these reasons, it is not a surprise that in poll after
poll after poll, the American people overwhelmingly oppose this bill.
My Republican colleagues have done what is nearly impossible. It is a
bad trick, but they have accomplished it.

[[Page S8141]]

They have managed to make a tax cut bill even less popular than
previous tax hikes. Who would have thought they could accomplish that?
Who would have thought? In fact, it is the second-least popular piece
of major legislation in 30 years, opposed 2 to 1 by the American
people, and the more they learn about the bill, the less they like it.
By the way, what was the first? The Republican healthcare bill earlier
this year.
It is not hard to understand why the dark heart of the Republican
policy agenda easing burdens on those who already have so much, while
punishing or ignoring those who have too little, is a profoundly
unpopular idea. My Republican friends ought to listen to the American
people, the fount of wisdom in our democracy, or there will be a
reckoning.
The American people do not believe in trickle-down, as all of you
seem to. Give the very top money, and they will create jobs. It hasn't
happened. AT&T--do you know what their tax rate was over the last 10
years? Eight percent. Do you know how many jobs they created? Zero.
They cut 80,000 people. Let's give them more money while hurting the
middle class. It makes no sense.
The American people are saying in a loud, clear voice that they
oppose tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. They don't believe
in trickle-down, as you do. They oppose gutting healthcare, as you want
to do, and they oppose this one-party approach to legislating. The
American people know that a slapdash partisan process will not result
in good law. My Republican colleagues ignore the warnings of the
American people at their own peril.
In just a short time, Republicans will have a choice whether or not
to affix their name to this awful legislation. Although the Republican
propagandists may call its passage a political victory, it will be very
fleeting and illusory. The substance and polling are so rotten that a
year from now, Republicans will be running away from this bill in shame
for voting yes this evening.
There is an alternative: Vote no. Come to the table with Democrats.
Begin serious, bipartisan talks on tax reform. Get a good bill, and
work in the way this Chamber is supposed to work: bipartisan, moderate,
thoughtful, open. You have done none of those--none of those.
I have little faith that, at this late hour, my colleagues will
choose the better course, but if they do, we could do something great
for the country and for this body at the same time. We could return to
regular order, where the legitimate policy differences between our
parties are argued in broad daylight, and with painstaking effort, we
compromise even after we fiercely debate one another. Isn't that what
we came here to do?
I challenge a single one of my Republican colleagues to say they are
proud of the way this tax bill was written and passed. I challenge a
single one. I know this isn't what they would like to see. I know this
isn't what so many of you came here to do. I know it is not what you
tell your constituents the Senate ought to be. I know so many of you
lament the steady erosion of bipartisanship here in the Senate, as do
I, as do my fellow Democrats. So rather than resign to the failures of
the current moment, I plead--plead--with my Republican colleagues to
imagine a better path forward. Vote no. Vote no and prevent taxes from
going up on millions of middle-class families. Vote no and stop 13
million Americans from going without health insurance. Vote no, so we
don't add $1.5 trillion to the deficit, putting the burden on our
children and grandchildren. Vote no and say that you want to have the
kind of bipartisan debate befitting the grand traditions of this United
States Senate. Vote no. Otherwise, I believe the entire Republican
Party and each of you will come to rue this day.
I yield the floor.
I yield back all time.

Vote on Motion to Waive

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). The question is on agreeing to
the motion to waive the points of order.
The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 322 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NAYS--48

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

McCain

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are
48.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The points of order are sustained. The material will be stricken from
the conference report.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question before the Senate is whether the
Senate shall recede from its amendment to H.R. 1 and concur therein
with a further amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain)
would have voted ``yea.''
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the
Gallery.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the
Gallery.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the
Gallery.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the
Gallery.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the
Gallery.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the
Gallery.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the
Gallery.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the
Gallery.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 323 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins

[[Page S8142]]

Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NAYS--48

NOT VOTING--1

McCain

The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 48.
The Senate recedes from its amendment and concurs in H.R. 1 with a
further amendment.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is passed.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). The Senator from Wyoming.

____________________