vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 48. the nays are 51. the motion is not agreed to. the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. chairman, on behalf of the majority leader, i ask tbhawct that senator king now -- ask unanimous consent that senator king be recognized to offer a motion to commit which is at the desk and that the time until 4:00 be equally divided in the usual form for

debate on the motion and that at 4:00, the senate vote in relation to the motion with no intervening action or debate. i further ask that following disposition of the motion, the majority leader or his designee be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: i have a motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: senator from maine, mr. king, moves to commit the bill h.r. 1 to the committee on finance with instructions to report the same back to the senate in three days not counting any day on which the senate is not in session with changes that, one, are within the jurisdiction of such committee and, two, cause the bill to not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 2027. the presiding officer: 30 minutes of debate equally divided until 4:00. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana.

a senator: mr. president, i'd like to take a short break from talking about the tax bill to talk about something equally important and much more poignant. mr. cassidy: i want to first recognize and honor fellow americans serving overseas in our military, men and women dedicating their time and efforts keeping our country safe, working far from home and often in danger every day they risk their lives to defend our freedoms. today i want to talk about one in particular, u.s. naval airman matthew telastri, who not only risked his life but gave his life. he was born in louisiana, graduating valedictorian in baton rouge, class 260 ^+13. there a member of the rotc program after graduating, choose toning list in the navy. after completing his training he began his service with patrol squadron 30, a pa training squadron then served aboard the

u.s.s. america serving from december 2015 to october of this year. he was then sent to commander fleet activities in japan to begin preparing to join the u.s.s. ronald reagan. during the course of his service, he earned the national defense ribbon and the navy battle-e ribbon. on november 22, during a transport flight to the u.s.s. ronald reagan matthew's cargo plane was forced to megan emergency landing in -- an to make an emergency landing in the sea. matthew and two of his servicemen lost her lives in service to our country. this is a terrible tragedy. our hearts go out to matthew's family, his mother and father, his fellow sailors and friends in louisiana, we grieve with them. as one of his former high school classmates said, matthew could have gone -- could have had any scholarship he wanted to any

school. kiev went anywhere he wanted. he just believed that serving our country was first. that was his everything. others who knew him described matthew as smart, dedicated, and a strong leader. they said he could always make those around him laugh with his dry sense of humor and smile. as americans, we mourn the loss of naval airman matthew telastri, as folks from louisiana, we mourn the loss of one of our own. but we honor his memory and the example he set for those of us who benefited from his willingness to sacrifice. we thank him for choosing to serve, for his sacrifice we are forever grateful. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

senator from maine. martin luthe-- mr. king: mr. president, i called an amendment up on the floor of the united states senate, a simple one, maybe one of the most straightforward simple amendments. it simply refers this bill back to the committee with instructions to bring back a bill which is deficit-neutral. and i believe that can be done. and i think it can be done in a very short period of time, and i think it's important, and i'm going to outline why. but before i get to that, i'd like to mention that senator tester, senators tester, whitehouse, harris, van hollen, kaine, manchin, coons and feinstein are all announced supporters of this amendment and i wanted to offer my thanks and appreciation to them for their assistance. again, the amendment is very

simple. recommit the bill, have the committee work it once more, and come back to the senate floor with a bill that does not bust the deficit. this is one of the most important votes any of us will take in this body. i think it may be the most important. this is a bill that will affect america and americans for a generation. if past history is any guide, this will be the major tax reform bill in the next 20 to 30 years. it will affect every business, every citizen, and our entire economy. the stakes, in other words, are incredibly high. and it's my s.ssumption that when the stakes are hikes -- the bar for the process would also be high. if you're doing something with such enormous ramifications, it is common sense that you would take a great deal of care to thoroughly understand the provisions of the bill, it's implications, it's impacts, it's

possible unintended consequences, and be as careful as would be possible in order to determine how this bill will affect our country and our economy. instead, mr. president, we have the worst possible process. in other words, we have the highest stakes and the lowest process. it's the worst process i think i've ever seen in a public body. the bangor city council would not amend the leash law using this process. we are talking about one of the most important bills any of us will ever vote on that has had zero hearings before the united states senate. it has had no input from the citizenry, no input from outside of the community of this body -- in fact, the committee that has brought the bill to the floor. no expert, no outside expert analysis. there are bound to be mistakes

in this bill. in fact, i have a new rule i'm proposing today. i'm calling it modestly king's law. king's law is the faster a bill goes through this body, the worse it will be. and that's what we're talking about today. we're talking about bringing something through the united states senate, supposedly the world's most deliberative body, with little or no deliberation. and the impacts are going to be enormous. i just believe that we can slow down and do this right. in 1986, the last time there was a major tax reform in this country, it's very instructive to look back and watch and look and see how they did it. number one, it was bipartisan from the beginning. it was bipartisan from the beginning, and the senate finance committee had 33 hearings on the bill. 33 as compared with zero.

have we really fallen that far in this institution that we can't even have a series of hearings to understand what it is that we're doing? it took ten months to consider that bill. and to come to a conclusion and a vote on the senate floor, ten months. we're talking about a matter of days for the consideration of this bill. and the final point about the 1986 bill is that it passed the senate with 90 votes. that could happen here. i was on a stage with 16 colleagues, members of the democratic caucus, two days ago, all of whom are prepared, ready, and anxious and able to support tax reform, including cutting the corporate tax rate to make our businesses more competitive, but there's been no process to let them in, to allow them to talk. the point i'm trying to make here is that the vote we take

tonight or tomorrow morning or whenever it is does not have to be the end of this process. it can be the beginning of a real process. which is what it should be. now, my real concern -- or one of my concerns -- there are a lot of problems with this bill. but the concern that i want to focus on today and the background of my amendment which recommits and asks that the committee come back with a deficit-neutral bill is the debt and the deficit itself. this is a chart that should strike fear into the hearts of every american. this is basically the history of our national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product. this isn't dollars because that can be misleading. dollars, of course, are less now than they were in 1930 or in 1850. so this is percent of gross domestic product. it starts back in 1790 when the early americans were paying off the debt from the revolutionary war. and if you notice, there is a

pattern here that stops right here. the pattern is when we get into major catastrophes, including wars, that's when we have to borrow money. and that's what we d and here's the civil war. but it was paid down. 1910, then world war i, another huge expenditure. this is why you preserve your borrowing power for when you actually need it. and then world war ii. now, this line that goes down right here is the greater generation. the greatest generation not only fought world war ii, they paid for it. they paid down the debt and it goes down into the 1970's. and then we have a bump up and then down, but look where we're headed. look where we're headed. we're headed to a place where we aren't going to be able to sustain this debt. everybody knows that. and yet the bill that we're voting on today expands the

