they're too smart for this. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak into a colloquy with my colleague, the senator from utah. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. rubio: mr. president, hope that in tax reform we will try to do what we should do in all of our policies, that is, come up with ideas that are both pro-growth and pro-worker. there are a lot of good things in this tax bill, but we need to make it better. we can make it more pro-growth and more pro-worker, and senator lee from utah and i have a plan that helps us notify that direction, and -- that helps us move in that direction, and i'll describe it briefly. the and i him to have the opportunity to weigh in as well on this. on the pro-growth side, it is about becoming more economically competitive by lowering the corporate tax rate in united states, 35%.

we would reduce to 22%. the current bill has it at 20% but 22% is just as competitive as 20%. just like the current bill, it would be lower than the global average rate of 23% and just like the current bill would move us from last place to third place among the g-7 countries. so it is just as pro-growth. it makes us just as competitive, but it allows us to do the pro-worker reform that we decimately need. -- that we desperately need. it allows us to change the child tax credit in the current bill to help working families even more. it would make it fully refundable up to the amount you pay in payroll tax. it would eliminate the marriage penalty, meaning that you would be paying more in taxes if you were a marriedum than you would if you are an individual. number three, it would index it, the tax credit, to a chained c.p.i., which means as inflation and the cost of living goes up, the credit doesn't lose its value. the one thing i want to emphasize is, who does this

help? i have had some people in the past and even today who say, why are you doing this? this is like welfare. i find that offensive. i find it offensive not because i am offended by people who need the help and are in the safety net program because they've come upon difficult times but because the people that we are trying to help are not on government assistance. they're workers. you have to work to get this credit. in essence shall the credit applies against your tax liability be it payroll tax or income tax. for a lot of people that are working, they don't make enough money to be paying a lot of income tax, but they pay up to 15.3% of what they make it payroll tax. it is their primary tax liability, and if you don't allow the credit to apply towards that you're not helping them. and who are they? who are the kinds of people that we're talking about? in essence, who are these workers? think you're the waitresses mark i can a $20,000 a year. they're not fully benefiting from this credit right now.

if we do it the way senator lee and i are talking about doing, they would. they are the home health aid, the office clerk, the welders making $35,000 a year. they're the truck driver, driver, the nurse, the firefighter making $45,000 a year. the ones who have been left lined for over three decades because no one fights for them. they have been ignored and disrespected. and they're not accounted for in this bill. and they're raising families. our future taxpayers. and it costs money to raise a family. and the more children you have, the more expensive it is and our tax code should recognize that. and we make a reasonable proposal in that regard. and now i'd like to turn to senator lee and ask him to expound on the importance of this for america's workers and why if we are fuel to be a pro--- why if we are truly to be a pro-worker reform, the payroll tax is essential.

mr. lee: thank you, mr. president. i am grateful to my colleague, the distinguished senator from florida for his worker this issue. he noted a couple of issues that we focus on. noted the marriage tax penalty, a more obvious feature -- defect -- within our tax code. there is another detect he also mentioned that doesn't get as much play as it should. it doesn't get as much play, especially considering the amount of damage it z it's called the parent tax penalty. here's how it works. we have american parents from one end of this country to another who are essentially propping up, securing the future of our senior entitlement programs, not just once but twice, and in a pretty unfair way. you see, they prop up social security and medicare two times, first as they pay their taxes and, secondly, as they incur the cost associated with child rearing and thereby prop up and secure social security and medicare. you see, social security and medicare are paid foreign paygo

basis. meaning today's workers pay for the benefits of today's retirees. today's children are toms workers who will be working to pay the taxes to fund the social security and medicare retirement benefits of today's workers who will be tomorrow's retirees. now, that's costs add up over time. according to one very low-ball estimate, an estimate that doesn't include a lost things it probably should, including things like education, higher education and so forth, a family raising three children can reasonably expect to incur $700,000 in child-rearing costs, just as they raise their three children. those three children are going tok on to be tomorrow's workers paying the social security and medicare benefits for today's workers, tomorrow's retirees. this is important. and we need to end the marriage tax penalty. we also need to end this parent tax penalty of the best way to do that is to make sure we increase the child tax credit up to $2,000 as the current senate

