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. thank you, mr. president.

mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i believe the senator from vermont is next up, but he has graciously agreed to let me take two minutes of our time, time out of our side now, before he speaks. so i appreciate that. thank you, senator sanders. our colleagues were talking about a number of topics, too. the salt controversy and the other was the individual mandate. i am going to very briefly touch on these, hopefully have a chance to expand on this at another time. so let's be very clear about what this salt is. this is an acronym for the state and local tax deduction deduction. that is provision in the federal tax code that allows taxpayers to deduct those taxes that they pay, state and local taxes, from their federal return. now, some states have very high state and local taxes. others have relatively low ones. so what we have in the current law is a mechanism by which

low-tax states are required to subsidize high-tax states. so it is not only states, by the way. it is also within a given stat. but i don't know how it could be possibly fair to force my constituent whose live in, say, dolphin county, pennsylvania, why they should pay more in income taxes to subsidize somebody who gets to live if a multimillion-dollar condo in the upper west side of manhattan. but that's exactly what happens under current law. what we're doing is neutralizing this. we're saying, no, you're not going to be able to have this subsidy and everyone is going to pay their own state and local taxes, and we'll have a lower rate of federal income tax as a result. another point we should make clear -- let's be very clear, this benefits the wealthiest taxpayers. it is the wealthiest taxpayers who take the state and local tax deduction, a big majority of ordinary taxpayers take the standard deduction. they don't itemize.

they don't take the state and local tax deduction. this is a blow for fairness among the states but also wasn't state where you also have varying tax jurisdictions. the second thing i want to point out is the individual mandate repeal. that's what we call it. what we have done is we are zeroing out the penalty, the tax is imposed on people who cannot actord to do not -- afford or do not wish to purchase an obamacare plan. not a single person loses a benefit. floss reduction in reimbursements to any health care providers. floss reduction in spending. ed word "medicare" doesn't come up, "medicaid" doesn't come up. if you can't afford these plans, we're no longer going to hit you with a tax penalty for the fact that you can't afford this plan that's not well-suited for you. that's all. and again, mr. president, let's be clear about who this affects.

this table, tax hits low-income people the hardest. in pennsylvania, 83% of people who pay the individual mandate tax make less than $50,000. and what a terrible offense to our sense of freedom, the idea that the federal government would force someone to purchase a product or a service that they don't want to buy, a service or product that doesn't meet their needs, and then hit them with a tax if they don't purchase it. it was always a very bad idea. this is a blow for freedom, and it is a tax relief measure for especially low-income people. i thank the senator from vermont for di -- for giving me this triumphant. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i am so happy that my colleague, friend from pennsylvania is concerned about fairness. which no doubt is why 62% of the benefits in this tax proposal are going to go to the top 1%

and after ten years we're going to see over 80 million middle-class families pay more in taxes while the richest people in this country get huge tax breaks. if that is the definition of "fairness," then i don't quite know what fairness is about. mr. president, the -- i would ask unanimous consent that senators blumenthal, merkley, and warren be added as cosponsors to amendment number 1720 that i am offering. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: thank you. mr. president, the amendment that i am offering with senators leahy, brown, harris, baldwin, udall, reed, markey, heinrich is very straightforward and simple. i'm glad that a number of my republican colleagues are on the floor because they can help me as we go forward on this amendment. what my amendment would do is establish a point of order to prevent cuts to social security,

medicare, and medicaid benefits, which could only be waived by two-thirds of the senate. in other words, what we are trying to do here is make it harder for there to be do you think social security -- for there to be cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid. now, i want everybody in america to know that this tax proposal is more than a tax proposal. it is my absolute belief that as soon as this tax proposal is completed and drives the deficit up by $1.4 trillion, i have zero doubt that my republican colleagues are going to come back to the floor of the senate and suddenly say, oh, my goodiness, the deficit has gone -- my goodness. the deficit has gone up. we have got to cut social security, medicare, and medicaid. now, i happen to see my friend from pennsylvania here on the

floor dish say to him and i say to the leader of the senate, mr. mcconnell, i will floor this amendment if you can assure the american people tonight that you are not going to cut back -- come back to the senate and cut social security, medicare, and medicaid. can i have that assurance? i would yield time. good. i would yield time to my friend pennsylvania to assure -- now, i see senator rubio down here as well. he just the other day, correct me if i'm wrong, senator rubio -- i know you just walked in and i got you into this debate. but correct me if i am wrong, if you did not say yesterday that the senate would now proceed to a, quote-unquote, entitlement reform which will mean cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid. i would yield to my friend from florida to tell me whether or not i am accurately portraying what he said just the other day. mr. rubio: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, it would surprise my friend to know that in florida we've got a lot of people on social security and medicare and medicaid. if i were to cut my mother's social security and medicare, i could probably never go home. i believe that for future generations like myself there need to be adjustments made -- mr. sanders: met me quote you, senator rubio. tell me in this quote is right. that was quote that you just made yesterday. and if i'm wrong, i apologize. but as i understand it, you spoke to a group of wall street lobbyists and this is what you said. quote, many argue that you can't cut taxes because it will drive up the deficit, but we have to do two 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. now, let me help define what my republican colleagues mean when they talk about structural changes to social security and medicare. it will mean that at a time when senior citizens are splitting their pills in half, republicans will go forward with massive cuts to medicare. now, maybe -- maybe their idea will be to raise the retirement age to 70, forcing older workers in terms of social security to work more before they can get their benefits. maybe it will be privatizing medicare and giving people a