deficit by somewhere between half a trillion and $2.5 trillion, depending upon how it's all sorted out. of course, it's -- there is a a little bit of fake bookkeeping where the personal changes to the tax code expire in order to not bump up the cost within the budget window. but everybody knows -- and people on the majority who are supporting this bill are winking and nodding saying, of course those will be extended. well, you can't have it both ways. you can't say they'll be extended and take credit for that and then turn around and say, oh, don't worry about the deficit. this -- this is the greatest generation. this is the me too generation that's not paying for things, and it's shameful. it's shameful. and it is going to come back to haunt us. here's why. we are now in a "alice of

wonderland" interest rates. the lowest interest rates we've had in my lifetime. around 2% is what we're paying on our federal debt. the problem is the average for interest rates on our federal debt over the last 50 years is about 5.5%. well, it's a real easy calculation. when the debt is $20 trillion, 1% on the debt is $200 billion a year. if you go to 5.5%, just interest on the debt is $1.1 trillion. now, if that number rings a bell to anyone in this room, that's because that's the size of the entire current federal discretionary budget -- defense and nondefense. $1.1 trillion just in interest. interest rates are already starting to creep up. this is not an abtract fear. this is a high likelihood.

now, i've been around public life and politics for a long time, and i've heard a lot about deficits, and people are concerned about deficits -- until today. the deficit doesn't seem to be a big deal anymore. i predict that after this bill passes, within a couple of years when the deficits start to mount up, the same people who are voting for this bill today are going to say, oh, my goodness, we have these huge deficits. what are we going to do? i think we have to cut entitlements. we have to cut social security. we have to cut medicare. and certainly we have to cut all those domestic programs. well, mr. chairman -- mr. president, i don't think that's right. we had a hearing this morning in the armed services committee with a group of people talking about our national defense strategy and virtually everyone -- and virtually everyone at that table, i think there were five or six, agreed that the cost of rebuilding our defense capability over the next ten

years will be about $1 trillion. that's over and above the current defense budget. so we're talking about an additional $1 trillion. that happens to be the amount that this budget -- that this tax bill will suck out of the revenues of this country and be unavailable for any purpose, including defense. those who are concerned in this body about national security should be very concerned about this bill. i believe it will make it impossible to do the kind of restoration of the national security apparatus in this country that is necessary because we're not going to have the money. what we're doing is simply borrowing money from our children to give ourselves tax cuts. that's really the essence of what's going on here. if we were cutting taxes on a revenue-neutral basis, that would make sense.

think you can make sense, we're going to broadening the base and lower the rates. you could get the stimulative effect. but instead, all we're doing is hitting the tax -- all we're doing is shifting the tax to our kids. if you're there are a deficit situation and cut taxes further, it makes a hole. you fill the hole with borrowed money. that borrowed money is going to have to be paid back by these young people sitting in this room today. mr. president, if 5-year-olds knew what we were doing and could vote, none of us would have a job. because we are spending their money. it's as if you're lying on your deathbed. you call your children over to hear your last words and your last words are, here's the credit card. we had a great vacation, your mother and i. you pay the bill. that's what we're doing. and it's wrong. it's unethical. we are passing the bill onto our children. now, i know that the purpose

here is to stimulate economic growth, and i'm all for it, and i believe and said earlier on, i can see where a reduction of corporate tax rates and offshore rates is called for to make us competitive in the world economy. but the idea that these tax cuts are going to pay for themselves, it's never happened. it's never happened. it hasn't happened, didn't happen to the bush tax cuts, hasn't happened in kansas. it just hasn't happened. so we're talking about a dramatic increase in the federal deficit on top of what's already coming. that's what's really bother some about this. we can't talk about this bill in isolation without acknowledging we're already spending $500 billion more a year more than we're taking in in relatively good times. these are the times when we should be paying back this debt, not making it worse.

no rational business would be taking on debt when they're doing well, when you're doing well, you pay down your debt. and then you have a reserve for when you need it. we have no reserve. we're using up our cushion. we're using up whatever cushion we might need for disasters, for some kind of, heaven forbid, conflict, or simply for a recession. this is an incredibly destructive bill, and it doesn't have to be that way. it doesn't have to be that way. this is a place where i believe we can work together. this isn't a yes or no issue. i understand the health care debate was really a yes or no issue. do you want to repeal the affordable care act or not. that was yes or no. this, however, is about numbers. should the corporate rate be 25, 22, 28, or 20? or how do you deal with the a.m.t. or the estate tax or the

personal exemption? all of those dials can be changed in order to achieve a targeted growth, which is what we all want -- and i realize growth is the best way to solve this problem -- without at the same time exacerbating this really serious deficit problem that we're headed into. there are provisions of this bill that have nothing to do with economic growth. the estate tax, what does that have to do with it? eliminating the a.m.t., what does that have to do with economic growth? these -- there are provisions of this bill that don't meet the theory of the bill, and yet significantly aggravate its fiscal effect. so, mr. chairman -- mr. president, again, my amendment is really very straightforward. recommit the bill, come back with a deficit-neutral bill which i think can be done. it wouldn't take a month. have some hearings that will get

us some information about what the impacts of this bill will be, and we will have a much better bill. it could be a bipartisan bill. and we can meet the responsibilities that we have to the american people. mr. president, i believe that we owe the people no less. as i said at the beginning, there will be no more important bill we can vote on in this body, in our careers, and we owe it to the american people to, number one, understand fully what we're voting on. and, two, to do it in the most careful possible way to be the most targeted and most effective and most responsible change that we can make in order to help our economy and also help all the people of this country. there are many other issues with the bill, but i chose today to focus in my remarks and also on my amendment on the effects on the deficit because i think it's one of the most long-term threats. in fact a former head of the

joint chiefs of staff said national debt is the most serious threat to our national security in the long run. and to aggravate it unnecessarily, as this bill would do, i think is irresponsible. mr. president, we can do better. i am sure of that, if we'll slow down, listen to one another, and do what the american people expect of us. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i would like to thank the senator from massachusetts for his kind courtesy in agreeing to let me take two minutes, if i could, and if that could be timed, to reply to my colleague from maine. mr. president, if this legislation is signed into law, we are going to have a smaller deficit in nuclear plant years than we are -- deficit in future years than we are on a path to have now and i want to explain now. fundamentally i think most of us agree that tax reform done

properly generates more economic growth than a terrible tax code. the right incentives lead to stronger growth. this is not a simple tax cut. this is a complete overhaul. we have $5.5 trillion worth of tax reductions mostly offset with $4.1 trillion of base broadenners. it's a net of about $1.4 trillion. the effect is to fundamentally change the incentives, incentives to invest, incentives to buy new capital equipment, incentives to bring money back from overseas, incentives to start new businesses. they are powerful. and so the question becomes, how much more economic growth do we need to generate in order to have additional federal revenue that will offset the static score that this bill is scored at? we know the answer to that. joint tax has given us the answer to that. what we need is a mere .4% of extra economic growth on average over the next ten years.