proposal would do, but just as importantly, we need to make that sum refundable up to $2,000, up to the total amount of taxes paid, including payroll tax liability, in other words up to15.3% of earnings. if we do this, mr. president, it is not going to end the parent tax penalty altogether, but it is an important first step. i also want to echo something said by senator rubio a moment ago. i think it is worth mentioning here. this is not a handout. this is not a welfare benefit. this is money that they're making. it's not welfare when you say the government is not going to take away something that you've worked harass for, that you've earned. -- that you've worked hard for, that you've earned. we should be don't for those people who are america's ultimate, most important entrepreneurial class. america's most cherished group of investors. you see, the most important investment decisions are not necessarily just those made around the boardroom. they're made at the altar,

they're made in delivery wards in hospitals. those are the investors we need to be encourage and certainly not punishing. mr. president, we can fix this problem. we need to do it by passing the rubio-lee amendment and increasing refundability so that we can all benefit from this and so that america's families can stop being punished as the result of the interaction between our tax code and our senior entitlement programs. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, i come to the floor today to join other colleagues from both sides of the aisle to talk about this tax debate. you know, we don't do tax reform

nearly enough here in the united states. it seems we take it on about every 35 years whether we need to or n but if there's one lesson that we've learned from previously tax reform efforts is that while they can do a lot of good, they can also do a lot of harm. and i have to start by expressing my extraordinarily deep frustration with the process that we've gone through. today we are considering a bill that was drafted in secret, designed with more gimmicks and loopholes that i've ever seen, and is being rushed through in a process without impact from all of us on this side of the aisle and without even appropriate impact of its true financial analysis. in many ways, to quote the president, what got us here is the worst of washington. if you want to see swamp 101,

look at the process of this tax bill. a 300-page tax bill that was released on the eve of a holiday weekend, only days before it was marked up in committee. and over a four-day markup, two significant rewrites of this bill were presented. one consisted of over 100 pages of changes and a second was release add mere 30 minutes -- was released a mere 30 minutes before members were asked to vote on literally its myriad of provisions. now, less than two weeks later, we're considering that bill or a variation of it on the senate floor. we're voting either to procedure of the bill later today on then on p amendments tomorrow before we evening have any analysis from j.c.t. and we know that near the end of a debate on the floor, another bill will magically appear from the majority leader's office without any time for those of us

who want to do tax reform to have a chance to genuinely review or analyze it's provisions. it makes this process, i believe, enormously dishonest. i know my friend from delaware has just come on. i'll speak quickly, because i know he'll raise some of these same concerns. one of the things that i've been most involved with since i've been here in the united states senate is trying to grapple with our nation's overwhelming debt. we're a country that's run up close to $20 trillion of debt. and both sides -- both sides -- have been part to that over the last 70 years. but what i have heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle is that when you're in that deep of a hole, you ought to stop digging. and that we need to make sure that if we're going to do triumph, we do it -- if we're going to do tax reform, would do in a physically -- fiscally

responsible way. it starts with a $1.5 trillion acknowledgment that that money will somehow magically appear through magical growth. but, when you peel that away a little bit, it is bad enough that it's not really $1 .5 trillion in additional debt that we're adding. the real number is $2.2 trillion. let kneel you why. -- let me tell you why. off of the $1.5 trillion additional debt that's haded, that alone will generate more than $230 billion of additional interest payments over the next decade. raising the cost of the bill from $1.5 trillion to roughy$1.7 trillion. and then in an effort that really takes the cake in a place where both -- again be, both sides have been known to use gimmicks, this legislation includes 37 different expiring provisions, provisions that are popular, provisions that a

number of my colleagues have said give middle-class tax relief. well, the interesting thing is, all of these provisions are due to expire five to six years within the ten-year windex -- window. and rather than acknowledging the true cost of the bill, what people have said, we know what we're going to create. we're going to create a whole new series of fiscal cliffs in the neighbor manufactured $500 billion that the expectation will be that they'll become so popular that congress will go ahead and have to extend these provisions again without paying for them. in terms of gimmicks, don't take my word for it. you only need to listen to the words of the president's own o.m.b. director, mick mulvaney who acknowledged that the tax bill had a lot of gimmicks to it. you add that $500 billion to the $2030 billion of additional interest, the $1.35 trillion that you start with what we are

talking about today is $2.2 trillion addition to our debt. for all my friends who for years have stood with me on the floor of the senate and spoken out against adding this additional burden to our kids and grandkids, i hope they'll talk a moment and rethink their support there are this legislation. -- their support for that legislation. how will this get paid for? i believe there might be some dynamic growth, there might be some addition from smart tax reform that would add to the growth of our economy. but nothing near what this bill assumes. in fact, it's even worse than that in earn ways. not only will this add over $2 trillion to our debt and deficit, but we've even had the audacity of the secretary of the treasury, secretary mnuchin, who said this bill is going to be so good for our economy that it's going to decrease our debt by $1