voucher. when my republican friends talk about saving social security and medicare, what they are talking about is cutting it. mr. toomey: would the gentleman yield? sand sand i will yield. i will yield one -- sand sand i will yield -- mr. sanders: i will yield. i will yield one minute. mr. toomey: the senator from vermont is concerned that we're going to somehow cut medicare or medicaid. near the word appears in the world -- father word appears -- father word appears i in the -- neither word appears in the bill. we could do it without a single democratic vote. if we had any intention to do that, this would be the vehicle. but the words don't even appear. sand sand -- mr. sanders: okay. i did say when this legislation is passed and you ads 1 .4 trillion to the deficit, that

you are going to come back and cut social security, medicare, and medicaid. so is my friend from pennsylvania now -- and that's interesting, are you guarantee the american people that you will not be cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid? don't use the word "save" because what save means is a cut. will you guarantee the american people now that there will be zero cuts to benefits in social security, medicare, and medicaid? excuse me, it it is my time. i will yield to you. i will yield to you, but let me finish. i yielded to you before. will you guarantee the people of this country that after this bill passes, you will not come back, raise the retirement age, voucherize medicare, raise the retirement age to medicare, cut cost-of-living increases by institute ago so-called chained c.p.i.? do i have your word on that?

mr. toomey: i have to disappear the senator from vermont by informing him that there is no secret plan to do any of the above. we are not in some process to spring something -- if we wanted to make these changes in medicare and medicaid, this would be the vehicle because we have reconciliation protection to do it. sand sand let me be -- mr. sanders: let me be very clear. do i have your word as a senator dish know you can't speak for everybody -- that you has a senator after this bill is passed, and i suspect it will be, you will not support any cuts to social security, medicare, medicaid? do i have that word from you? mr. toomey: i am not going to support any cuts to people who are on the program and need -- mr. sanders: ah, there it is. reclaiming my time. excuse me, reclaiming -- mr. toomey: we need this program for the next generation, too. mr. sanders: he just let the cat out of the box -- or whatever the boxst phrase s he just told you what he is going

to cut social security. he just said he will not cut it for people who are on social security right now. i hear that. but if you are 50 years of age or you are 55 years of age, they just told you -- my friend from pennsylvania just told you, they may go forward to raise the retirement age. they may cut your cost-of-living adjustment. that is what he just said. there is a plan. that is exactly what they intend to do. that's why i hope we can get strong support for this amendment that will require a two-thirds vote to prevent any cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid. with that, mr. president, i would yield. mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from the florida. mr. rubio: how much time is remaining on our side? the presiding officer: 14 minutes. mr. rubio: okay. just for clarification to the senator from san vermont.

i spoke to a group that didn't have anything to do with wall street. the second point i would raises raise is this not a debate on social security and medicare and medicaid. i think if you are 50 years of age or older, there is not going to be any changes to that program. i think if you are 46, 36 or 26 you should be worried that there we need to's won't being a social security that continues on its track. i want to talk about the child tax credit because yesterday senator lee and i announced a plan that would expand it, make it fully refundable against payroll tax to help working families across this country and it's been the semiconductor of pretty significant criticism from some, including -- the senator from vermont may be interested -- from "the wall street journal" who editorialized against it dade. i want to -- against today. a couple of disrespectful to

american workers. here is the first one not valid. we already expanded the tax credit to $2,000. that's enough. it's not nuffer. here's why. because most families who make between $20,000 and $50,000, they don't benefit. they don't make a lot and don't owe a lot in income tax which is what the additional expansion of the child tax credit applies against. and it only applies -- since only a portion -- since most of the $2,000 child credit only applies to income tax and their primary liability is payroll tax you they get nowhere near the $2,000 benefit. the cost of raising a child is not any cheaper for a family makings $40,000 than it is for a family making $200,000. somehow we have a provision in which the family making more gets more for their children than the family making less. that makes no sense. the second thing i heard today -- i hadn't heard this before --

this is actually a negative tax. people are getting money on top of it. that's false. because our plan is limited to your tax liability. you can't get any more credit than what you pay in taxes. if you owe $1,200 in taxes, the most your credit can be is $1,200. it can't be above and beyond your tax liability. the one -- the third one i heard from a number of people is this is welfare. this is false. to call the child tax credit welfare is down right disrespectful to the american worker. who are the people that would benefit from this? let me tell you who they are. truck drivers making $36,000 a year. welders making $39,000 a year. construction workers making $43,000 a year. a firefighter making $48,000 a year. these are not freeloaders. this is not welfare. this is their money. these are people who are working, and they make too much to get welfare from the government, but they aren't paid enough to afford many

things in life. this would be, for example, about 8.5 million working families that make between $20,000 and $50,000, an average cut of $8,000, not a lot of money but more than they have now. i alluded to the editorial board of the "wall street journal" that i generally agree with on most topics. they never liked this child tax credit debate or idea. and they claim that this provision is antiwork. that isn't just false. it's ridiculous. you can't get the child credit if you're not working. you can't apply it against payroll tax against you have payroll taxes off your paycheck. how can a tax credit that you can only get if you are working be antiwork? so that's not just false. it's ridiculous. the fifth argument is about the corporate rate. our current corporate rate is 35%. we propose to cut it to 22%. somehow, unless it's 20%, it's going to be a catastrophe for

the american economy. well, that wasn't the case just a few years ago. i campaigned for president and for u.s. senate on a 25% corporate tax rate, and everybody said that would lead to growth. in 2014 americans for tax reform, the group led by grover norquist called for a 25% rate, corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25% is needed. it moves u.s. development closer to the nation average and help with growth. the senate finance committee international bipartisan working group called for 25%. the heritage foundation in 2010 called for 25%. the national association of manufacturers in 2014 called for 25%. speaker ryan's path to prosperity 2013 budget called for 25%. the alliance for competitive taxation called for 25%. and i'm saying 22%. so somehow -- by the way, this argument ignores all the other