and if we get that, .4, less than half of 1% of economic growth, then we will fully fill in this hole and relative to current policy have a smaller deficit than we're on track for. we're talking about going from 1.9% economic growth, which is the current -- c.b.o.'s current projection, to 2.3%. this year we're running at 3% even before we do this. so i just want to strongly urge my colleagues, if we pass this -- if you care as much as i know the senator from maine does about our budget situation, if you care about our deficits, if you'd like to have smaller deficits and less debt, pass this legislation. let's have the economic growth that is going to swamp this really modest score as a percentage of the revenue that we're forecast to take in. again, i want to thank the gentleman, the senator from massachusetts for his kind courtesy. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise in support of amendment of the senator from maine. he's getting right at the heart of this issue, and that is that this is nothing more than a con game by the republicans to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people and the wealthiest corporations in america, and then ultimately to wind up with a huge addition to the federal deficit. so i thought i would take this time just to explain to the american public what this whole concept of a reconciliation process is. it sounds like a -- it's a very fancy word, reconciliation. very fancy word. what does it mean, though, in a legislative context? well, you have to just take it for what it is. and the key part of the word reconciliation, when you're dealing with republicans, are the words c-o-n for con,

because the whole thing is a con job that they are trying to pull on the american people. because step number one is for them to argue that they are going to give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest corporations and the wealthiest individuals in america. the vast, vast overwhelming percent of it goes to them. pennies on the dollar go to average working families as tax breaks. and then they begin to argue that there is going to be a huge increase in economic growth in the united states. although they made the same argument in 1981 with the reagan tax breaks, and it turned out it exploded the deficits. then they made the same argument with the bush tax breaks, and it exploded the federal deficits. the economic growth never

happened that they said was going to happen. and now they're just bringing it all back out again. deja vu all over again. they're hoping that everyone will just buy the same exact now debunked economic argument for the third time in our country. and so the key is first you provide the tax break -- tax giveaways to the wealthiest, the wealthy corporations. that results then in exploding deficits. and then they say, well, there may be some additions to it. but that's just a side impact. that's where they are extremely deceptive. because in fact that's a feature of their tax breaks. a feature of their tax breaks is to create exploding deficits. and how do we know that? well, because the republicans have already called for, in

their budget, cuts in medicare and medicaid. they've already called for a $450 billion cut in medicare. they've already culled called for a $18 trillion cut in medicaid. so the beauty of the republican plan to give all of these huge tax breaks to the wealthiest in america is that it creates such a huge deficit that their elephant symbol is shedding crocodile tears about how big the deficit is going to become. that will be next year when they're shocked at how needed it is to cut medicare and medicaid but they have already given us the preview of coming attractions by putting it in their budget already this year. so this reconciliation game, this con job tries to separate the tax breaks from the wealthiest from their brutal, vicious cuts to programs for the

poorest, the sickest, the elderliest, the neediest in our country. that is the game. that is the con game, the reconciliation game that they are playing with the american public. and by trying to divide this story line, they seek to have it sneak through without any full understanding of the ramifications for the american people of the implications for their family. but make no mistake about it, as they have the tax giveaways to the wealthiest that results in the exploding deficits, that results then in the republicans all of a sudden once again really caring about deficits -- and i'll tell you an amazing thing about the republican party. they care about deficits. they care passionately, they care deeply about deficits when

the democrats are in charge 678. but when they're in charge, do they care about deficits? somehow or another they can turn a blind eye to their own actions which lead to exploding deficits. and there it is, ladies and gentlemen. that's the hypocrisy, the tribute that hypocrisy has to pay to virtue. they have to say the right things about the deficit. they have to say this isn't going to lead to exploding additional debt for our country. but every single economic analysis of this bill going back to the 1981 tax breaks, because it's all the same play, a trojan horse to give the tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. that's what david stockman actually said in 1985 in his famous book, "the triumph of politics." when he looked back at the 1981

huge tax breaks for corporations and for the wealthy he said actually the whole thing was a trojan horse to get the tax breaks for the 1% percentile. he was honest about it in his book. but he also said one other thing. he said ultimately the republicans didn't have the nerve then to cut their own special projects or to stop them advocating for massive increases in defense spending which ran totally contrary to their os ostensible goagget of reducing the -- goal of reducing the debt. we're going to hear from republicans about their massive cuts in tax as though somehow or another you can get a balanced budget out of that. you don't have to be an accountant, you don't have to be an expert on budgetary matters to figure out that does not add up, unless, ladies and gentlemen, unless they're going

to cut medicare, unless they're going to cut medicaid, unless they're coming back for it again. because if you kick them in the heart, you're going to break your toe. that's what this is all about. giving away trillions of dollars to the wealthiest to create pressure on the programs for the poorest, for the sickest, for those most in need in nursing homes in our country. that is what it's all about. and to boot, to boot, they also, in order to get votes for their bill, they then say to their own members, we're going to allow the oil industry to drill in the arctic national wildlife refuge, this pristine arctic wildlife refuge, for oil. even as just two years ago they advocated for lifting the ban on

the exportation of oil from our country that had been on the books for 40 years, even as we still import three million barrels of oil a day from opec. we are now exporting one million barrels of oil a day from our country. where are they going to get it? they are going to go to the arctic wild life refuge. here's where the oil companies are right now. they are going to get huge tax breaks out of this bill, and in order to get even more votes on their side, they are going to allow drilling in a pristine arctic wildlife refuge. in both cases what is happening is that the next generation of americans, regular americans, they are the ones getting shortchanged. a despoilization of our environment, tax breaks that

puts pressure on the social programs that go right to the heart of the safety net to protect families in our country. it's a con came. it's a reconciliation con came came -- con game they are trying to do out here. they do it time after time to hide their real agenda. all i can say is that what the gentleman from maine is proposing is for there to be just a little bit of honesty -- a little bit of honesty in terms of what the real agenda is here. and what his motion calls for is for the finance committee to ensure that there is no increase in the deficit, in the bill which we are going to vote on the floor. but that will never pass because the republicans have a con game. they all of a sudden don't care about deficit, they don't care about debt.