trillion. yet there is no responsible budget projection of any economist from left to right that makes any kind of assumptions that would make that prediction true at a and if we go back and look in recent american history, when you pay for tax cuts with borrowed money, you end up with a pretty bad situation. many of my friends on the other side of the aisle like to cite ronald reagan. i think president reagan was a great president in many ways. the 1981 tax cut did provide a short-term stimulus but then that stimulus ran out and our debt and deficits blew up, grew dramatically and president reagan had to raise taxes in 1982 and 1984. likewise again, president bush in 2001 inheriting a surplus, promised again the magic of tax cuts will grow our economy. instead we ended up with very little job growth and a debt and

deficit now that is rapidly approaching the full size of our economy. and if we went out and looked at scoring of the effects of this kind of tax cut, we've seen the tax policy center that did a dynamic score saying how could build and growth come from a tax cut. they said this bill costs at least $1.5 trillion. the penn wharton, an organization well respected by both sides of the aisle did a dynamic score on this legislation as well. they're saying minimum costs of $1.5 trillion. and congress' official scorekeeper, the group that we look to for outside advice, the joint committee on taxation, we are rushing this bill through so quickly that we've not even allowed our official scorekeeper to come up with a score. this is not the way to do a once-in-a-generation tax reform process.

the truth is when you do a tax cut with borrowed money in periods sort of where we are right now, relatively full employment, there is no historical precedent at all that you'll see any kind of economic growth. again, don't take my word for it. alan greenspan, the respected fed chair, pointed this out just within the last two weeks that tax cuts paid for with borrowed money do not provide the kind of growth that this budget projects and this tax reform projects. now i could go through a whole litany of other concerns with this legislation. i for one believe we do need to do international tax reform. i for one believe we need a corporate tax rate that's more competitive. i for one believe we need repatriation and to bring back tax profits that have gone abroad. but we've seen analysis recently that shows that this legislation may actually increase the amount

of american jobs that are pushed overseas, for example, because of the averaging of tax rates in their so-called territorial system where a company could build that factory in a relatively high tax state, move that intellectual property to a place like the cayman islands, average out the tax bill combined and end up paying the country, our country, nothing. and at the same time continuing to see job loss around our country. there are a group of us, close to 17 of us, and many of my colleagues on the floor today, that came together yesterday, that said to our republican colleagues time out for a few minutes. we will work with you to do a responsible tax reform effort. we share many of the same goals. but unfortunately, the process that we're going through here today to reach some kind of arbitrary christmas present for the president is not the way we

ought to be doing responsible tax reform. i hope my colleagues will reconsider. i hope they'll take the offer of the 17 of us who said we'll look at corporate tax reform. we'll look at lower rates. we'll look at repatriation. we'll look at ways to make businesses more competitive. and join with us and do this in a way that we can all be proud of. if we're only going to do tax reform once every 30 or 35 years, we sure as heck owe the american people a product that we can all be proud of, not a product that's rushed through with one party only that at the end of the day will leave our kids and grandkids paying the bill for decades to come. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president.

nine years have passed, colleagues, since i first joined the senate finance committee. nine years. and for each of those nine years, i've looked forward to working on tax reform. as a member of the house of representatives a million years ago, i had the privilege of working on tax reform legislation led by president reagan, led by tip o'neill, dan rostenkowski, bob packwood, others that actually worked and got us where we wanted to go with lower raises and a simplified code. but tax reform takes time. it takes a lot of energy. it takes a lot of effort, a lot of give and take. when we did that in 1986, congress took two years of public hearings, two years of meetings, two years of bipartisan negotiation. the idea that a permanent and enduring tax reform plan today can come to fruition in mere weeks is what they call in my

state the triumph of a man's hope over experience. the tax legislation that is purely partisan written in the dark and rushed to the finish line is bound to be poorly designed and riddled with inadvertent errors. flawed process results in a flawed product. when considering any tax policy, i look through, mr. president, a prism of four questions. number one, is it fair? number two, does it foster economic growth or impede it? number three, does it simplify the tax code or make it even more complex? and number four, is it fiscally responsible? those four questions. unfortunately, the republican tax reform plan fails the test on, sadly, all four of these questions. all four. according to the nonpartisan -- we just heard this from the senator from virginia, according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office this plan would increase taxes on millions of americans beginning next year.

