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 driving out-of-control

spending more sustainable in the long run. we've got to do the other side of this. which is to restrain spending. but in order to deal with debt and deficits we need that growth in the economy. because the economy growing at a faster rate means people are working, people are paying taxes, people are taking realizations and paying taxes and government revenues go up dramatically. and so we need growth and that's what this bill will accomplish. mr. president, i yield back the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. is there a sufficient second? the yeas and nays have been called for. there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 48, the nays are 526789 the motion is nod -- the nays are 526789 the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: subsidy that

senator stab noe n.o.w. be recognized to offer a motion to commit which was at the desk and the time until:00 be equally divided. there be no amendments in order to the instructions and at:00 the senate vote in relation to the motion with no intervening action or debate. i further ask that following disposition of the motions to reconsider the majority leader or his designee be recognized. the presiding officer: objection? without objection. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: well, thank you, mr. president. i feel like i've -- feel like i first we should be talking about the deficit which was of concern to us and wish was of more concern to -- yes, i do. i absolutely do, mr. president. i would like to call up my motion to commit, which is at the desk, to put in place a guarantee -- the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. ms. stabenow: thank you. the clerk: ms. stabenow moves to commit the bill h.r. 1 to the

committee on finance which 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, to -- ms. stabenow: i ask that we suspend the reading. the presiding officer: senators will remove your conversations from the floor. senators remove your conversations from the floor. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. this would put in place a guarantee that middle-class families would receive the benefits that they are being promised in this bill. i'm offering this motion to commit with the support of senators casey, van hollen, udall, cardin, booker, wyden, menendez, harris, and brown. i said it before and i'll say it again -- there's no question we

need tax reform that creates jobs, incentivizes companies to bring back jobs from overseas to protect our farmers, and to help semiautomatics put more money in the pocket of families across michigan and across the nation u that's what i would vote for and i know other colleagues would vote for but that's not what this bill does. that's into the this republican bill does. we in that our friends o. -- we know that our friends across the aisle are in a hurry to pass this legislation as quick lace possible. before the american people discover what a bad deal it is. unfortunately, for republicans we keep uncovering new ways that this tax legislation is a huge giveaway for the wealthiest 1% and now we know from the latest scoring it blows a huge hole in our nation's debt, expand you are our nation's debt.

here are just a few ways that this legislation hurts middle-class families. it keeps a loophole that lets corporations write off their expenses, their moving expenses when they move jobs overseas. however, a family moving across the country to michigan for a new job could no longer deduct their moving expenses. big businesses could keep on deducting their state and local taxes. middle-class families -- sorry, no state and local tax deduction for you. and oil companies would enjoy a brand-new $4 billion offshore tax loophole. merry christmas. meanwhile, 87 million american households who earn less than $200,000 a year get a tax increase. mr. wyden: mr. president? mr. president? could we have order in the chamber. the presiding officer: the chamber will be in order.

the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. let me repeat that. 87 million american households who earn less than $200,000 a year will get a tax increase under the bill in front of us. and health insurance premiums will go up by 10% and continue to go up while 13 million fewer people would have health care coverage. president trump has called this bill, in his words, a great big, beautiful christmas present for the american people. well, i certainly hope the american people remember to keep the gift certificate. this bill is a disaster for the middle class and a disaster for our future.

president trump isn't the only person who has made big promises about this legislation. treasury secretary steven mnuchin, one of the bill's biggest sales america's has said, quote, on the personal side, middle-income people are getting cuts and rich people are getting very few cuts. i'd like to highlight his first five words -- on the personal tax side -- very sneaky language. once all the proposals that are actually taken into account, all ever them, it is clear that those in secretary mnuchin's personal income category are the real winners. white house budget director mick mulvaney is making promises, too. he said, white house -- the white house, the president is not going to sign a bill that raises taxes on the middle class, period. i would assume based on that statement, he wouldn't sign this bill.