they don't care about the pressure put on ordinary families. who will pay back the debt? disproportionately it will be the regular families in this country. had they will pay it back for the rest of their lives and the debt is caused by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest. and to boot, it will be the programs to the ordinary families that get slashed to pay for it because that's what's coming out here on the floor of the senate in the very near future, this not so secret plan to fulfill their promise to the donor class of the republican party. they have a sacred duty that they have pledged to their donor class to get them these tax breaks and to do so the a the -- so at the expense of medicare and medicaid. that's the deal. that's the con job they are trying to perpetrate on the american people. that's why this vote is one of

the most important votes in the history of the united states of america. there are no votes that are bigger than this. it goes right to the shape of capitalism. they are seeking to reshape capitalism as we know it, who gets the incentives to be productive in our society and who then has to pay for those incentives that are being created. ladies and gentlemen, this momentous, historic moment is something that i hope every american reflects upon as we head into next year because the next stage is their all-out assault on medicare and medicaid, and probably social security as well, if they are going to fulfill their commitment to their republican base. i thank the gentleman from maine for this amendment. i think it goes to the heart of the debate that we need to have in this country, and i yield

back the balance of my time. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the time on the king motion be extended until 4:30 today with all other provisions on the previous consent remaining in effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. perdue: mr. president, i also ask unanimous consent that madison lynn, a fellow in my office be grand floor privileges for the remainder of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: mr. president, as an outsider to this process and to this body, we get to major issues like this, i really become very troubled. what we're trying to do today is historic. what we've been trying to do all year. this process has been under debate all year. it's historic. i agree with my colleagues across the aisle, but i'm going to use another word, a six-letter word that i believe characterizes it the best. we absolutely have a debt

crisis. there's no doubt about it. in the year 2000, the last year under president clinton, this country had a $6 trillion federal u.s. debt. at the end of george bush's presidency, we added 4 trillion, we had a $10 trillion debt. now at the end of president obama's administration, we added 10 trillion, such as today we have a $20 trillion debt on a $19 trillion economy. mr. president, there are countries under world bank fiscal watch that have stronger balance sheets than we do today. my concern is this, is that both sides fight each other over this issue depending on who? the white house and who is in the -- who is in the white house and who is in the majority of this body. what we're talking about today -- them saying it is a

con -- let's talk about what is a con. over the last three years we had three supermajorities, that's where there is a 60-vote majority in this body where they can do what they want. we've had three of those in the last 100 years, all democratic. the first gave us the new deal, the second the great society, and the third dodd-frank. i have run small businesses. i started working on an hourly wage. i worked through college and i ended up running a big company. my point here is that i can lay at the feet of the supermajorities most of the responsibility of the catastrophe that we have here in the united states. it is a full-blown crisis. they talk about deficits -- i talk about debt. that's what we owe the rest of the world. we, this year, this president, president trump inheard a

budget -- inherited a budget that will have a shortfall between revenues and expenses, yet we will collect a record sum of tax this year -- the highest in our history. last year we collected the most we ever collected, year before that the most. this is not a problem of raising taxes. our problem is the size of our federal government has exploded. in the year 2000, the last year under bill clinton, the size of the government was $2.4 trillion, the size last year, after two administrations, one republican, one democrat, it was $4 trillion. mr. president, that cannot continue. in 2009 because of the sequestration in the budget control act, the size of our discretionary spending has declined from $1.5 trillion to $1.1 trillion. and $250 billion has been cutting the u.s. military after

we are facing a world that is more dangerous than at any time in my lifetime. i'm here to talk about the con of all cons is the fact that the great society and all of those sweeping programs, tens of millions of dollars behind the poverty. it has failed. poverty rate is the same as it was in the late 1960's when that was signed into law. mr. president, doing nothing -- the proposal to do nothing is the con of all cons. the con that the bigger government has a solution for the american people has been proven over and over again to fail. look at obamacare. both sides are now agreeing that it failed. now what are we going to do about it? the veterans administration, a cess pool. as a matter of fact, the con of all cons is that we're coming out of the slowest, lowest economic growth in the united states history, mr. president, 230 years.

freddie mac, fannie mae, bankrupt. u.s. postal office, amtrak, bankrupt. i think what we have to do today is get past all of that. both sides are guilty when it comes to the $20 trillion problem. it is a manifestation of washington's unwillingness to get its fiscal house in order and live within our means. the last eight years under president obama we borrowed as a federal government 35% of everything we spent. what that means is that every dime that we spent on our military, on our veterans' administration, and on all domestic discretionary programs, mr. president, is borrow. every dime of the $3.5 trillion was spent on mandatory expenses. doing nothing is not an option. when president trump took office, though, he said that job one was to grow the economy.

why? why was growing the economy important? growing the economy is important because it's one of the several steps you have to employ to get at the debt crisis, mr. president. yes, there's -- there are going to be tax cuts for individuals, we'll get to that in a second, but primarily this is a stimulative package to get the economy growing. one is to lower the corporate tax rate. anybody can debate this and win. we have to become competitive with the rest of the world. in asia the corporate tax rate is 13%, in europe it is in the low 20's, everybody is going down like the u.k., it will go to 17%, mr. president, this is the least we can do. getting our pass-throughs to have parity is also critical. but we have to first roll back federal regulations. that is the first piece. the second piece is that we have to push out our energy potential. we talked about a few of those,

but keystone pipeline, clean power plant, anwr are moving along. lowering the corporate tax rate, eliminating the tax rate, and lowering taxes for americans. some say u- going to add $1.5 trillion in the debt. i look at it as an investment. as we heard from our good friend from pennsylvania, four tenth of 1% will pay for it. 3.5% is our average on g.d.p., but more important than that in the last seven decades that we have enjoyed economic growth in america, only one decade have we had lower growth than 2.5%, and that was one decade where we had 2.3%. at 2.3% we more than pay for what we're talking about now, and my projects is that we will do -- projection is that we will do better than that. there are noted economists who say that.

we have $3 trillion not at work because of fiscal policy at the very time that the fed added $4.5 trillion to the balance sheet, the largest in history, we got 1.9% g.d.p. growth over the last eight years. you can only look at one place, and that's fiscal policy, that would generate that kind of anemic growth in history. i'm looking at freeing up that money. this tax package will unleash that capital power. we have several trillion dollars on the bank balance sheets of lower, smallinger, regional -- smaller, regional banks, we have some on the balance sheets of russell 1000 and unrepatriated u.s. profits because of our archaic repatriation tax. changing the tax code is not only necessary, the rest of the world needs us to do this. but i will say this, under the

president -- president trump's leadership and driving force, i believe things are already beginning to happen, and that's why you see reflections in the bond and stock market that reflect a move economy. this economy wants to move. i watched consumer confidence my entire career, mr. president, and right now this is what is what's happening. so far two million jobs were c created, -- were created, 260 regulations have been removed. illegal border crossings are down. we voted 97-2 in a bipartisan vote to allow the head of the veterans administration to deal with it like any other entity in the country and that is to be able to fire people for performance. since that time over 500 peep have been removed from -- people have been removed from the veterans administration.

neil gorsuch was confirmed to the supreme court. this body is still gridlock and that's what we have to break through. we have here a historic opportunity to change the direction of our country. this is why i ran for the united states senate, to be a part of trying to add some influence into a future direction for our children and grandchildren. mr. president, do you realize our children is the fir generation in the -- first generation in the history of our country that faces a lower economic prospect than their predecessors. that is unacceptable. we have the most dynamic worker base in the history of the world, we have a growing economy again. mr. president, this is not necessary. so these changes that we're talking about, and i've heard all the rhetoric just today even, just in the last hour, oh, this is all going to the rich. those mean, old greedy corporations. by the way, nothing is going to little guy. let's talk about the reality here, mr. president.