things that are in place. expensing, repatriation, all sorts of of things. not just the 13% tax cut or 15% cut. it's the other things that come way with it. if there is a better way to pay for what we're trying to do, we're open for it. a senator: would the senator yield? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i wanted to ask if i correctly heard as i believe i just did, an entire range of advocates from the national association of manufacturers, business roundtable, even grover norquist as recently as the last presidential campaign believed that a corporate rate cut from 35% to 25% would be significantly stimulative, would accomplish the goals of improving growth. is that roughly what you were just saying, i'm asking my friend from florida. mr. rubio: that has been the gold standard for a significant period of time. it's co-pay campaigned on. -- it's what i campaigned on. i wanted it to be even lower

than that. if there is a better way for what i'm trying to do here, i'm open to that. i want to make two more points of criticism. we already have too many people not paying income tax. this would create more. in essence it narrows the base. this credit takes people off the tax rolls at all, it isn't forever. it is until their children turn 17. the second griewment and i agree with this, that is what we're doing here is going to make us more competitive in the world and that is going to lead to economic growth. that is not going to create more jobs, it is going to create pay. we've been told by the white house economists, different experts that we can expect to see real wage growth, on average up to $4,000. if you are going to be raising wages, you're going to have people graduating to higher brackets or into the income tax range. in essence what they're saying is to people that make this argument is for purposes of economic growth and revenue, this is going to be dynamic and it's going to grow the economy, and i agree with that. but for purposes of the child

tax credit, a bunch of people are not going to get pay raises, are going to get stuck where they are today and never pay income tax. it can't be both, guys. it's either one or the other. and i believe it's growth. and i believe there are people making $50,000 now that one day may make $55,000 or $60,000 and continue to move up. once the kid turns 17 the credit goes away. the last argument that it's not pro-growth, that it's not stimulative, and i know economists struggle to quantify it. i believe it's stimulative. you no he what teaches -- you know what teaches me this? real life teaches me this. here's why. you make $50,000 or $40,000 a year and get $8,000 back in your taxes, you know what you're going to do with that? you're going to spend that money. you're going to buy your kids clothes, shoes, christmas gifts. you may be able to spend an extra day on vacation. you're going to spend it at the very businesses and in the very

economy we're trying to grow. people making $50,000 a year consume almost all of the money they make and they're going to spend it on their children but also spend it into the economy. if you believe that leaving more money in the hands of businesses leads to growth, and i do, i also believe that leaving more money in the hands of families leads to economic visitor and that's a positive thing. and the reason i'm so passionate about it, and i'll close with this, mr. president, is i think one of the things we've been missing for too long is the working men and women of this economy that have been hurt badly by automation, outsourcing and changes in the economy, i think about my parents who work in the service sector and 30 years ago as a bartender and maid my parents were able to afford a home. you know for a fact that least in miami, florida, today a bartender and a maid will struggle to own a home not to mention afford the things that people need to afford or they

need to afford living there. we need to do something to help people because they are being left behind. this new economy is great for a lot of people with the right degrees and the right industry and right skills and we are leaving millions of people stuck and no one fights for them because they don't have a lobbyist and they don't have a trade association and they don't have a newspaper that editorializes for them. we need to fight for them too. and leaving them a little bit more of their money that they earn by working is not too much to ask. we need a pro-growth and a pro worker tax reform and that's what we endeavor to do. and i hope i can get when the time comes to offer that amendment the support of as many of you as possible. this will not make life perfect but for firefighters and construction workers, whatever little we can let them keep of what they have now will make their lives and their children's lives better today and ultimately isn't that what we are here to do? with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: if no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. in a few minutes we're going to be voting on a motion of mine that actually dove tails with the what the distinguished senator from florida was talking

about in terms of hardworking people who have been told that there will be a minimum of $4,000 put into their wages based on what is being done in the senate with the republican tax proposal. now we have no evidence of that. in fact, we have no economic scoring that shows that. we have no evidence in the past that's ever been done with supply-side economics. but if that's true, at least $4,000 in people's wages, that's great. i think that's wonderful. but we want to guarantee that. we want to make sure that the proof is in somebody's paycheck. and so i'm very pleased to have senators casey, van hollen, udall, booker, wyden, menendez, harass -- harris and brown joining me in a something i would hope everybody would support. if you are confident that what is being done in this supply-side tax cut is going to end up with $4,000 in the pockets of middle-class families, let's make sure it's

true. let's make sure that that happens. but if it doesn't happen, we're going to measure this in two years, if it doesn't happen in the next two years, then the tax cuts stop. why? because then all they're doing is blowing a hole in the budget. all they're doing is creating more deficits and not putting money in people's pockets. so i hope that everyone will join me. i agree, we have hardworking folks who have seen their wages flat for years. they've scene not only their wages -- they've seen not only their wages flat but their pensions attacked and they find themselves in a situation where they're working but their wages are down or maybe it's two jobs now instead of one in order to be able to keep the same wage. but they feel like they're treading water, not getting ahead. and folks here are talking a lot about that, about middle-class families, wanting to help middle-class families. well, great. i know a lot of folks in michigan that would love to have $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 more in their wages. and i would love to support

something that does that. now let me go back and say didn't happen under the bush tax cuts. even under the reagan tax cuts, wages were flat for the next ten years. it certainly didn't just happen in what they did doing the same kind of supply-side economics. if this will work, if this could actually work, sign me up. sign me up. but i think people deserve to make sure that promise will be kept. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. ms. stabenow: so i would urge that we vote to make sure the proof is in people's paychecks. and that's what this amendment is. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, my friend, the senator from michigan, has offered an instruction that says that the corporate tax rate must revert back to 35% in the event that real average household wages do not increase by at least $4,000

by 2020. 2020. so in our bill, the corporate rate goes from 35% down to 20% in 2019. so on the basis of one year of a competitive corporate rate, we're supposed to believe that corporations are going to change their behavior and make the kind of investment that follows from the incentives we have when they know if this were adopted, that the rate goes back to 35% one year later. no. this is designed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy to guarantee that there can be no growth and that we go back to uncompetitive corporate tax rates stipulated here at 35%. ms. stabenow: would my friend yield for a question? mr. toomey: i yield. ms. stabenow: how many years do you think it will take before folks get their $4,000? i will be happy to change it to