the nonpartisan tax policy center found that 87 million middle-class and working families will see their taxes go up. perhaps the biggest promise of them all came directly from the white house. the average american family will get a $4,000 raise under the president's tax cut plan. republicans have promised hardworking middle-class families in michigan and across the country that by giving the top 1% and large corporations a huge tax giveaway -- you know, the trickle-down economic approach -- that magically they will receive $4,000, $7,000 -- the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. by giving us big supply-side tax cut that magically families will receive $4,000, 7,000, or even

$9,000 in their income. well, mr. president, the proof is in their paycheck. that's what's going to happen for the american people. they're going to take a look at their paycheck to find out whether this is true. and that's why i'm offering a motion that will ensure that the benefits of these tax cuts go to the middle class and that the promises being made to the families in michigan and across the country will be kept. this motion would send the bill back to the finance committee with instructions to include a trigger to return the corporate rate to its current level if the average household wage doesn't go up at least $4,000 in the next two years. that seems only fair to me. people are being told over and over again they're going to get money directly in their pocket. the president said a minimum of $4,000. well, the proof is in your paycheck. that's what the american people are going to be looking at.

this motion simply makes sure that the american people get the raise that the trump administration is promising them. if my republican colleagues are serious about putting more money in the pockets of the middle class, i urge you to support this motion. you know, michigan families could certainly use an extra $4,000 in their paycheck. what they don't need are broken promises, the kind of promises they've heard before too many times. just think back to the bush tax cuts of 20001, 2003. colleagues from across the aisle came to the floor and said that the 2003 bush tax cuts would, quote, allow us to grow our way out of our current economic doldrums. what did we get? massive debt. and the bush tax cut, would, quorum calls aid the people and businesses who make up our economic machine and get it moving down the tracks at full speed ahead.

massive debt, wages did not go up. the train derailed, growth was anemic and middle-class families saw very little lasting benefit. if this worked, if this approach worked, if trickle-down economics worked, i would be supporting this. there is no evidence that this has ever worked. a new analysis of the tax bill is even more skewed to the top than the bush tax cuts. economists bruce bartlett served as deputy assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy during the reagan and george h.w. bush administrations. last month when asked if tax cuts pay for themselves through greater economic growth, he said -- and these are his words -- "mr. bartlett sated said, quote, that's a lie. it's always been a lie. there's not one iota of evidence that will support this argument. in fact, he added that wages

actually fell -- actually fell -- for ten years after the tax reform act of 19896 was enacted. the bush tax cuts didn't benefit middle-income families in the long term. the reagan tax cuts didn't benefit middle-income families in the long term. what they did was cause the deficit to explode. that's the facts. we all know what happened next. republican colleagues pointed to the huge deficits, president bush said now we need to privatize social security, cut medicare because, oh, my gosh, we have big deficits. thankfully democrats put an end to that plan. well, another distinguished republican president once said, there you go again. and that's true. the recently passed republican budget resolution makes it clear that the next step after this is

to cut medicare and medicaid. in fact, the budget already allows almost $1.5 trillion to be cut from these programs. but don't take my word to for -- their word for t earlier this month speaker paul ryan made the republican plan very clear. he said, the next thing we're doing is going to entitlements, medicare, medicaid. and in fact after the numbers that just came out and the fact that even with dynamic scoring, which many of us would call voodoo scoring, it doesn't solve the problem on deficits. so it means that cutting medicare and medicaid may be suggested even sooner. huge tax giveaways to the wealthy 1% which causes the deficit to explode which causes them to cut crucial programs like medicare and medicaid. that's the scenario that's in front of us. and i hope people, i hope that

people will remember this, that this is only step one. and when folks come back and say oh my gosh, there's a huge deficit, we have to cut medicare and medicaid, they will remember this debate and this time. middle class families see their taxes go up, see their health care costs go up and see medicare and social security and medicaid cut. this is worse than a one-two punch. it's a one-two-three punch, and middle-class families will feel every blow. michigan families deserve better than this. american families deserve better than this. american families deserve real tax reform that creates jobs, incentivizes companies to bring jobs back to america by closing loopholes, not creating new ones, that protects our farmers, helps our small businesses and puts more money in their pocket. that's what i support. and they deserve to be told the truth about the end goal.