a family of four -- this is a real-world example. family of four earning a median income of $73,000 in this bill will get a 60% tax cut. a single mom with one child making $41,000 a year, which is a median individual income, will get a 75% tax cut, mr. president. i don't consider those rich. i don't consider those big corporations. those are individual examples of what this tax bill is intended to do. but more than that, six million people who pay taxes today under this bill, next year, their tax rate will go to zero, mr. president. six million americans will find that they will not be paying federal income tax next year. but the person who gets the biggest cut, the biggest benefit from this entire plan is that person who gets a job, mr. president. and that's not the half of it. if our corporations get to a

competitive position on this, by the way, our 35% nominal tax rate, the top rate for corporations is the most onerous penalty on the american worker that has been perpetrated by politicians in washington over the last 50 years, both republicans and democrats. this is insanity. the other side talks about this is insanity. when the rest of the world is almost half of what our corporate rate is, how in the world are we going to defend foreign companies from coming and buying the u.s. companies and using the tax arbitrage to pay for it? that's what's happening now. we can end that. this repatriation tax will free up almost $3 trillion. this is extremely stimulative in the market. i believe on the back of an aggressive trade policy, i believe we will get exports going again. there is no good reason to not be for this bill today. all the false accusations from the other side are just simply not true. yes, there is an investment here, but every time i bought a piece of equipment in business,

mr. president, i had to pay for it. i paid for it up front and i got a benefit from it. it's called return on investment. that's exactly what this is for the american worker and the american people. this is an investment, and i expect a return on investment that they will benefit from. this tax code is so archaic, mr. president, it's embarrassing to talk about. i won't even get -- it is 2.4 million words, but it is so ridiculous that this is -- one of the intents here is to simplify that for the average taxpayer, and i believe we've accomplished that. there are clear problems with this plan. this plan -- with the program today, and this plan takes clear steps to address those. it's an investment in our future. it's a rejection of the idea that 1.9% is the new norm. the other side a few years ago tried to convince us that that was the case. if we do nothing, mr. president, from today forward, this is because the -- both sides are guilty of this one. the current budget that we're under -- operating under that is

the last budget that president obama left with us, and we're both guilty of this. this is both sides now. this is not a partisan comment, but $11 trillion if nothing is done will be added to a $20 trillion debt. mr. president, that's just unacceptable. that's not an option. it's not possible. this issue is bigger than partisan politics, it's bigger than self-interest, it's bigger than anyone in this body. this is about our children and our grandchildren. this new tax direction will allow our workers to compete again on a level playing field with the rest of the world and win. not only is our economic security at risk, mr. president, i believe that our national security is definitely in danger because of this debt. both sides are commenting on that today. but don't take my word for it. almost 200 outside groups have come out in support of this bill. mr. president, that's -- that's historic in its own right. when you do something that's this big to have that many people support it. i believe that what both sides of the aisle need to do is back

up and look at what's best for the american people long term. they are too -- there are two ideologies at war here, mr. president. one side believes that we need to give more money to the federal government, let's have more big programs like the veterans administration, the postal service, and all those things instead of putting it back in people's pockets and investing in our economy. mr. president, this is a historic moment of opportunity before us this week, to change the tax code and to finally help american families and businesses compete with the competitors around the world. this standard of living that we've taken for granted for 70 years is the greatest expansion of economic exercise in the history of humankind. we can turn this around, mr. president, but only by getting back to the fundamentals of economic opportunity, fiscal responsibility, limited government and individual liberty. i believe we'll do it, mr. president. i believe the american people want us to do it. this president's agenda will work. he comes from the business

world. i come from the business world. that's what this is about. we have an understanding of what it takes to compete globally, and that's what this bill does finally for the american workers. mr. president, i thank you and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: mr. president, i want to go back to what this amendment does. as the senator has pointed out, this is to remand this bill back to the finance committee so it can come back without adding nearly a trillion and a half dollars to the national debt, maybe a heck of a lot more than that. i'm in business, too, mr. president, and i will tell you that if i ran my business and did the things in my business that this bill is doing, i would go out of business. why? because my kids wouldn't be able to afford to stay farming because i would have acquired too much debt. that is why it is so important and it is why i applaud senator king for bringing this amendment

forward. i have sat on this floor and i have listened to folks talk about the threat from north korea, which is absolutely real, and the money it's going to take to deal with that threat, and it's not going to be cheap. i come to the floor and i listen to people talk about the national security interests of this country and how there are people who want to do bad things to our country. we have to keep our country safe. but it comes with a cost. i heard senator king talk earlier today about rebuilding our military. we have been at war for 16 years. and the cost it's going to take to rebuild our military. all those things take money. they are expenses of what we have to do here to keep this country secure. it is incredible to me, it is absolutely incredible to me that we have people walk to the floor and talk about a 38% effective

rate when everybody on this floor that's in business knows that that is not the rate that corporations pay in this country. by the time you do your deductions, your rate -- your effective rate is far less than that. in fact, some people feel it's about 20%. but nonetheless, i will agree. i think both sides of the aisle can agree that we need to do tax reform. we need to modernize our focus. it hasn't been done in 30 years. but it can't be done in a way that adds $1.5 trillion on to our kids. right now we have got a $20 trillion debt, there is no doubt about that. that's 6 p thousand dollars -- $63,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. when i sat in that chair that the president is sitting in now, when i first got elected some 11 years ago, i heard folks from that side of the aisle talk about the debt every single day. after the 2014 election, it has

been crickets on that side of the aisle when it comes to the debt. the debt's still real. when we had the biggest meltdown in this country since the dirty 30's, we had to make an investment into this country. i had -- i had -- i had people in the construction business in my office with tears in their eyes saying there is no work in the private sector. you have got to do something to help stimulate this economy, or things are going to go to heck. times were tough. the debt increased. we had to get the economy turned around. now times are good. for all the folks that are in business or at least claim that they are in business, in good times, what do you do? you pay down your debt. you save. you make a rainy day fund, because you know it's not always going to be like this. instead, in this body, we say times are good, but we're going to add another $1.5 trillion on

the debt. just do it. our kids, they can worry about it. hell, we'll be dead and gone. that is why this amendment is so critically important. so we can send it back to finance, so that there could be a true bipartisan discussion in committee about what needs to happen with this bill to have it come back so it's revenue neutral. we can do that, and we can help push the economy forward, and we can help have a bright future for our kids, but we're not going to do it with this bill, and we're not going to do it with one side with a bipartisan bill like this is right now. so i want to commend senator king for pushing this amendment forward to remand this bill back to the finance committee so that they can bring it back in a revenue-neutral position because we can cut taxes, we can broaden that base without adding to the

debt. and we need to do it. we need to do it for our kids, the same reason that most of us claim we're here. we're here to make sure we have a better future or our kids and our grandkids. well, let's do it with this bill. let's walk the walk, not just talk the talk. i yield the floor. mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i call up amendment number 1720 and ask unanimous consent that senators franken, wyden, and nelson be added as cosponsors. the presiding officer: the amendment is not in order. mr. sanders: mr. president, i do not ask unanimous consent, but i

would like to speak on the amendment that i will be offering later. mr. president, the president of the united states donald trump and the republican leadership are busy every day telling the american people how this piece of tax legislation is going to help the middle class and how it was written for the middle class. and when we see president trump going to missouri and saying this bill is not going to help me who is a billionaire, it's really designed for the middle class, i trust that i will not shock too many people when i suggest that what president trump is saying is not accurate, is not truthful.