2021, 2022 --. mr. toomey: i yield back my time. thank you. the point is, let me explain how this works. the whole idea behind our bill is to create incentives that will encourage the investment that hasn't been happening. the last ten years there has been a collapse, a collapse in the investment growth of capital stock, a collapse in productivity growth. and, therefore, stagnant wages. what i want to do and what my colleagues want to do is see that wage growth that we've been waiting for, that didn't happen under the last administration. the only way we can encourage that investment is if the investors know that the tax rate is going to be there permanently. if we tell them you're going to get one year of a low rate who's going to invest in a new factory for one year? no. it won't work that way. the wage growth will come when investors around the world and domestically have the confidence that they're going to be investing in a competitive regime. by the way, the oecd average, the countries that we compete with, the average tax rate there is 22.4%.

it's amazing we're able to eek out even the feeble growth we have at a 35% tax rate. our bill takes it to 20%. allows us to compete. but you have to keep it there so that business will actually make those investment decisions, people will decide to launch those new businesses, we'll have the expansion of existing businesses. that's what our legislation does and that's why i urge my colleagues to reject this motion to commit. ms. stabenow: i just want to say people in michigan want to know when they are going to get their $4,000. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on the motion. there apeerts to be a sufficient -- appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 45, the nays are 55. the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that there now be a period of -- for debate only to count against

the underlying bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: so for the information of all senators, the senate will continue to debate the bill tonight. the next roll call votes will be at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i call up my amendment to commit the bill to the finance committee, which is at the desk and is supported by senator harris. mr. president, while we are

working out the consent, the tax bill before us is not for the middle class. the presiding officer: the senator will suspend much the senate will be in order. the senator may resume. mr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. as a matter of fact, this is a big cut for corporations. this is not a cut for you. it's not a cut for hardworking families, and it is so lopsided as a cut to big corporations and the fact that it's not for the middle class, we need to be frank. the truth is that the bill treats the corporations much better than regular people. so, for example, over a ten-year period, if you make $75,000 or less, you will be hurt by this

bill. if you are a small business owner and your taxes are a pass-through, at the individual rate, your taxes are going to be much higher than large multinational corporations. if you buy your insurance in the individual market, that's health insurance, there's a good chance that you're going to lose access to affordable health insurance. and these are the facts. it's just plain and simple. sure, there's tax cuts for some of the middle class. but those tax cuts go away after eight years. in 2026, gone. by contrast, the tax cuts for big corporations are made permanent, and that's simply not

treating people fairly. so what i'm suggesting is that we send this bill to the finance committee to work out a bipartisan compromise on how to make middle-class tax cuts permanent. there were 17 of us that stood up in the press gallery yesterday and said we are for a bipartisan compromise. i would hope a majority of my colleagues would support that. i ask for your support. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the senate will be in order. the senator may resume. mr. cardin: mr. president, take this time to inform my colleagues of a motion that i hope to file tomorrow that would recommit the bill, and i'm going to talk a little bit about it. but first if i might, let me just point out yesterday i took

the floor to emphasize some of the points that senator nelson just made, that this bill, which is advertised to help the middle class, does not help the middle class. it helps the wealthy, it's biscuits and middle-income taxpayers get some relief -- some, not all -- that's temporary in nature. so the congressional budget office tells us by 2027 those earning under $75,000 a year, the majority will actually pay more taxes rather than less. in my state of maryland, it's estimated that 800,000 marylanders will pay more taxes rather than less, that the tax relief to middle-income families is so much smaller than what is given to the wealthy and is given to the business community. and to compound that problem, the -- we now know by the scores

of both the joint tax committee and the congressional budget office that the bill will add tremendously to the deficit, over $1 trillion. i think it's going to be closer to $2 trillion. but their scoring shows it over $1 trillion in deficits. guess who's going to pay nor those deficits? it's going to be middle-income families. and then you put on top of that the repeal of the mandate under the affordable care act, which is going to also hurt middle-income families on their ability for affordable health care. so this bill advertised to help middle-income families does not do that. for my state of maryland it's particularly painful because of the loss of the state and local tax deductions that is used by almost a majority of our taxpayers, just about 50% of our taxpayers of maryland use the state and local tax deduction. but there's another reason why this bill has been advertised not just to help middle-income families, which it doesn't do, but it's called job creation.

so i want to share with my colleagues -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the senate will be in order. the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i thank you for calling the senate to order. but this bill is advertised as a bill that will create jobs in america. now, let me go through that because i'm for creating more jobs. we need more jobs in maryland, we need more jobs throughout the country. the number that has been given to us that this bill will create is 975,000 jobs. hat a cost of $1.5 trillion. -- at a cost of $1.5 trillion. thathat's a pretty high cost to create a job. in fact, it's ridiculous to spend that type of money. we don't know if that's going to tallly happen. that's what the proponents of

the legislation is saying. we've had democrats and republicans who have worked together to really create jobs and i serve on the environment and public works committee, i serve as the ranking member on the infrastructure committee with senator inhofe. we both know if we put more resources into infrastructure, into roads, bridges, transit systems, we will in fact not only modernize our economy by having a first-class transportation system, not only make the quality of life better so we can get to and from work in a reasonable time, but we will also create real jobs. so in the last congress we had a bipartisan group of members from the finance committee who said, look, we've got to do something about international tax issues, repatriation, moneys parked overseas. we need to do something to bring this money back. this is american companies that have their money overseas, don't

want to pay the higher corporate taxes. there as way of bringing that money back. let's do it to get it back into our economy. and republicans and democrats agreed. but the one thing we didn't want to do is use that money for permanent type of spending that could increase the deficit. so what does h.r. 1 do? what does the underlying bill do? it does exactly that. it uses this one-time-only money and spends it on a permanent basis for tax relief for corporations -- permanent tax relief for corporations. that's not the responsible thing to do. so what we should be doing with that money -- and what was the proposal we had in the last congress -- use that as seed money for infrastructure, one-time-only expenses. and we could therefore create modern infrastructure and create jobs and do it in a responsible way. it is a win-win-win situation.