by 2019 the c.b.o. found that americans earning less than $30,000 a year will be worse off under this tax bill. worse off. by 2021, americans earning less than $40,000 will be worse off. and by 2027, most americans earning less than $75,000 a year will be worse off. not better. in fact, within ten years more than three-quarters of the tax cuts in this bill will go to the richest 5% of americans. think about that. within the next ten years, more than it three-quarters of the tax cuts in this bill will go to the richest 5% of americans. in fact, almost two-thirds of the tax breaks will go to the richest one out of every 100 americans. none of this meets a reasonable definition, in my judgment, of fair. the second question, does it foster economic growth or impede it? this bill does little to foster

economic growth and i fear in the long run it will impair growth. last week a survey of top economists including economists from across the political spectrum as well as nobel prize winners and former presidents of the american economic association found that only one out of 43 experts believed this type of tax reform would boost economic growth. one out of 43. just one. the truth is any economic growth from this bill will be swamped by the deficit it creates. i'll talk more about fiscal responsibility in a moment. an important point here is that the increased national debt will be a huge drag on economic growth. more federal borrowing means higher interest rates, which means it will cost more for businesses both large and small to borrow and finance investments. it will cost more for families to take out a mortgage.

it will cost more to borrow for college. number three, does it simplify the tax code? one goal of tax reform is supposed to be simplifying the tax code. reducing unpredict ability and uncertainty. unfortunately this bill introduces new and complicated provisions. for example, new requirements to claim the child tax credit, an awkwardly designed tax deduction for pass-through businesses. this will make it difficult for americans to file their taxes. more difficult, not easier. as we learned from the joint committee on taxation during consideration of this bill in the senate finance committee earlier this month we learned that this tax bill will make the internal revenue code and regulations longer, not shorter. it will make the tax code longer , not the key for simplification. a large part results from an

enormous new fiscal cliff created by this bill which makes tax policy unpredictable for families and unpredictable for businesses, which brings me to my third question. actually my fourth question. is it fiscally responsible? is it fiscally responsible? this bill allows a $1.5 trillion hole in the debt. it will be far easier -- costlier rather than that as the deficit grows in years and decades to come. with respect to the fiscal cliff, i just mentioned, almost all the individual tax provisions expire within nine years. i'll say that again. almost all of the individual tax provisions expire within nine years. the bill's increase in the standard deduction, the increase in the child credit, the new tax rate for pass-through businesses and most other provisions affecting individuals will under this republican bill expire by the end of 2025. at the same time, the tax cuts

for corporations, large corporations in this bill are permanent. many of our friends on the other side of the aisle are saying that all of these individual provisions will be extended and made permanent. if that's the case, why don't they do it now? why don't they do it now? the truth is extending these provisions would dramatically increase the deficit, adding far more to the national debt, more than the $1.5 trillion that this bill already adds. making the individual provisions temporary and the corporate tax cuts permanent is at bottom an elaborate attempt to have our cake and eat it too. at best, making the individual provisions expire is, simply put, an elaborate scheme to hide the true cost of this tax bill, obscuring the fact that this bill would add much more to the debt, possibly twice as much, than the $1.5 trillion that's been admitted and

advertised. at worst, making the individual tax provisions expire is a sneaky way to increase taxes on american families all in order to pay for a permanent and expensive corporate tax cut. either way, the result is unconscionable and an affront to fiscal responsibility. i will conclude by noting it doesn't have to be this way. it doesn't have to be this way. instead of rushing ahead with a partisan product that haphazardly remakes the economy economy there are many areas that republicans and democrats could work together. i talked about a couple of those yesterday at a press conference that senator warner alewded to. one of those areas is the standard deduction. i propose to double the standard deduction which will simplify filing for a lot of taxpayers. another area where we can find common ground is the corporate rate. i think many of our democratic colleagues would agree with me and with others that the

business tax rates should be reformed to ensure that american businesses remain competitive with our global trading partners. and while lowering the rate from 35% to 20%, maybe too low -- and i think fiscally irresponsible, a more sensitive and moderate proposal would bring both democrats and republicans together. there's got to be a rate between $25% and 35% that we can come together on. another area is the child tax credit. this bill increases the child credit. it fails to deliver the benefits to the middle and working class families who need it the most. a better tax reform proposal would reform the child tax credit to be fully refundable and just as important, permanent so that lower-income families could benefit from it as well. despite these many areas of bipartisan agreement, our republican colleagues partisan push to the finish line leaves us with no room for negotiations on a plan that blows again a $1.5 trillion hole in our debt