the end goal of this republican tax scheme. if republican colleagues mean it when they say middle-class families will get at least $4,000 more in their wages, well, then everybody should be voting for my motion to commit, because american working men and women know the proof is in their paycheck. the proof is in your paycheck. the proof is in your paycheck. that's what every single man and woman working today is going to look at is their paycheck. and all i'm saying is if you're going to tell them there's $4,000 more, we're going to measure that over the next two years. and if there is, terrific. and if there isn't, this tax scheme should stop. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. many people are asking the question, perhaps in confusion, what is the

difference? i believe my good friend from michigan is sincere in her desire to see the middle class succeed under any tax reform package. and i agree. the fact of the matter is we're not talking about republicans versus democrats when it comes to tax reform. we're talking about the american people. i wanted to make a list of those benefits that will go directly to the middle class, to every single tax bracket we have. every bracket gets a tax cut. the typical american family makes around $73,000 a year. they will see their taxes come down about 60%. if you are a single head of household, a single mom like mine, raising a couple of kids, making around $41,000 a year, your taxes under the new tax reform plan comes down about 75%. we are actually,

mr. president, going to help by doubling, nearly double the standard deduction. if you are a single person, your current deductible, deduction is $6,300. under our plan it goes to $12,000. if you're single head of household it's $93,000 now. it goes to -- $9,300, it goes to $18,000 under our proposal. a dual household, current deduction $12,000, we double it to almost $24,000. we double the child tax credit to $2,000. mr. president, i'll tell you there's a lot being said on the floor, much of it hard to follow. i like to keep things simple. if you are a single head of household, $41,000, put it

simple, 75% cutting your taxes. if you're the typical american family earning around $73,000, average tax cut around 60%. we're doubling your standard deduction. we're doubling the child tax credit. there is a whole lot in this bill that benefits, benefits hardworking, everyday americans. i am glad that my friends on the left are finally concerned about the debt. this is a good thing. under the last eight years of the previous administration, our debt climbed from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. so it's good news that we finally will have an opportunity to address that debt. and if we're going to address the debt, we are going to have to grow our economy.

growing our economy requires us to do a couple of things. number one, we have to make sure that our tax code is competitive in a global economy. today 35% is the highest in the industrialized world. our competition, our competition is around 23%. we have to be in a competitive position so we grow our economy here at home. we do that with a 20% rate. if we want to make sure that the economy of the future is built here at home, we also have to be able to bring home overseas profits, also known as repatriating those dollars, $2.5 trillion, and build factories and build opportunities with that $2.5 trillion here at home creating hundreds of thousands of new

jobs. mr. president, our tax reform package focuses specifically where america lives. thank you, mr. president. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the fact that i'm able to follow my colleague from south carolina who has, i think, described, encapsulated in pretty simple terms what this proposal is before us, this tax proposal is, is good for the country. it's good for american families. it's good for alaskan families and south carolina families. and i'm pleased to be able to join my colleagues this afternoon in support of the reconciliation legislation that we have pending before us. i happen to believe that the tax reform title will help our families keep more of their hard-earned dollars.

i think it will make american businesses more competitive. i'm also proud to be the author of the energy title contained within this measure that works to strengthen our long-term energy security. i think it's important that we kind of look at the moment here, recognize the magnitude of the moment. once in a generation do we have an opportunity to really take a hard look at our economy, the role that congress can play in encouraging true growth, and then take the action that we need to get the economy back on track. our historic tax reform effort will grow alaska and the nation's economy. and when you look at it from the broader view, from 1,000-foot view, the tax cuts and jobs act, it's proeconomy, pro-growth, a projobs proposal. it reduces taxes, puts dollars

in the pockets of hardworking americans at every income level. i think when you think about all that that does in terms of boosting the economy to create jobs, jobs that feed our families, that help us put our kids through college, the kind of jobs that allow you to save for the unexpected events, to be able to retire with peace of mind and the flexibility to be the great innovators that we are in this country. what we see in this proposal are meaningful developments in the tax code to provide substantive relief to americans across the economic spectrum. in alaska, you take a family of four with two kids, earning $50,000, that uses the standard deduction, they're going to see a tax decrease of $1,400. if the same family earns about $75,000, that tax liability would be reduced by $2,000. the child tax credit benefit