the house repatriation bill would bring in approximately $300 billion of one-time-only revenues. it's been estimated that at $300 billion would create 4 million jobs -- 4 million. let's compare that. if we use that $300 million to create 4 million jobs. let's that's about $73,000 a job. as compared to $1.5 million per job under the underlying bill. i think we all understand that we need to be more cost-effective in how we do our work around here and that's why democrats and republicans said, let's use this one-time-only source for infrastructure, modernizing our roads and creating jobs. which brings me to the motion i hope i'll have a chance to offer tomorrow that would recommit the bill to the committee to return it to the congress, to the floor and use that funds -- the

repatriation funds for infrastructure so that we can create the jobs and not create a greater hole in the deficit. mr. president, i'm joined in this effort by senator feinstein, senator blumenthal, senator udall, senator casey, and senator stabenow. i do think this is a matter that i hope my colleagues will pay attention to. i hope we can fix this bill and work in a bipartisan manner, h.r. 1. doesn't look like we're there, yet. we want a bill that helps middle-income families, we want a bill that does not increase the deficit. the current bill does exactly that. so i hope my colleagues will work with us so we can return this bill to the senate finance committee and return a bill that's worthy of the people of this country. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for oregon. mr. wyden: before he leaves the floors i just want to thank senator cardin for his leadership on so many finance issues and especially for

highlighting today as part of this major debate on tax reform the importance of infrastructure. the fact is you cannot have big league quality of life with little league infrastructure. and my colleague has made the point that repatriation would be a natural as one of the two bookends for infrastructure. it would ensure that we could have some funds we could count on, publicly available funds, and it would be a natural fit with the kind of bonding that i and senator hoeven and others have been interested in. i'm here to talk on another subject, but before he leaves i want to thank my colleague for his comments. mr. president and colleagues, it is fair to say this is throwback thursday here in the united states senate, and it is also a big day for the treasury secretary, steve mnuchin, not

only because we are dealing with taxes, not because there is another glamorous photo shoot with a big sheet of dollar bills this is also the one-year anniversary of what has come to be known as the mnuchin rule. it was november 30, 2016, when news broke that mr. mnuchin was the likely nominee to head the department of treasury. and that morning the secretary-to-be went on tv and delivered what sounded like a very sweet promise. here's what he said about the trump administration's ideas for the issue we talk about tonight. tax reform. and i'm going to quote steve

mnuchin directly. he said any reductions we have in upper-income taxes will be offset by less deductions so there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. now in case anybody missed that last part of his statement, he said no absolute tax cut for the upper class. and he didn't stop there. he went even further in hype and big plans he had. he said, and i'll quote, when we work through congress and we go through this, it will be very clear. this is a middle-income tax cut. this is all as part of the anniversary to kind of refresh everybody's memory.

and after that pledge, i talked about this matter with mr. mnuchin during the senate finance committee, and he smiled. he was thrilled that i was recalling this pledge he made. and when i brought it up, i said, well, we could just call this the mnuchin rule. and mr. mnuchin at that time thanked me, and he said, and i quote, there would be great esteem of having the mnuchin rule with both the buffer rule and the volcker rule. and he said i take that as a great compliment. so here we are a year later,

and what a difference a year has made. the mnuchin rule is now a broken promise for the history books. this week republicans scrambled to pass a tax plan that reaches into the pockets of working people in the middle class and showers trillions of dollars in handouts to multinational corporations, high fliers, the politically connected. i think it's also important to remember the mnuchin rule was just one part of the sales pitch. now there's' a whole lot more to republicans have said time and again that the tax cuts would pay for themselves. time and time again we heard about the iewn -- iewn -- iewn

corns, about the growth berries. the magical growth would be so powerful that new revenue is going to come pouring in and the tax cuts are going to be fully paid for. now in addition to that, i think it's important to recognize this on the special anniversary the secretary went even further. he said the tax cuts wouldn't just pay for their $1.4 trillion cost. they would bring in on top of the $1.4 trillion an additional $1 trillion. well, today, after pushing and making sure that we could get it before we actually had the key final votes, we were pleased to receive from the independent

referees on taxation, the joint committee on taxation, the official dynamic scoring analysis that they did of the republicans' plan. and let's be clear, folks. now that we've heard from the independent tax umpires, we can say officially the magical growth fantasy is over. and i say that, mr. president, also in the context of bipartisanship, because i said in the course of writing the two bipartisan bills that i authored first with senator gregg, second with senator coats, i said i happen to believe that behavior matters. i believe a good bipartisan tax reform bill will generate some

revenue. and the congressional budget office agreed with me. but it is not going to be fantasy land type growth. and the reality is after mr. mnuchin said what was going to happen is the republican plan would pay for the $1.4 trillion cost and generate another $1 trillion on top of it, what we now know as a result of what i was sent today, the republican tax plan, even with dynamic growth factored in, actually loses more than $1 trillion. and there's other bad news on top of it. the republican tax plan, according to joint committee on

taxation, slows down economic growth after 2025. so you put a kabash on two major selling points that we heard about month after month after month from republicans in selling this plan. the tax cuts don't pay for themselves, and there's no new wave of growth headed our way. the party of reagan is on a mad dash to run up the deficit by $1 trillion, slow down the economy, and raise taxes on more than half of the middle class. and the only analysis republicans can get to back up their tax plan is either cooked up by the in-house staff at 1600 pennsylvania or is based on revenue-neutral tax bills that