this legislation, according to numerous independent studies, will provide 62% of the tax benefits to the top 1%. 62% of the benefits go to the top 1% while it increases taxes on 87 million middle-class households by the end of the decade. here we are, as every american knows, we are living at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, middle-class shrinking, millions of people working longer hours for lower wages, 40 million people living in poverty. but over the last 40 years, the people on the top have been doing phenomenally well, and today we have more income and

wealth inequality than any time since the late 1920's. given that reality, who in their right mind believes that it makes sense to give huge tax breaks for the people on top while cutting -- while raising taxes for the middle class. and you know what? my republican colleagues here may think that makes sense. that is not what the american people believe. poll after poll after poll suggests, as it did with their disastrous health care legislation, that the american people do not want this legislation. if you can believe it, mr. president, the joint committee on taxation told us just last night that by the year 2027, 150 million households in america making $200,000 a year

or less will see their taxes go up, not down, under this disastrous bill. why? because the tax cuts for middle-class families expire by the end of 2025 while, surprise of all surprises, the tax breaks for large corporations are made permanent. the benefits for the middle class expire. they're temporary. the benefits for the corporate world are permanent. mr. president, the leadership of the republican party is telling the american people that trickle-down economics, giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations will expand the economy, will create

new jobs, and will bring in so much revenue that magically it will pay for itself. just give tax breaks to billionaires and large corporations, and those tax breaks will pay for themselves. here is the reality. the reality is trickle-down economics is a fraudulent theory. when ronald reagan slashed taxes for the rich in 1981, economic growth went down by 1.9% the following year and the unemployment rate increased from 7.5% to 10.8%. the 1981 tax cut was so successful, mr. president, that reagan had to increase taxes 11 times after that. after president george w. bush cut taxes for the wealthy and large corporations, we lost nearly 500,000 private-sector

jobs. the national debt almost doubled. poverty increased and median income went down. after right-wing republicans in kansas, the last -- the last example of the theory of trickle-down economics, after the right-wing republican leadership in kansas cut taxes for the wealthy, revenue declined so much that they had to make savage cuts in education, health care, transportation, and infrastructure. trickle-down economics did not work under reagan, did not work under george w. bush, did not work in the state of kansas. it is a fraudulent theory cooked up by think tanks, funded by billionaires and the wealthy. mr. president, every independent expert who has taken a look at

this tax bill has said that it will substantially increase the deficit even after accounting for economic growth. joint committee on taxation has told us that this bill will increase the deficit by $1.4 trillion over the next decade. i want to make this point because it has not been made enough. mr. president, mark my words. if this legislation is passed, if the deficit goes up by $1.4 trillion, i believe without any doubt that the republican party will come down here to the senate and go to the house and say, my goodness, we have raised the deficit, and in order to deal with that, we have got to

cut social security, medicare, medicaid, nutrition, education, affordable housing, and every program that is important -- a senator: would my colleague yield? mr. sanders: yes. a senator: i think my colleague is making an extremely important point. mr. wyden: i think what is important in your projection is we've seen this movie before. isn't this what happened with the bush tax cuts and so many of these other projections? they get the sugar high by running the big deficits up by the breaks to the multinationals and the donors and the like. then they don't get the jobs. then they get the big deficits. i think what the senator is talking about is then they come back and go after the hunger programs and medicaid and social security. is that what my colleague is talking about? mr. sanders: absolutely. but it is not just an idea that i have. it's not just a theory that i have. these numbers were put right into the budget passed by the united states senate, which

called for a trillion-dollar cut in medicaid and a $470 billion cut in medicare and massive cuts to other programs. but let's not even talk about the budget of several months ago. let's just talk about what our colleague, senator marco rubio yesterday -- yesterday told a group of wall street lobbyists. let me quote senator rubio. he said, quote, many argue that you can't cut taxes because it will drive up the deficit, but we have to do to things. we have to generate economic growth which generates revenue while reducing spending. that will mean instituting structural changes to social security and medicare for the future. end of quote, senator rubio yesterday. well, let me translate what senator rubio said yesterday and

what speaker paul ryan has been saying. it's not theoretical. what they are saying is exactly what will happen. and i hope that the senior citizens all over this country, people who are trying to get by on $13,000 a year, social security, people who are trying to get by on disability, people who are dependent on medicaid for their insurance to help them stay alive when they combat life threatening diseases like cancer or heart disease, people in america who are struggling today to put food on the table, working families who are trying to figure out how possibly -- how possibly they might be able to send their kids to college. listen up because they are virtually admitting, they are telling us that they are going to come back and cut social security, medicare, and medicaid. yesterday i made a challenge.

and i said to my republican colleagues, if i am wrong, if it is not your intention to come back here and cut social security, medicare, and medicaid and education, please come down to the floor and tell me i am wrong. tell me you have no intention to do that. i will apologize to you. well, we have not heard any senators come down to the floor to tell us they will not cut social security, medicare, and medicaid and other programs. in fact, senator rubio off the floor indicated that that is exactly what they intend to do. so let's be clear. we're not just talking here about a tax bill. this is a disaster on to itself. that's a massive -- the presiding officer: the democratic time has expired. mr. sanders: i would ask unanimous consent for three more minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection. mr. thune: reserving the right to object. let me just clarify. i think the ranking member of the committee who's managing the bill also wanted some time. is that correct? mr. wyden: if my colleagues, if we can see if we can work this out. senator thune has been very gracious. would it cause great consternation over there if we gave senator sanders three minutes, myself five minutes and went right to senator thune? mr. thune: all right. without objection. mr. sanders: here's the bottom line. the bill that these republicans are going to vote on, massive tax breaks for the rich, raising taxes for the middle class, raising the deficit by $1.4 trillion, creating a situation with 13 million people lose their health insurance, premiums go up by 10%.