that we see from doubling or near doubling that tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000, the refundability, expanding the eligibility for children up to 18, this is a significant form of help to the 22 million americans who use the child tax credit. in terms of simplifying the tax code, how often do we hear our constituents say just make it simpler for us? making it simpler, fair tax treatment for individuals in every income bracket, again, this is a proposal that delivers. most americans take advantage of the standard deduction, and this act doubles the standard deduction, resulting in a $12,000 deduction for single filers, $24,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly. and i focus a lot on the

families. in alaska we don't happen to have a lot of large corporations. but when you look to the benefits contained within this proposal and the impact that they will have on our larger businesses, our corporations, it is significant, recognizing that the steps that we're taking to lower the corporate rate to allow us to be more competitive competitive, not only in this country but globally, all we need to do is really look to what we're seeing already with the uptick in businesses and how we can be doing more to help further incent that. i think we recognize that lower corporate tax rates will allow our businesses to compete against our foreign competitors, make the investments in american operations that will bring the jobs, the economic growth that have eluded us for so many years. in alaska, it's over 99%,

actually 99.6% of our businesses are small businesses. they're taxed at the individual rate. so the discussion that we have had with regard to allowing owners of pass-through small businesses to be able to deduct an additional percent of their business income from their taxes, this is a significant benefit frr our entrepreneurs, -- for our entrepreneurs and one i endorse. some of the other provisions that help our business, the 100 % full business expensing, the expansion of the 179 small business, these incentivize, the foundational investments that implement long-term plans, that help to expand operations, encourage businesses to take that risk that is needed when we're talking about creating lasting economic growth. and the bill also helps our

smaller businesses protect what they built. and when someone passes on the ability to be able to pass to that next generation what we have done with the doubling of the exemption for the estate tax is important. there's been a lot of discussion about the benefits that are seen with this particular provision on our farmers. in alaska, don't have a big agriculture section of our state, but we view our fishermen really as the farmers or the ranchers of the sea, truly small businessmen. and when you think about the investment that a fishing family makes in a vessel, in the gear, in the permits, in the quota, you can have a significant investment totaling millions of dollars. $5 million, $7 million, $8 million. it's about $1 million when you think about the quota and the permits there. so recognizing how we are able

to provide for just a little bit of relief to those smaller families, i don't think that they would consider themselves millionaires in the sense of having that disposable income but being able to pass that hard work that you have built as a small family operator in a fishing business is important, and it's significant. the bottom line, mr. president, this is a proposal that does work. it does work for alaska families. it does work for our families. it gets dollars into the pockets and relief to our families. and it will help restore competition in the global marketplace certainly to job creators and also confidence, confidence that now is the time to invest in america. so i thank the members of the finance committee, the good work done by chairman hatch, for the work that they have done

on tax reform. i'd also like to thank the members of the energy and natural resources committee who worked with me to report the second title of this legislation and to report it on a bipartisan basis. we've got a very straightforward text. it's just six pages in total, which is pretty impressive in this day and age, but this small package offers a tremendous opportunity for alaska, for the gulf coast, and really, for all of our nation. within this title we authorized responsible energy development in the 1002 area. this covers 1.57 acres of land in the nonwilderness portion in anwr in the northeastern portion of the state. we require the program to be

managed in a way similar to the environmentally protective framework used on other federal lands on alaska's north slope. it provides for two lease sales to be conducted over the next ten years. in terms of how the revenues are shared, we split the revenues from development evenly between the federal government and the state of alaska. we limited surface development to just 2,000 federal acres within the 10-02 area. this is one 10,000 of all of anwr. we are talking about a limited surface development to 2,000 acres within the 10-02 area. some are concerned about the environmental process. some asked if we sidestep that. no, we have not.