don't even exist. by the way, more news a year into mr. mnuchin's work the secretary promised a comprehensive analysis from the treasury department that would prove his claims. prove that there would be more growth, more jobs, red, white, and blue opportunities for our people. the tax cuts would pay for themselves, or as he said, would generate much more revenue than that. and the secretary of treasury promised us that. he promised us that repeatedly, that we would get that analysis of what this bill would do for growth and jobs and improving the quality of life for our

people. but let me tell you that was another broken promise. yet one more in a chain of broken promises over the months, and a particularly important one, because the treasury secretary made some especially surprising projections and in effect we asked him to back them up. he said he would, and now we know that not only is he not going to do it, apparently he had no intention to ever do it. based on the news that broke this morning, as far as i can tell, secretary mnuchin never even asked his department, never even asked his department to do the comprehensive analysis of the bill that he promised. on top of that, his treasury

department buried a recent paper that showed that the overwhelming beneficiaries of corporate tax cuts aren't workers. they're shareholders. they said it didn't agree with the department's current thinking. let me be clear. i think it sounds like another part of the cover-up, another part of the cover-up at the treasury department. colleagues, a year ago secretary mnuchin told the american people there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. it will be very clear. this is a middle-income tax cut. then he said the tax cuts wouldn't just pay for themselves a trillion new dollars of federal revenue would come pouring in. not a single word of that has turned out to be true. the mnuchin rule is the most expensive lie since george w. bush stood on an aircraft carrier and said the mission in iraq was accomplished. and the idea that these tax cuts

pay for themselves isn't just a little off the mark. it is a $1 trillion misfire. what we have here is a con job on the middle class, and secretary mnuchin and his allies have covered it up every single step of the way. my democratic colleagues and i have said over and over again, we said we agree the tax code is broken. we share the view of our colleagues that there ought to be an opportunity for a bipartisan bill, and as i have done every single time i've spoken on the subject, mr. president, i made it clear that it doesn't have to be this way. beginning of the week i joined 17 moderate democratic senators.

senator donnelly said it very well. i mean, really an outpouring of enthusiasm for taking a bipartisan approach to really doing tax reform right. and a bipartisan approach, mr. president, is not just some kind of pie in the sky happy talk. bipartisanship is what gets you the certainty and the predictability you need to grow private-sector jobs that are good paying and are driven by innovation. and i know it can be done. i'm glad to see the president of the senate here tonight is from the state of indiana. one of the two bipartisan bills that i wrote was with one of his

former colleagues, senator dan coats, who is not just a very well liked member, but somebody who believes deeply in sensible economic policy. he was on the finance committee. and we worked on this for a substantial amount of time. and you know what? it's not easy to write a bipartisan tax reform bill. you have to have some give and take. senator bradley would fly all over the country to work with republicans to try to find common ground. right now we can't get people to even walk down the corridor to help put together a proposal. so it didn't have to be this way. we had opportunities for bipartisanship, and it's something i feel very strongly about, because i spent literally hundreds of hours with

two very fine, very conservative republican senators in order to put together two actual bills, bills with bill numbers, bills that were proposed in the united states senate. but what a difference between that approach and what we have seen from secretary mnuchin. not a single effort, not one, from secretary mnuchin to talk specifics about what it would take to get a bipartisan approach. and then we had the -- we had noted tonight these promises -- promises of making sure the focus would be on the middle class, making sure it would

bring in additional revenue. it has been a trail of broken promises when it could have been an opportunity to bring everybody together and give everybody the opportunity to get ahead. well, one of my very favorite phrases, mr. president, is from the late israel diplomat who said the americans always get it right. he paused and said, after they've tried everything else. well, my hope is that secretary mnuchin will see the error of his ways, see why the policies i've described are right for the american people, to see why the administration needs to change course and address what democrats have called for, a bipartisan approach, which our moderates eloquently spoke to

this week, which we have bills that can help guide us, and i hope that we can, in future, break with the kinds of policies i had to describe on the one-year anniversary of the mnuchin rule and decide that we're going to change course, have a tax policy that focuses on the middle class, puts money in their pockets, gives everybody a chance to get ahead, and that the secretary will recognize that his claims that what the republican tax bill is all about are not borne out by the facts. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr.sullivan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order for senator nelson and senator baldwin or their

designee to each offer a motion to commit, which is at the desk, and that no amendments with instructions be in order, and i ask that following leader remarks on december 1, there be 20 minutes of debate on each motion and following the use or yielding back of time that, the senate vote on the motions with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the for wisconsin. ms. baldwin: i have a motion to commit at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from wisconsin, ms. baldwin, moves to commit the bill 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 are in jurisdiction of the committee

and support the president's plan to carry the carried interest loophole. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent to call up a motion to commit at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oregon, mr. wyden, for mr. nelson moas to commit the bill to the committee on finance with instructions to report the same back to the senate in three days not counting any day in which the senate is not session that changes are, one, within the jurisdiction of such committee and provide permanent tax relief for americans in a deficit neutral way. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have had the privilege of sitting on the floor and listening to this debate on tax reform. our friends on the left have done a really good job of painting a picture of fantasy land, a land that does not exist in america.