while actually increase taxes on millions of americans beginning next year. in closing, president trump made three promises when he ran for president and when he was nominated for president, when he was sworn in to office as president. and one of those is he didn't want a tax reform people to help people like him, the wealthy. that's not what he wanted to do. number two, he wanted to make sure we put money back in the pockets of hardworking families. that's what he wanted. and he said he wanted to simplify the tax code. democrats are all in. we're all in on tax reform to keep those three promises. from what we know about the legislation before us here this week, this plan does almost nothing to fulfill the president's three promises. almost nothing. i join my colleagues today in urging republicans to slow down, work with the democrats on a plan that's actually fair, that's actually fiscally responsible, that encourages

economic growth and job creation and simplifies the tax code. i close with an african proverb i mentioned yesterday. 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 need to travel together. if we do, we'll go far. and, frankly, we'll lift with us the economy of this country and a lot of families who need our help. with that, i yield the floor to my colleague from florida. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, we do want to go far and we need to travel together, and that's what we have been trying to make the case, indeed, that we do this in a bipartisan way instead of it being jammed through in a partisan way. mr. president, i don't think there would be a senator in this

chamber that would not want to help puerto rico given the fact that puerto rico is going through the ravages of the aftermath of a hurricane where today still just under half of the population in puerto rico does not have electricity and it's three months after the hurricane. but we're going to send another hurricane to puerto rico if we pass this bill because of the provisions that are so punitive to puerto rico in this tax bill. mr. president, in this tax bill there is a 20% penalty on businesses doing business in puerto rico. it's just unbelievable, a 20%

penalty on companies that invest in puerto rico causing one of the daily newspapers in the island to state that 250,000 jobs would leave the island just as a result of that provision. that's not something we want to do to puerto rico. we want to help puerto rico. but, unfortunately, that's not all. the bill eliminates the section 199 manufacturing deduction for puerto rico. that was specifically in the law to encourage manufacturing in that island commonwealth, that island that is a territory of our fellow u.s. citizens. the bill also eliminates what is

called the rum cover, which is that excised taxes that are made on the production of puerto rican rum and u.s. virgin islands rum that they get a rebate for paying those excise taxes. it's a means of offsetting the cost of economic development in those two territories, puerto rico and the u.s. virgin islands, and this bill further fails to put puerto rico residents on an equal footing with those on the mainland by giving them the same treatment on earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. first of all, the bill is so out of balance to begin with, but

then when you get down to the specifics in so many of the items, now in this particular item affecting puerto rico, this is not what we want to do. and yet we're just about to vote on this bill and that's what's going to happen and that's what's going to happen in puerto rico. mr. president, i urge some of our members to reconsider their vote. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call process be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, for 20 years now, i have viewed the development and deployment of a layered ballistic missile defense shield as vital to our national security. the experience that we had yesterday, that we witnessed yesterday is something that we have been talking about for a long time that was -- that

was -- that was going to happen. sometimes our d.i.a., the defense intelligence, has said it's going to happen five years from now, then four years from now. but the question is when will north korea have the capability of a weapon and delivery system that would reach washington, d.c., or any of the united states states. the adversaries like north korea are developing ballistic missiles with increasing range and accuracy. it's important for us here in the senate to communicate to the american people the credible grave and immediate threat that we face. today the world is more dangerous than it's ever been before. i have said so many times in the past that i look wistfully back at the days of the cold war when things were predictable. we had two superpowers. we knew what they had, they knew what we had. it's not that way anymore. every time we get someone coming

in to our defense committee to testify, they talk about the fact that north korea is not predictable, so we don't know what is going to happen, what they are capable of doing. i have actually been here on the floor on this issue in 2001, 2009, 2012, and this will be the third time this year. over the last 30 years, we have witnessed our missile defense programs go through dramatic investment changes from administration to administration, depending on who is president. president reagan, we remember back with president reagan, how everyone ridiculed him, hinting of the star wars, hitting a bullet with a bullet. they felt it was pretty fun at that time. right now, everything that he said was going to happen is happening and happened yesterday. in 1993, we cut -- they cut out of the reagan budget and from the bush budget the missile defense budget request for fiscal year 1994.