but that's only half the story. the other half of the story is they're going to come back and they're going to pay for the tax breaks for the rich and large corporations by slashing social security, medicare, and medica medicaid. mr. president, this legislation is an assault on the middle class and working families of this country. it must be defeated. with that i would yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i brought with me to the floor a copy of the just-released analysis by the joint committee on taxation. these folks are the independent tax referees for the congress. i pushed very hard for several weeks in order to get this dynamic score for the republican tax bill because as the ranking

member on the finance committee, i heard my colleague say week after week that all we need to get is a dynamic score and people will see the value of our bill. well, we got the score, and the score ends the fantasy about magical growth, about unicorns and growth fairies suddenly showing that tax cuts pay for themselves. in fact, this report shows that this bill would lose more than a trillion dollars even with the dynamic score. it slows the growth of the american economy after 2025. it is the total opposite of what was promised. even with the dynamic score, what we're seeing is the sponsors of this bill spending a trillion dollars and not helping those who need the help. the numbers are now in. this is the hard evidence that

this bill basically isn't much more than a holiday bonanza for multinational corporations and powerful interests. i have heard a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle already criticizing the analysis by the joint committee on taxation. i'm sure they're unhappy because this certainly unravels all of their projections, and they continue despite the fact that the hard evidence is in, they're still saying that their tax plan is going to produce a magical unicorn and rainbow fantasy of economic growth. the facts are now in. the republican plan loses a trillion dollars. this republican plan slows

economic growth. the growth fantasy is over. it is over. mr. cornyn: would the senator yield for a question? wide as soon as i have a chance to finish my statement. i'm happy to extend the courtesy that sometimes i don't get from the gentleman, but i'm happy to do it. the growth fantasy is over with this projection. i'm happy to yield to my colleague. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i thank -- the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i thank the ranking member of the finance committee. i know we have other senators ready to speak. since the senator believes that the joint committee on taxation dynamic score of our tax bill is entirely -- isn't entirely accurate, would he agree with me that the score demonstrates that there is economic growth generated by tax cuts and really what we're just talking about is how much economic growth is generated? mr. wyden: what i would say is sure, there's what amounts to

negligible growth, but this slows the growth of our economy after 2025. that's not what we were promised. in fact, let me recap a little bit of the republican promises. the treasury secretary steve mnuchin said this bill would generate so much growth, it would take care of the $1.5 trillion and generate a trillion dollars on top of it. what a difference between steve mnuchin's projection of $2.5 trillion and the number that i've got on this sheet from the joint committee on taxation $407 billion worth of revenue. i thank my colleague to help us clear up what is a little bit at issue. i appreciate senator thune being so gracious in giving me the extra time.

i would just ask unanimous consent that senator franken, myself, and senator nelson be added as cosponsors to amendment numbered 1720 and i want to thank the senator from south dakota for his thoughtfulness. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i a lot of our colleagues on the other side have come to the floor today and talked about why they don't like our tax reform bill. many of those arguments have been focused on who benefits from it. of course, as is usually the case when you start talking about any kind of an attempt to reduce taxes on the american people so they can keep more of what they earn, keep more of the dollars in their pockets so they can decide how to spend it rather than send it to washington, d.c., democrats complained that it is tax cuts for the rich. well, again, i want to point out -- and this of course is based upon the joint committee on

taxation, which was just alluded to and where they find the benefits of the tax relief going. as you can see from this chart, these represent different income groups and the highest percentage tax cuts actually go to those in the lower and midd middle-income groups. if you look at who benefits from this, every income group gets a significant tax cut. but middle-income americans do particularly well percentage wise under this tax reform proposal. so the argument again that this is somehow simply a tax cut for the rich just doesn't pass the smell test. it doesn't comport with reality. clearly the numbers tell a very different story. the other point i'd like to make, mr. president, is that if you look at what we tried to accomplish in this -- the design of this tax bill, we tried to maintain the existing

progressivity in the tax code. we have one of the most progressive tax codes in the world. we have a lot of people in this country who don't have income tax liability, some who benefit from refundable tax credits that helps eliminate or partially eliminate their payroll tax liability as well. but this chart shows you, under our bill, when it is all said and done, who bears the tax burden in this country. in other words, the percentage of the tax liability paid by each different group, different income group. if you look at this, you can see those in the $,000 $5 -- in the 20,000 to $50,000 range, the rate drops from 4.3% to 4.1%. so those in the $20,000 to $50,000 income group as a percentage tax burden in the country pay less under our

proposal than they do today. if you look at the group from $50,000 to $100,000, that income group -- they also, as a percentage of the entire tax burden borne by americans, pay less under our proposal than they do today. they pay 16.9% today. under our proposal, they will pay 16.7%. -- of total taxes in this country. those, on the other hand, making $100 yo,000 or more will pay slightly more of the overall tax bumped today they pay 78.7%. under our proposal, they pay 78.9%. so people under $100,000 are going to be paying less as share of the overall tax burden than they currently do today. i don't know how anyone with a straight face can argue that somehow this is a tax bill that benefits those in the upper end. with respect to the arguments that are being made right now, mr. president, regarding the joint committee release of the

dynamic score, i would say the same thing that my colleague from texas did and i think the good news in all this is what it demonstrates is what we're trying to do here actually generates economic growth. it actually generates additional ref few for the federal treasury. we can argue about how much. we happen to think that the assumptions used by the joint committee are not accurate because they assume that we're going to continue to grow for the next decade our economy at 1.9%. 1.9%. historical averages going back to the understand of world war ii in the american economy, we have averaged somewhere between 3% and 3.5% growth. so if you take the assumption that we're never going to do any better than 1.9% growth in the economy, then perhaps their estimate could be accurate. we happen to believe we're going to do a whole lot better than that. we believe if we put the right

policies in place and we make america an-trackive place in which to invest, that we're going to see considerably higher growth than 1.9%. so what does it take to cover the number that we created in this tax bill that would have to be paid for with additional growth in the economy? well, it takes about .4% of growth, increase in average annual growth, over the next decade. that means instead of growing at 1.9% a year for the next decade, we're going to have to grow a 2.2%, 2.3%, somewhere in that ballpark to start generating revenue boffed and beyond what the -- revenue above and beyond what the impact would be on the federal budget. so what i would simply say is when you look at these various models that are done and the assumptions that are made -- remember that the joint committee on tax acres the

congressional budget office, the numbers that they are using assume 1.9% economic growth. i mean, i can't believe that we wouldn't have more confidence in the american economy that we could generate higher than 1.9% economic growth. that is the straitjacket that constrains their models. now, there are other models out there that have looked at this same information, the same data looked at the same tax bill, considered the behavioral effects of that and how it would impact the mandate come to an entirely different conclusion. in other words in fact, the tax foundation has suggested that the tax bill we have in front of us today would generate an additional $1.26 trillion over the same time period. so what we tried to do is design a tax bill that not only delivers meaningful tax relief to middle-income fathers which i think as i just showed demonstrates that we do, but secondly to put policies in place that will create dimension l. conditions that are favorable