frankly, when i think of fantasy land, i think of the concept that sugar-free cookies will not make you gain weight. anyone who has eaten them know that is not a fact. my friends to the left oftentimes speaks in ill lust russ -- illustrious language, but they are not always accurate. mr. president, when i think about our tax reform package, it really comes down to some very simple concepts -- families. too many american families feel invisible because so often we hear folks talking about people before they actually talk to people. and when you talk to the average

american family, what you will hear time and time again is that it is very difficult for the average family to get their ends together, making ends meet, working paycheck to paycheck is too often in too many places the norm. and so, mr. president, when we start talking about helping the average american family and when we start talking about helping single parents, we are talking about helping them keep their dollars. in other words, mr. president, we believe that they know better than government how to spend their money. mr. president, if you are an average american household with only one bread earner, the fact is our plan delivers a 75% tax

cut if you earn around $41,000. why, mr. president, do we talk about $41,000 for a single-parent household. it is because the average single-parent household with a couple of kids earns around $41,000. we wanted to paint a picture of facts that lead you to the truth. that's not what we're hearing all the time in this chamber. mr. president, when you think about an average family -- a typical american family with two earners in the household, the average family in america makes around $$73,000. our tax cut for that average,

typical american family is 60%. here's what i struggle with, mr. president, is why is it not a bipartisan objective to deliver tax cuts to hardworking, too often working two jobs, to make ends meet? why is there not a bipartisan coalition working to make sure there's a tax break in every single bracket. mr. president, i just can't figure out why doubling the standard deduction for an individual to $12,000 is not a bipartisan activity. mr. president, i really can't appreciate why taking a single-parent household from a standard deduction of $9,300 to

$8,000 is something my friends on the left are resistant to do. mr. president, i cannot explain to you or to the folks back in south carolina why doubling the standard deduction from $12,700, almost doubling, to $24,000 isn't a bipartisan exercise. mr. president, i can't explain to you why families that are strapped with kids in the home, why we can't say to them that doubling the standard, the child tax credit, is a good thing. where is the controversy around saying that instead of getting a

-- $1,000 tax credit -- where is the controversy? why can't we find our friends on the left a part of that conversation. why is it that our friends on the left have finally come to the conclusion after eight years of running the nation with the white house and taking a $10 trillion debt was accumulated over 30 years and doubling it in eight years. now they want the american people to take them seriously about the debt. let me close, mr. president by simply suggesting that when 4,70 0 businesses would still be -- 4,700 businesses would still be american businesses, according to a study, if we had a 20% tax cut, corporate tax

rate, 4,700 businesses are no longer ours. they've been acquired or inverted because our tax code punishes success. and in a global competition, mr. president, our american workers deserve better. in a global competition, mr. president, our workers deserve the opportunity to work for companies whose tax rates are competitive in a global economy. and if we don't do that, more american companies will invert and fewer americans will work here at home. in places like alaska, south

carolina, and the dakotas. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr.sullivan: mr. president, i want to compliment my good friend from south carolina who came down here and made -- and talked about what this is all about. i couldn't agree with him more. this is about families. this is about american families. he has these poster boards up there showing the american people what this is about. and i want to reiterate a couple of points that he mentioned, mr. president. first, the most important thing we're doing here, the bulk of the relief that we're providing in this tax bill is to provide middle-class families with more take home pay, more money in the pockets of american citizens. that's what senator scott just

talked about, and i con agree more. so -- couldn't agree more. so on average right now our bill would bring the average american middle-class family about a $200 additional amount of money in their pockets per month -- per month. now to some people watching that might not seem like a lot, but is it. over $2,000 per year and every tax bracket that we have right now in the senate bill would get a reduction. so i want to echo the words of my good friend from south carolina, it's confounding to me that our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle would deny hardworking americans that extra money in their pockets. you don't hear them say that, but that's what they are doing. and that they would spin and twist the facts to make the

public believe that the middle class is actually getting a tax increase. the public is getting spun by that. this would be a tax cut for these families, a significant amount. that's a plain fact. and what is so puzzling about this debate, mr. president, about those who oppose this bill is how they would try to deny the americans who need it, and we need it, extra money in their pockets, particularly right now. mr. president, i want to talk a little bit about an article i read last year in the atlantic magazine. it was entitled "the secret shame of the middle class." here's a copy of it." secret shame of the middle class," where it says that

nearly half of all americans would have trouble finding $400 in a crisis. he often talks about families, 47% of american families, according to one federal study, wouldn't be able to come up with $400 in case of an emergency. this is truly the definition of living paycheck to paycheck. and the bill that we're debating helps address this significantly. more money in the pockets of american families. middle-class families. let me quote from this article, mr. president. the author says, quote, it was happening to the soon-to-retire as well as the soon-to-begin in the workforce. it was happening to college grads as well as high school dropouts. it was happening all across the

country, including places where you might least expect to see such problems. i knew that i wouldn't have $400 in an emergency. that's the author. what i hadn't known, couldn't have conceived, was that so many other americans wouldn't have that kind of money available to them either. my local friend, a local butcher, his name was brian, was one of the only men i knew who talked openly about his financial struggles, once told me, anyone says he's sailing through right now, he's lying -- unquote. that's from this article. these are our constituents. he's writing about. these are the people that we see when we go home. these are american citizens who need this kind of relief. they tell us they're struggling. they tell us they felt left out

of the system and that nobody is listening. this bill, mr. president, is listening. it's about listening to them. it's about giving them a voice. for more economic security. but the other thing this bill does, the other thing that is so important to do in this congress, the other thing that we should have no issues about bipartisan support for what this bill does -- finally getting our economy back to traditional levels of economic growth. growing our economy, which has been stagnant for well over a decade. mr. president, the next chart i have here is one that i've come to the floor and talked about many, many, many times. it's an important chart. it shows the levels of economic growth that have occurred year

after year in the united states since the eisenhower administration. it shows the g.d.p. growth. so met me explain it a little bit here. you're starting already, eisenhower, kennedy, johnson, nixon, carter, reagan, bush 14,clinton, bush 43, and barack obama. the green is growth. you already have a couple years -- 8%, 6%, 7%. but the line i want people to take a look at it this 3% g.d.p. growth line. 3%. now, that's not a great growth rate. it's not a bad growth rate. the average since world war ii is closer to 4%, but 3% is pretty good. 3% is pretty good. well, mr. president, when you look at this chart, when you look at this chart and you think about what we're trying to do on the floor here today, it tells a really, really important story.

3% every year -- reagan, bush, clinton, 4%, 5%, 6%, then defeat to the obama years -- actually, we get to the ten years we've had, the last ten years. we never hit it. we have the bush great recession and in then the entire eight years of president obama -- never hit it. now, g.d.p. sounds like some kind of technical economic term wax it really is, it's a -- economic term. what it really is, it's a proxy for the american dream, it is a proxy for hope. we've had a sick economy for over a decade. we've had a sick economy. one thing that surprised me, mr. president, how few of our colleagues talk about this. now, as we've debated the tax bill, a lot of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have been

talking about growth -- growth, growth, growth. and how we got to get back to traditional levels of g.d.p. growth. 3% or higher. a bit of a surprise to me in my little under three years in the u.s. senate, i don't know if i've heard any of my completion come down an -- any of my colleagues come down and talk about this on the other side of the thyme this level of 3% not good for the country. to the contrary, some of them unfortunately have bought into what the obama administration used to tell us, well, listen ... all right, we can't hit 3%, so guess what, america? this is the new normal. the new normal. you can't expect 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7% -- we had years of 7% g.d.p. growth. during the reagan era. strong growth during the clinton

era. don't expect that anymore. the new normal is about 1.50%, maybe 2% is we're lucky. i'd ask one of my democratic colleagues this morning, do you believe in the new normal? do you? because that's a surrender. that's surrender of the american dream. you know, there's a lot talk about what makes america great in the last year. this is what makes america great -- strong economic growth. and we haven't had it in over a decade. and this tax bill, we believe, is going to spur it. and that's another reason why it's so important. families' take home pay and finally getting back to traditional levels of strong, robust economic growth that has had -- enjoyed bipartisan support -- bipartisan support --

from every president since the end evidence world war ii -- since the end of world war ii. yet on the other side of the aisle, they don't want to talk about it. to me, it's the most important thing we're doing here. so how do we do it? tax reform certainly, energy policies that unleash our opportunities, infrastructure, regulatory reform. but we have to get out of this lost decade. i'm going to go back to that "atlantic," a i mentioned, mr. president. the author talks about the fact that people don't have the money they once did because of this -- because we're not growing. because the strongest economy in the world, the strongest economy in the world for the last 100 years, is sick.

what the author says is, quote, in the 1950's and 1960's, american economic growth democratickized prosperity. everybody had opportunity with strong economic growth. that's what he's talking about right here. then he says, but in the 2010's, we have managed to democratize financial insecurity. we went from democratizing prosperity for democracy to democratizing financial insecurity where almost half of the american people don't believe they have $400 in an emergency. and yet my colleagues don't want to provide a tax cut for middle-class families who are struggling? what we need to do, mr. president, is end this democratizing of financial insecurity and get back to prosperity.

get back to traditional levels of g.d.p. growth through tax reform, through energy, through infrastructure, through reform. and we can do it. mern watching, please -- any american watching, please don't believe this idea of the new normal, that we'll never get back to these rates, that somehow our future is destined to be below this 3% line. what we need are policies that can get us there. that's why i'm hopeful that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to join us in promoting this tax reform that'll do one of the most important things we can do -- get the u.s. economy growing again. families will benefit, middle-class families will benefit, hardworking americans will benefit, our economy will

benefit, our national security will benefit. but we need to act. we can't accept this. mr. president, i yield the floor. to my colleague from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the distinguished senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i thank my colleague from alaska for yielding, and i want to begin where he finished on the need for a bipartisan approach, one that combines different points of view, one based on compromise. compromise should not be a dirt ity word. compromise is not a four-letter word. neither is bipartisanship. and yet our republican colleagues have insisted on a republican plan, on plan that they first have rammed and

rushed through the house of representatives and now in the same way have sought to do on their own, without consultation or compromise. and that's why the process has reached this point. it has stalled. my republican colleagues are scrambling for a solution to an overwhelming, oppressive debt that they would force on the american people, not on ourselves but on our children and our grandchildren, generations to come, searching and scrambling for a so-called trigger, another gimmick to be inserted in this bill which already underestimates the additional debt that will be foisted on our nation. they have estimated it at $1.3

trillion or $1.5 trillion. in reality, it's probably larger. but the main point is that they have foisted it on our children and grandchildren to pay, to shoulder the burden, simply so that the wealthiest in this country and corporations would have tax cuts. the people of connecticut and our country face a tsunami of economic harm. this plan, in fact, is deeply unpopular among my constituents in connecticut. i have listened to them, and what they tell me is, they cannot look their children in the eye and show them a chart like this one, which my

colleague, senator king of maine, displayed earlier in the chamber, and see how this unsurmountable mountain of debt will result from the republican plan p. very simply, republicans voted for middle-class taxes to rise so that the president's taxes and other billionaires can go down p. over the next decade, this plan will raise taxes on 87 million middle-class families and half of all taxpayers. this plan is a double standard. it is a bait and switch because it makes a promise that it fails to fulfill. it makes a promise of tax cuts that actually will rise over a ten-year period. it sells a false bill of goods.

the promise of middle-class tax cuts is a lot. plain and simple, a scam. the president sent the administrator of the small business administration, linda mcmahon, to connecticut to announced, quote, everyone will experience a tax cut. but the fact of the matter is, everybody in certain brackets experiences a tax increase under most circumstances. who is harmed? you know who benefits -- the wealthiest benefit and corporations benefit. but the ones harmed, according to the congressional budget office, are the majority of people who earn less than $75,000 a year and they will be worse off wn