they terminated the reagan-bush strategic defense initiative program, downgraded the nationag the clinton administration, the national missile defense to a research and development program only. five years missile defense funding by 54% from $39 billion to $18 billion. in 1996, they cut funding and slowed the development of the thad program, the thad program we are so dependent upon right now to defend against an incoming missile in many parts of the world with our allies. they cut the defense authorization bill requiring accelerated development. in 1999, they delayed it at least -- by at least two years. our space-based infrared system, satellites designed to detect and attract missile launches necessary to coordinate with any effective national and missile

defense system. then along came bush by the end of 2008, the bush administration had succeeded, succeeded in fielding a missile defense system capable of defending all 50 states. here's the problem that we had. we had during that period of time 44 ground-based defense systems? the united states. the administration -- the obama administration cut that back down, but the bush administration, they wanted a system that would take care of all 50 states. here's the problem, though. all of our ground-base systems were on the west coast in alaska, in california. so we didn't have anything -- at that time they thought that's where the threat was going to be. but during the last years of the bush administration, the second bush administration, we realized that we needed to do something about the rest of the country, something about the east coast, something about western europe.

and so we made a deal with the czech republic in poland to have a ground-base system in the czech republic and poland along with the radar necessary to operate it. i remember, i was there. i had a conversation in the czech republic. he said to me, he said, now, in we go along with building this system, we're going to incur the wrath of russia and it's going to be very difficult for us. so can you assure us that if we agree to do this, that you won't pull the rug out from under us? certainly we wouldn't do that. this is something we are committed to do. the problem was, the first thing that happened when the obama administration came in, he pulled the rug out from under him. so here we found ourselves vulnerable to maybe having one shot at a defense system in the eastern part of the united states and in western europe. then in april came the first of the obama defense cuts which

began disarming america and dismantling our layered defense system. additionally, due to president obama's overall reduced budget request for defense, there was not enough ships or missiles to meet the demand that were there. since kim jong-un took power in 2009, he's already conducted more than 80 ballistic missile tests. that's far more than his father and grandfather conducted. north korea has conducted six nuclear tests of increasingly powerful weapons. the latest test was september of this year. that bomb had an explosive yield estimated to be a hundred kill killatons which is almost seven times stronger than the bomb on hiroshima. at the senate armed services

committee hearing on asia asian-pacific strategy, in april of this year, a panel of expert witnesses agreed with me that north korea currently represents the most imminent threat to our national security. on july 4 of this year, north korea made a major breakthrough with their first successful ibcm launching. if launched on a standard trajectory, the missile could likely have traveled up to 5,000 miles. that's enough to reach alaska. on july 28 of this year, north korea tested another icbm. this missile demonstrated the potential ability to reach mainland united states targets with a nuclear armed icbm. now yesterday, that was the big day, yesterday it finally happened. yesterday north korea proved that it can reliably range the entire continental united states with a test of its latest developed and newest version of the icbm. so it's important to remember

that all the power is being wielded by an erratic, desperate kim jong-un and we don't have the luxury of time. he has stated that his goal, his goal is to attain a nuclear capability, an icbm that can annihilate the united states. each and every day he gets closer to this goal and yesterday he proved it can be done. secretary mattis confirmed the technical advances displayed in yesterday's test, the missile had 53 minutes of time in flight. mattis confirmed that it went higher than any previous shot they've ever taken. david wright, analyst for the union of concerned scientists wrote that yesterday's test indicates that north korea can now hold the united states well within a missile range. wright wrote -- this is the scientist -- he said such a missile would have been more than enough range to reach

washington, d.c. and in fact any part of continental united states. so when you talk about the real threats that are out there, we now know even though people didn't believe it 20 years ago, ten years ago, five years ago, it finally happened yesterday. they have the range that would reach the continental united states, and they've proven that they have a missile that can do that. now, the only argument they use is they say, well, this may not have had a pay load. maybe they could have done that with a payload, actually had that kind of a range. that doesn't give me much comfort. i really think now we're to the point where we've got to recognize we're in the most threatened position we've been in as a nation and now it's a lot easier to believe that because we witnessed that yesterday. with that i yield the floor, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. i have long supported efforts to

reform the tax code. tax reform that gives a break to working class americans and small businesses so they can create more jobs, keep more of their hard earned money in their pocket. tax reform that provides permanent long-term certainty for job-creating businesses and middle-class families so they can plan for the future. and tax reform that doesn't burden future generations with loads of debt. but unfortunately, the bill that we're going to vote on this week is not tax reform. the majority and the administration can call this proposal whatever they want, but from where i'm from, which is north central montana, we call it how we see it. this is a tax giveaway to the wealthy, a tax giveaway that will cut taxes for the wealthiest families while raising taxes on nearly 14