we have not limited the consultation process with alaska natives in any way. all relevant laws, regulations, and executive orders will apply under our language. i think it is important to recognize. this is not something that just kind of appeared. our title is the result of regular order process here in the senate. it will include a regular order environment process with laws like nepa all fully applied after we pass it. so you have a regular order process before as well as after. we also strengthened our bipartisan title in the committee during our regular order markup by adding a bipartisan amendment that was sponsored by senators cassidy, strange, and king. and the provision will increase revenue sharing in the gulf coast to be used for priorities

like coastal restoration and hurricane protection. i think we have all seen, given the hurricanes they have endured in the gulf region this year, there is certainly need for this critical investment. the 10-02 area in the northeast corner of alaska is a long way from the gulf coast, but it also will bring substantial benefits to every part of our nation. with this provision, we will generate substantial revenues for long-term deficit deduction, well over $100 billion over the life of the fields. i think that's important to keep it in context. we're not just talking about term within this ten-year window, but what will come our way within the life of the fields in terms of revenue to the country. we will create jobs, thousands of them, and not just in alaska, but really all over the country.

we will reduce our foreign oil dependence. this is important because we are projected to remain a net importer long into the future, and in states like california our foreign dependence -- our foreign dependence in california has actually deeppeddenned -- deepened as we have seen alaska's oil production decline. this means jobs and revenue as well. of course, you cannot talk about energy security without recognizing the benefits to our country's national security and what this yields. we're also taking a major step to make energy more affordable. the fact of the matter is the world is using more oil and not less. our prices are rising. opec would like to keep it that way regardless of the consequences for america. meanwhile, the international energy agency, among others, is

warning of a looming shortfall in global supply. we have seen the fights that result when we fail to respond and to be prepared. i think we all recognize these are significant benefits, jobs, revenues, national security, afford ability, but we should be equally confident that this will not come at the expense of our environment simply because we have the technologies, the new developments that really have worked to dramatically reduce the footprint of development, smaller than ever. the size of the alaska pads on the north slope has increased by 80% since we began operations in the 1970's. new technologies have expanded the sub surface reach of the new rigs by more than 4,000%. folks have seen the various charts that we've had here on

the floor that show just how far we're able to reach below the surface from one single well. if you were to drop a drill down from below the capitol here, extended reach technology can take you all the way out to national harbor, just to put things in context here. the technologies allow us to have a much, much smaller footprint. many exploration wells are now being built using ice roads and ice pads that melt when the spring thaw comes leaving no impact to the tundra. so making sure we are environmentally conscience at every turn is what we do as a priority for us in alaska. we hear the baseless claims of destruction and devastation, but the reality is that is not our experience in alaska. that is not how we do business. we need less land to access more

resources than ever before. that's the reality in alaska today. alaskans understand this, and that's why there are so many of us that so strongly support this development. our entire congressional delegation, our independent governor, our democratic lieutenant governor, alaska natives who live on the north slope, including the area which is actually in the 10-02 area. some say this is an area that is untouched, unspoiled. well, you know to talk to the people who live there, who fly in on the air strip there, whose children attend the school, who work in the clinic. these are people who also support the development. the voice of the arctic north slope bureau, hundreds and hundreds of alaskans have called or written in support of this effort, which is no surprise because about 70% of alaskans

support responsible energy development in the nonwilderness 10-02 area. they are joined by many national stakeholders. the national u.s. chamber of commerce, americans for prosperity, securing america's energy future, north america's building trades, the labors international union of north america, the national union of operating engineers, just to name a few. now, there are some who worry about the potential impacts of development in the 10-02 area, and i would be the first to agree that environmental and local wildlife will always be a concern, all the be a priority, and that's why we did not waive nepa or any other environmental laws, and that's why the consultation requirements with our alaska native people will apply, and that's why surface development will cover up to,

but no more than 2,000 federal acres. the fact of the matter is, mr. president, we will not sacrifice wildlife or the environment for the sake of development, but we also recognize that is not the choice that we face here. this shnot -- this is not an either or proposition. this has not been the experience in producedo -- prudo bay where we have seen the caribou grow seven fold since development began. and it comes because we are taking the care as we seek to develop. if we're allowed to move forward with development, we will do it right. we will take care of our lands, we will take care of our wildlife, and we will take care of our people. and i couldn't support development if i was not