to economic growth. when the economy is growing at a faster rate it means that companies are -- businesses are creating jobs, better-paying jobs, and if there is a competition for labor in this company, and i believe there will be when companies start to expand, start to grow their operations, it increases the demand for labor. the price for labor goes up and wages go up. that's what we want to see. that's the other thing about this bill is doesn't get talked about enough. the reduction in rates on businesses means that they have more to invest in their businesses and one of the by-products of that is it goes into higher wages for their employees. now, the president's council of economic advisors suggests that that impact would be about $4,000 a year in additional income per average household in this country. there is another study done by boston university where they conclude that it would result in $3,500 in additional income. so the impact of the tax cuts

are really twofold. one is you -- american families would have more in their pockets. why? because we double the standard deduction. in our bill we double the child tax credit. we lower rates, all of which impact lower and middle-income families in this country. those are all features they can take advantage of which generate additional benefits to them, benefits which, by the way, if you are an average family in this country, typical family of four with a combined annual income of $73,000, results in a $2,200 tax cut. that's a 60% tax cut over what they would pay under current law. so that's $2,200 in that family's pocket that they will be able to spend on themselves and their families instead of as asisending that to washington, . we happen to have a lot of confidence that the american people are better prepared and better equipped to side thousand spend -- to decide thousand spend their own money. that's a direct benefit, number one. secondly, as i said earlier, if you get the benefit not only of the tax cut that comes to

middle-income families but also the additional growth in the economy that generates better-paying jobs, it generates higher wages, that increases your overall household income. that is how american families benefit directly from the legislation that we're considering today. my colleague from ohio is here. he pays a lot of attention to what the economic trends are and i think it's interesting to note that the congressional budget office and the joint tax committee, which in their analysis assume 1.9% growth in the economy for the next decade, we think we can do a lot better, and i would ask my colleague from ohio, aren't we already starting to do better economically? i think we've seen a significant improvement in growth in the economy just in the last couple of quarters. and if we would continue to stay on that track or a similar track, which i think this tax reform legislation helps enable, we might be able to goat a point where we're growing at a more historic rate.

what was the growth rate just for example in the last couple of quarters in this country? mr. portman: we've had a debate here this afternoon about economic growth and one of the realities now on both sides of the aisle, we agree that the tax relief that we're putting out there, which is helping middle-class families to be able to have a little healthier family budget but also helping workers with regard to the international competition. right now our workers are competing with one hand tied behind their back, that all of this is going to generate more economic growth, it's going to come from more investment, more productivity. and in fact the number that the joint committee on taxation put out today, although it is significantly lower than other numbers, you know, is over $400 billion. more revenue coming in. so enough growth it'll generate that much more revenue coming into the federal government. mr. thune: that's based upon assumption that the growth rail in the economy for the next decade is going to be 1.9%?

mr. portman: exactly. so that's the number. let's say roughly $400 billion that they have. by the way, there are 137 economists who tell us that it will be not $400 billion, but it'll be $1 trillion. and this is their quote. their letter came out yesterday. it said, economic growth will accelerate if the tax cuts and jobs act pass, leading to more jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living for the american people. this is 137 economist who say it is going to be more than twice as much as joint tax says. and there are other studies that indicate there will be even more economic growth. mr. thune: we're already seeing that, right? the we're already seeing it pick up? mr. portman: so that's one part of the debate is how much economic growth is going 0 come out of these tax reforms this we're putting afford. we know it will be a lot. the question is how much. this is all based an a congressional budget office estimate of growth over the next ten years, the g.d.p. growth, the economic growth.

so we're sort of in a straitjacket that although we believe this tax reform proposal will help in terms of that growth, we have to go by this number of 1.9%. and 1.9% is anemic growth. that's sad. if we can't do better than 1.9%, we've got real problems in this country. that's for the next ten years projected. as you have said, it is kind of interesting they're projected 1 moi 9 -- 1.9%. others are projecting other numbers. it was adjusted yesterday to 3.3%. the quarter before, the second quarter this freer's year,3%. so 3%, 3.3% the last two quarters and yet they're saying 1.9%. again there are others out there. there is a private forecast. others indicated 30.4% next year. the average since world war ii is far higher. even with a lot of recessions

and other natural as does it is 2.5% or movement so this is not normal. this is a relatively low rhode island i know we can do better. i don't say as some do that this is somehow the new normal. we've got to do better. if we don't, we can't begin to get wages back up again which have been flat really for the past couple decades. weigh know we can do better. that's one reasoning this is important to give the economy that shot in the arm. let's assum for a minute that it will only be 1.9% growth. let assume this tax proposal passes. let's assume we get the benefit of the increased revenue. what we say is about $1.4 trillion to $^1.5 trillion of tax relief will be a part of this. that that's out of the re reven. we know the growth will make up for that. let's assume this is true. let's assume you use the right policy baseline, assuming that

we are going to continue with the current extenders, which we always d we end up -- stick with me here -- with about $533 billion deficit over the next ten years, if you assume this really low rate of growth. if you assume that instead of 1.9% we go not to 3%, not to 2.5%, not even to 2.4%, 2.3%, 2.2%, but let's say 2 boy 1% growth. very conservatism i sure hope we're going to do better than that. that will generate enough revenue because it's roughly $270 billion per every .1%. to have this tax reform proposal actually result in money going back into the treasury, reducing the deficit. so i think this is very fiscally responsible. i think it is very conservative. i think 2.1% growth is not something that is at all out of

bounds. i think it's going to be far higher than that, based on the growth we've already had recently and the growth it's projected in the future by outside forecasters. so i would just say to folks hearing about this somehow blowing a hole in the deficit, i think the opposite. i think it will result in more money going into the federal treasuries to get the deficit down. and let me say something else. i think this is a debate we can have but we've got to deal with the growth side if we're going to get the debt and deficit under control. there is no question about it. it can't just be done on the spending side. even to do the important work we have to do on a bipartisan basis to restrawn growth, it's much more likely we do it when witch higher growth. if we're at 1.9% growths we're not going to get there. let's do some pro-growth tax reform, let's get the economy growing. let's do something about the debt and deficit and week do that again by very meager growth, 2.1% versus 1.9% and actually take money that is

currently in the economy at 1.9%, not moving much, let's get it moving more. let's creed more economic activity. let's do that to get that growth rate up a little bit through the tax reform. then let's begin to reduce the debt and d i wanted to make that point. when you hear this is fiscally irresponsible. i think it is very conservative. i think we'll do better than the numbers that we've seen here, 1.9% growth. certainly just 20.1% growth -- just 2.1% growth. thune to our colleagues and i found myself and i'm sure the senator from ohio as well among those of us who consider ourselves fiscal conservatives, realize that in order to deal with debt and deficits, yes, we've got to get our arms around out-of-control washington spending. mr. thune: and we've got to do something to make those programs that are