million middle-class americans. this tax giveaway benefits wealthy out of staters at the expense of hardworking montanans. in fact, folks making less than $30,000 a year will see a tax hike in 2019. folks making less than $40,000 see a tax hike in 2021. and that pattern continues climbing until every individual will see a tax hike in 2025. why is this important? well, we haven't done tax reform in 30 years. 2025 will be here tomorrow. the tax break for the wealthiest will continue not only to add to our debt but it will continue to take money out of hardworking middle-class families' pockets. all the while -- all the while the large corporations enjoy permanent tax giveaways. now, it doesn't have to be like

this. but the majority chose once again to write a bad bill in secret, no bipartisanship, no input from working families, no regard with how this bill is going to impact folks down the road. this tax giveaway to wealthy wreaks of a swamp and it represents everything that folks hate about washington, d.c. so why are we rushing this process? during the reagan tax cuts in the 1980's, the house and senate combined to hold over 20 committee hearings before bringing a bill to the floor. so why was there no public input in this process today? why aren't we waiting for finest mats from the joint tax committee to let us know what the impacts are? or why don't we know what the impacts long term, past the first ten years are going to be? why are we voting before we have analysis on what happens to those folks 12, 14, 16 years from now?

why are we voting on a bill before we've even had time to read it? now, there's an appetite in this senate for good tax reform. a tax bill that cuts taxes for middle-class families and small businesses and disndz add to the -- doesn't add to the debt, a bill that will actually drive our economy. that is why i don't understand why folks in this body are rushing to pass a tax giveaway that are going to hurt the folks who need the tax cut the most. this isn't the first time we've been down this road. next year nearly one-third of our national debt, next year nearly one-third of our national debt will be a direct result of the bush tax cuts. over $5.6 trillion. but here we are again a decade later about to make the same mistake. most folks that serve in this body will say that they came here to provide more opportunities for the next generation.

we came here to work on bills and pass bills that will help our kids and our grandkids to succeed. well, i'm here to tell you that actions speak louder than words. this bill saddles our kids and our grandkids with even more crushing debt by adding at a minimum $1.4 trillion to the debt. so why? why? so we can give tax giveaways to wealthy and big corporations and so that some politicians can claim a political victory. if you vote for this bill, you're putting $1.4 trillion in the credit card that our kids and grandkids are going to be the first to pay for. my how times have changed. we can do better than this. our kids and our grandkids deserve better than this. hardworking families in this

country deserve better than this. we need to do the right thing and pull this bill from the floor and work together in a truly bipartisan way to pass real tax reform, get public input, get support from both sides of the aisle, get a bill that both democrats, republicans, and as far as that goes independents can support. but the truth is apparent. the other side of the aisle doesn't want to be bothered by differences of opinion or public input. so we end up with a poorly written bill that doesn't do what it's advertised to do. let's help businesses create more jobs and raise wages. and let's make sure that hardworking folks can keep more of their money in their pockets. that's the kind of tax reform that america deserves, but instead we are stuck with a partisan gimmick that makes the rich richer while the rest of us pay the bills. mr. president, i am voting no on

this bill, and i'm voting no for montana's kids and grandkids. i encourage my colleagues to take a look at this bill, by the way, that we don't even have yet. but take a look at it, what's there, and vote no to avoid at a minimum $1.5 trillion to our national debt. you know, when i go home, one of the things that folks ask of me is to work together. work together and find bipartisan solutions. don't just cast off the other side as being wrong. listen to them. try to find that middle ground. it hasn't happened here with this bill. anything but that has happened. we've got a bill that's been crafted by one party in secret and put in front of us and said

here, take it or leave it. and we don't even know the impacts of this bill. they don't know the impacts of this bill. and once this passes, it's too late. this is the most deliberative body in the world. we ought to do deliberating and get some public input and find bipartisan support and move forward with a bill that works for america. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, a number of senators have been inquiring on what will happen next with respect to the handling of the tax legislation, and my sense is that in a relatively short period of time, the senate will be voting on the