convinced that it could not be done safely and responsibly. i was born in alaska. i think -- i know i'm the first senator serving who was ever born in alaska and actually in the territory of alaska. it will always be my home. my husband and i have raised our boys there, and we hope they will lead a long and healthy life in this amazing and beautiful place. and we know that there's no one that cares more about our place, these spaces than those who call it home. we love this place and we will not risk its future for the sake of development, but, again, we know that's not the case here. we know that is not the tradeoff here. we know that this is not an either or proposition. the 10-02 area was created by a

congressional compromise decades ago and we always knew that its future would require another compromise and today we've got it before us. we're not asking to develop all of the 10-02 area. we are asking instead 2,000 federal acres, about one-10,000 -- 1-10,000 of all of anwr, and we waited nearly 40 years for the right technologies to come along so the footprint of development is small enough to ensure the environment is protected going forward. mr. president, i encourage members to recognize the tremendous opportunity that we have before us clear from my words today and that leading up to it that i support this legislation, and i would encourage every member to follow with that, mr. president, i

yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, we've seen a number of battles here recently that involve the question of -- is our country going to make laws by and for the powerful or by and for the people? we saw a health care debate where my colleagues across the aisle wanted to rip health care from 20 to 30 hardworking americans -- million americans from hardworking americans, but fortunately we were able to stop that. we saw the conversation here on the floor about the arbitration fairness regulation, which says nobody should be forced into an arbitration when the other side gets to hire the judge, gets to promise the judge future business, and gets to determine the outcome of the decision, and

yet my colleagues across the aisle voted for the powerful to be able to have this fixed system to cheat the consumers of america. and then we had most recently this question over the consumer financial protection bureau, and the people of the united states loved the fact that we finally have an organization that fights for them in fairness and financial deals so predatory lending would be brought to a halt. but my colleagues on the other side said let's run someone who wants to tear down that organization so there is no longer protection for the people. time and time again just within a few weeks my colleagues across the aisle saying we are for the powerful to crush the people. well, we are fighting for the people and now we're fighting for the people on this horrendous, horrendous tax legislation. i have come to the floor to be with my colleague from minnesota to point out some of the worst

provisions of this bill and i turn to her for her opening comments. ms. klobuchar: thank you, senator merkley, for your leadership. mr. president, this current tax code, i would love to see tax reform. i would like to see the business rate go down. i would like to see the money come in from overseas and put some incentives in place. but this bill is extreme. this bill puts $1.4 trillion hole in the debt. that's what it does, additional debt. in fact, just yesterday the congressional joint committee on taxation said that even when you account for any economic growth, and this is the umpire here, that would add $1 trillion to federal budget deficit over the next decade. so what i would like to see and what i thought we were talking about at the beginning of the year was a bipartisan effort and

17 of us stood up this week, 17 democrats were willing to cross the aisle who had a track record on working on bipartisan bills and said, work with us. instead we had a bipartisan bill that blows up the debt, that would be devastating to our economy, where no one has had a hearing, where no one has had a chance to look at what the consequences would be. literally we within -- within hour we are getting calls from main street businesses and regular people that have no idea what will happen to them under this bill. all they know is that it adds over $1 drl to the -- $1 trillion to the debt. where is the transportation funding? we brought the money back from overseas. that didn't happen. what's missing from the bill? where is the oil giveaways? where's implementing the buffer rule. where is getting rid of something the president said he

wanted to change? and that is the carried interest rule. none of that is in there. instead what do we have? what are our constituents going to get here at christmas? they're going to get a stocking full of a big lump of debt. and senator merkley, i think one of the things that we know is an issue with this bill is the double taxatio taxation that wen the bill. mr. merkley: in fact, that is indeed one of the big lumps of coal that americans are getting. one in three american taxpayers utilizes this deduction. and as should anyone who pays state and local taxes. how fair is it that on the money you have already paid out in taxes to one government organization, you then get taxed on by the federal government. double taxation. the republicans in this bill are standing for the unfair double taxation of americans, and it's

absolutely wrong. and it is a big deal. the average deduction in oregon among those who use the salt deduction is about $12,000. that is a very significant factor, which means their taxes are going to go up. the republicans of this bill are saying yes to unfair double taxation, and we are saying no. ms. klobuchar: another troubling aspect of this bill is the inclusion of a provision to repeal a key part of the affordable care act that would kick 13 million people, 13 million people off of their insurance by 2027 and increase the individual market premiums by 10%. we should be helping with the premiums, not increasing the premiums. this means less money in the pocket of american middle-class families, less money to save for retirement, less money for college. that's what we're talking about

here. the american people in fact want us to work together to make fixes to the affordable care act. and that's what we did just about a month and a half ago. the alexander-murray bill, 12 republican, 12 democratic cosponsors. i am one of them. that bill is sitting out there, yet without even considering that, what does this bill do? it comes in rammed and gets rid of the individual mandate. senators alexander and murray, what did they do? they held a series of hearings and discussions on commonsense solutions. they actually had a hearing on their committee. they had governors come in, democrats and republicans together, and that's how they put that product together. it is a model of how you can put a bill together. but instead of that kind of bipartisan approach, this tax bill not only repeals an important part of the affordable care act, but it would lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to medicare and medicaid

hurting our seniors in both minnesota -- seniors, and both minnesota an and oregon have rul populations. what do we do? we sock them with this, getting rid of the individual mandate which in the end will raise up the rates and hurt the affordable care act as opposed to making some commonsense changes. mr. merkley: and another yet terrible provision in this bill is the dynasty loophole. now, in a bill that the republicans are saying is targeted at the middle class, why would you give $269 billion to the richest .2% of americans? envision a room with a thousand people in it. pick out the two richest people and give them $269 billion. that's what this bill does. now, this dynasty loophole is a

way for the richest americans to bypass ever paying capital gains as they pass their wealth from one generation to the next. it is an enormous tax dodge. but if you were me -- you or me sell a property while we're alive, we have to pay capital gains on it. but the rich don't have to sell property in the course of their life? they can simply hold it to the end of their life and pass it to the next generation without paying capital gains. and the next generation gets it marked up to market rate so that can never be recovered. literally what we're talking about here is a principle that the early american founders really detested. they had seen in europe that very rich families that could pass on wealth from one generation to the next could control power in the country. that was the vision of government by and for the

powerful accentuated by the passage of vast wealth from one generation to the next. but the americans said no. we want a different form of government, one which empowers decisions to make every family thrive, give them a chance, every family to succeed. that's the vision of we the people and that is opposite of this dynasty loophole. i dare a single republican to come to this floor and explain how giving $269 billion to the richest .2% of americans has anything to do with helping the middle class. ms. klobuchar: so this bill, as senator merkley has pointed out, is really a bait and switch. how? well, under this bill millions of middle-class americans would end up paying more in taxes in the long run. right? bait and switch. get a little reduction, a few crumbs in your stocking in the short term. in the long run, many of the tax

cuts that they receive if they receive a tax cut at all would only be temporary. in ten years most americans earning $75,000 or less would pay more in taxes while people earning more than $100,000 a year would continue to pay less. according to analysis by the institute on taxation and economic policy, 644,000 minnesotans with incomes below $153,800 would see a tax hike in 2027. yes, that's almost 650,000 minnesotans that would see a tax hike if they make below about $153,000. i want to highlight again what senator merkley already discussed with the elimination of the state and the local tax deductions. many middle-class families rely on these. in my state, we have both an income tax and state property

taxes. over 900,000 households claim the state and local income tax deduction, and over 850,000 claim the property tax deduction. we have a lot of homeowners in minnesota. both of these deductions are important for our middle -- for a middle-class minnesota family. we want people to own homes. we want to make it easier for middle-class people to own homes. for example, a policeman and a teacher with two children with a mortgage could see their taxes go up under this bill by $250 to $500 a year. maybe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't think that's a lot. well, that is a lot for a middle-class family in my state. and once the cuts disappear in 2027, their tax bill would be $3,000 higher. why is that? because it's not offset by the fact that they can no longer deduct their state and local taxes. one example.

senator merkley has others. mr. merkley: so not only do we have the dynasty loophole, we also have a sweetheart deal for very well off l.l.c.'s, the type of l.l.c.'s that president trump has. he is rumored to have hundreds. i keep hearing the number 500. we don't actually have a document that tells us how many. but these high-end l.l.c.'s already get a big advantage over c corporations because c corporations pay a tax at the corporate level and then pay a tax at the individual level when the dividends are received. but here we have it, a sweetheart deal that would create a windfall of $362 billion with almost 90% of that going to the richest 1% of americans. time after time after time what we see is not benefits to the

middle class. what we see are sweetheart deals for the very rich. ms. klobuchar: the senate bill also allows companies to blend the tax rate for income that's earned overseas, which may give companies incentives to move jobs to foreign companies which create as whole new tax avoid answer scheme -- avoidance scheme. i wanted to bring down that rate to bring jobs here and to make sure that money is invested here and to bring some of the money, the trillions of dollars overseas. that was a good idea. the only question was where was the rate? not only did they change the rate. they actually changed the way we did those taxes. the former chairman of the oldest mutual fund company in the united states has noted that the system that's contained in this bill which includes this new minimum average minimum u.s. tax is, quote, like swiss cheese. it has so many holes that it would rarely be paid by u.s.

firms. he goes on to say that in fact this proposal would encourage u.s. companies to relocate to foreign countries. most of their -- a lot of their intellectual property. a minimum tax would be affected only if it applied, he says, to the foreign taxes paid by u.s. companies on a country-by-country basis rather than on an aggregate basis across foreign countries. the senate and house bill allow these companies to use this aggregate approach. yet, we have not had one hearing to look at this new system. not only did we not have a hearing to look at the new rate is, we didn't look at the effect of this global minimum tax which encourages companies to place jobs in countries that have no taxes so they're offset by the ones that have higher taxes. this bill would allow a one time opportunity to bring back some of the trillions of dollars, and that's what we wanted to see in a bill.

but that is not what we saw in this bill. and i have always said that if we could bring back that money from overseas, we should at least put a percentage of it in infrastructure. that was going to be a gain from this bill. democrats and republicans talked about this as a way of financing infrastructure when the american society of civil engineers 2017 report card gave our nation's infrastructure an overall d plus grade. but is there any incentive for infrastructure in this bill? no. is there any financing authority like we've had discussed and put bills forward on a bipartisan basis? no. is there any chance to put any of this funding when we're building up over a trillion dollars of debt into the highway fund? no. this money is not going to infrastructure for americans and it's not going to middle-class americans. mr. merkley: we now grow to the rapid round -- now go to the rapid round because we have four minutes left to cover our remaining top ibs. this -- topics. this provision is an attack on

renewable energy. the senate bill undermines the integrity of the usefulness of the solar and wind energy credits. and then it proceeds to fail to address the expiring credits or the credits that need to be renewed in geo thermal and in biomass and in charging infrastructure and in microhydropower. and then the house side makes it worse by proceeding to get rid of the credit for electric vehicles. what we have here is an effort to hand over the leadership on the next big vision for power in the world to the chinese. republicans are trying to help the chinese take the lead and put america behind. that's not america first. that's america behind, and it is wrong and we oppose it. ms. klobuchar: again, i conclude by asking our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us. 18 senators, democrats, stood together with a track record of working across the aisle, asked them to join us to work on a bill that would actually help the american people, that

wouldn't add this big, big lump of debt into americans' stockings. but that's not what this dill is. this -- bill is. this bill is about debt, special interests, and it doesn't help the middle class. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. merkley: the last loophole i will point out is the trump tax loophole. we know on the one tax return we have from president trump, the only reason he paid tax was the alternative minimum tax and the fact he paid $38 million in taxes that year and we're told he only paid about $5 million if it wasn't for the alternative minimum. so there we have it. another big provision for the richest of america. this is not a bill that helps the middle class. it raises the tax on millions and millions of middle-class americans while provision after provision after provision is targeted at the very richest americans. we need to stop this bill.