motion to proceed to this legislation. and i just want to take a couple of minutes to talk about why i'm going to oppose the motion to proceed. the fact is, right now on a topic that will involve $10 trillion worth of tax policy changes, the biggest change in the tax code in 31 years, when the united states senate votes on the motion to proceed, we essentially won't know yet what the senate will be debating. there are rumors, there are whispers, but the fact is as the ranking democrat on the senate finance committee which has short over taxes, i haven't

actually seen the text of the bill we will actually be debating. now, the bill seems to have changed practically every half-hour. it has certainly been a movable feast for the super-lobbyists, but there are a couple of things we already do know. we know, for example, it's not going to give a fair shake to working families. what we have talked about again and again here in the senate is that the senate leadership is committed to a double standard with respect to the american economy, temporary breaks for the middle class. they vanish in a few years. permanent breaks for those at the top. we can do better than this.

the middle class is responsible for 70% of the economic activity in our economy. they're the ones who buy the cars, they buy the houses, they send kids to get child care. but instead, many of them -- certainly fairly soon -- are going to be further in the hole than they already are. so this is a piece of legislation, both on the substance from the standpoint of what my colleagues have been talking about in terms of the double standard -- we already have in our economy essentially two tax systems, one for the cop and the nurse, the autoworker, the timber worker. their tax system is compulsory. their taxes come right out of every paycheck.

no cayman island deal for them. but the people at the top, they can pay whatever they want when they want to. the reality is, what it looks like we're going to get -- we don't have the details -- a number of senators have asked about the pass-through provisions. important for small business. we don't have the details on that. we have members who care about how we're actually going to not rack up hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt in the years ahead. some senators have suggested that there be triggers. i happen to think that they're gimmicks, and all of the approaches i've heard just don't seem to add up. we don't have the details on that. what we don't know -- and i know there are several other senators that would like to speak -- is we have never had negotiations

in the senate finance committee over the specifics of this legislation or any other. we've never had a legislative hearing. when ronald reagan and democrats got together in 1986, they had more than 20 of these hearings, and i'll just tell my colleagues here in the senate, bill bradl bradley, the former knick and basketball great who was on the finance committee -- and i like to kid colleagues that he was another tall democrat on the committee with a much better jumpshot than me -- he always would tell stories about how he would fly across the country to meet with republicans to talk about the specifics of tax reform. back then, senators went to great lengths to talk to each other about the specifics of tax

reform. in this instance, mr. president, the majority hasn't been willing to even walk down the corridor of the dirksen office building to talk about the specifics of tax reform. the senate is better than this. i was part of the bipartisan group yesterday, and senator donnelly, our colleague from indiana, really set out what became an outpouring of good faith among something like 17 senators who said, we can find common ground here. i happen to know we can find common ground here because, with two senators who happen to be very close to the distinguished majority leader, mitch mcconnell, i wrote two full bipartisan federal income reform

bills. we can do this. this is what the senators said yesterday. we can find common ground. there is not a senator here who doesn't agree that the tax code is a rotting economic carcass. this is a dysfunctional mess. every single senator understands that, understands that it's broken and that since it's been 30 years since the last reform, there have been scores of changes in the tax code that really cause as much confusion as they do benefit. so i know that we can do this. that's what democratic senators said yesterday. they said, we want to work together in a group led by our colleague, senator manchin and senator mccain be, who brought us together. so we're going to vote, and i think it's going to be soon, on a motion to proceed. i would just tell senators, as

of right now, we don't yet know what the senate is going to be debating. and on those crucial issues that i just mentioned, we still don't have any information. yesterday the joint committee on taxation told me that they hoped to have what the republicans said was the essence of why their bill worked -- a dynamic score of the tax legislation. we haven't seen that either. so, mr. president, i hope our colleagues will vote no on the motion to proceed because i don't think it's too much to say that, as senators, when we're talking about going to a bill that involves $10 trillion worth of tax policy changes, here in the senate we ought to know what the senate will actually be debating. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. perdue: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: thank you, mr. president. when president trump took office, he said that job one this year was to get the economy growing again. as a business guy -- and i am going to speak very quickly because you think our majority leader is on the way down to the floor -- i said, the first thing we need do is get the economy growing. there were three things. one, pull back on the onerous federal regulations. so far this year 876 rules and regulations have been released. secondly, we have to release our god-given energy. finally, we have to change the tax code. that's what we're here debating this week. i am very optimistic that this plan will actual put people back to work, put money back in our pockets, and make the american economy competitive with the rest of the world. with that, mr. president, i notice that the majority leader is on the floor, and i yield back.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to calendar number 266, h.r. 1, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the motion. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: