all my finance committee colleagues. we know that. that just goes without saying despite of the myth on the floor. before i turn to senator durbin, i want to say one other thing. we've seen some pretty charts on this floor about middle-class tatax cuts. what we didn't hear mentioned was about the third year of this bill, the tax cut go down and down and document then they cross zero and then you got tax increases. the tax policy center said in 2019, 13 million households will have a tax increase. 2025, 19 million households will have a tax increase. 2027, 87 million -- those aren't the trump family that'll have tax increases. those aren't senators' families that'll have tax increases. those are working families in toledo and dayton and working families in omaha and in east st. louis, illinois. those are who's going to get hit

with these tax increases while the wealthy continue to get more tax bracing. i'll yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i brought with me to the floor a copy of the just-released analysis by the joint committee on taxation. these folks are the independent tax referees for the congress. i pushed very hard for several weeks in order to get this dynamic score for the republican tax bill because as the ranking member on the finance committee, i heard my colleague say week after week that all we need to get is a dynamic score and people will see the value of our bill. well, we got the score, and the score ends the fantasy about magical growth, about unicorns and growth fairies suddenly

showing that tax cuts pay for themselves. in fact, this report shows that this bill would lose more than a trillion dollars even with the dynamic score. it slows the growth of the american economy after 2025. it is the total opposite of what was promised. even with the dynamic score, what we're seeing is the sponsors of this bill spending a trillion dollars and not helping those who need the help. the numbers are now in. this is the hard evidence that this bill basically isn't much more than a holiday bonanza for multinational corporations and powerful interests. i have heard a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle already criticizing

the analysis by the joint committee on taxation. i'm sure they're unhappy because this certainly unravels all of their projections, and they continue despite the fact that the hard evidence is in, they're still saying that their tax plan is going to produce a magical unicorn and rainbow fantasy of economic growth. the facts are now in. the republican plan loses a trillion dollars. this republican plan slows economic growth. the growth fantasy is over. it is over. mr. cornyn: would the senator yield for a question? wide as soon as i have a chance to finish my statement. i'm happy to extend the courtesy that sometimes i don't get from the gentleman, but i'm happy to do it. the growth fantasy is over with this projection.

i'm happy to yield to my colleague. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i thank -- the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i thank the ranking member of the finance committee. i know we have other senators ready to speak. since the senator believes that the joint committee on taxation dynamic score of our tax bill is entirely -- isn't entirely accurate, would he agree with me that the score demonstrates that there is economic growth generated by tax cuts and really what we're just talking about is how much economic growth is generated? mr. wyden: what i would say is sure, there's what amounts to negligible growth, but this slows the growth of our economy after 2025. that's not what we were promised. in fact, let me recap a little bit of the republican promises. the treasury secretary steve mnuchin said this bill would generate so much growth, it would take care of the $1.5

trillion and generate a trillion dollars on top of it. what a difference between steve mnuchin's projection of $2.5 trillion and the number that i've got on this sheet from the joint committee on taxation $407 billion worth of revenue. i thank my colleague to help us clear up what is a little bit at issue. i appreciate senator thune being so gracious in giving me the extra time. i would just ask unanimous consent that senator franken, myself, and senator nelson be added as cosponsors to amendment numbered 1720 and i want to thank the senator from south dakota for his thoughtfulness. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i a lot of our colleagues on the other side have come to the floor today and talked about why they don't like our tax reform bill. many of those arguments have been focused on who benefits from it. of course, as is usually the case when you start talking about any kind of an attempt to reduce taxes on the american people so they can keep more of what they earn, keep more of the dollars in their pockets so they can decide how to spend it rather than send it to washington, d.c., democrats complained that it is tax cuts for the rich. well, again, i want to point out -- and this of course is based upon the joint committee on taxation, which was just alluded to and where they find the benefits of the tax relief going. as you can see from this chart, these represent different income groups and the highest percentage tax cuts actually go to those in the lower and midd

middle-income groups. if you look at who benefits from this, every income group gets a significant tax cut. but middle-income americans do particularly well percentage wise under this tax reform proposal. so the argument again that this is somehow simply a tax cut for the rich just doesn't pass the smell test. it doesn't comport with reality. clearly the numbers tell a very different story. the other point i'd like to make, mr. president, is that if you look at what we tried to accomplish in this -- the design of this tax bill, we tried to maintain the existing progressivity in the tax code. we have one of the most progressive tax codes in the world. we have a lot of people in this country who don't have income tax liability, some who benefit from refundable tax credits that helps eliminate or partially eliminate their payroll tax liability as well.

but this chart shows you, under our bill, when it is all said and done, who bears the tax burden in this country. in other words, the percentage of the tax liability paid by each different group, different income group. if you look at this, you can see those in the $,000 $5 -- in the 20,000 to $50,000 range, the rate drops from 4.3% to 4.1%. so those in the $20,000 to $50,000 income group as a percentage tax burden in the country pay less under our proposal than they do today. if you look at the group from $50,000 to $100,000, that income group -- they also, as a percentage of the entire tax burden borne by americans, pay less under our proposal than they do today. they pay 16.9% today. under our proposal, they will

pay 16.7%. -- of total taxes in this country. those, on the other hand, making $100 yo,000 or more will pay slightly more of the overall tax bumped today they pay 78.7%. under our proposal, they pay 78.9%. so people under $100,000 are going to be paying less as share of the overall tax burden than they currently do today. i don't know how anyone with a straight face can argue that somehow this is a tax bill that benefits those in the upper end. with respect to the arguments that are being made right now, mr. president, regarding the joint committee release of the dynamic score, i would say the same thing that my colleague from texas did and i think the good news in all this is what it demonstrates is what we're trying to do here actually generates economic growth. it actually generates additional ref few for the federal treasury. we can argue about how much. we happen to think that the

assumptions used by the joint committee are not accurate because they assume that we're going to continue to grow for the next decade our economy at 1.9%. 1.9%. historical averages going back to the understand of world war ii in the american economy, we have averaged somewhere between 3% and 3.5% growth. so if you take the assumption that we're never going to do any better than 1.9% growth in the economy, then perhaps their estimate could be accurate. we happen to believe we're going to do a whole lot better than that. we believe if we put the right policies in place and we make america an-trackive place in which to invest, that we're going to see considerably higher growth than 1.9%. so what does it take to cover the number that we created in this tax bill that would have to be paid for with additional growth in the economy?

well, it takes about .4% of growth, increase in average annual growth, over the next decade. that means instead of growing at 1.9% a year for the next decade, we're going to have to grow a 2.2%, 2.3%, somewhere in that ballpark to start generating revenue boffed and beyond what the -- revenue above and beyond what the impact would be on the federal budget. so what i would simply say is when you look at these various models that are done and the assumptions that are made -- remember that the joint committee on tax acres the congressional budget office, the numbers that they are using assume 1.9% economic growth. i mean, i can't believe that we wouldn't have more confidence in the american economy that we could generate higher than 1.9% economic growth. that is the straitjacket that constrains their models. now, there are other models out there that have looked at this

same information, the same data looked at the same tax bill, considered the behavioral effects of that and how it would impact the mandate come to an entirely different conclusion. in other words in fact, the tax foundation has suggested that the tax bill we have in front of us today would generate an additional $1.26 trillion over the same time period. so what we tried to do is design a tax bill that not only delivers meaningful tax relief to middle-income fathers which i think as i just showed demonstrates that we do, but secondly to put policies in place that will create dimension l. conditions that are favorable to economic growth. when the economy is growing at a faster rate it means that companies are -- businesses are creating jobs, better-paying jobs, and if there is a competition for labor in this company, and i believe there will be when companies start to expand, start to grow their operations, it increases the demand for labor. the price for labor goes up and

wages go up. that's what we want to see. that's the other thing about this bill is doesn't get talked about enough. the reduction in rates on businesses means that they have more to invest in their businesses and one of the by-products of that is it goes into higher wages for their employees. now, the president's council of economic advisors suggests that that impact would be about $4,000 a year in additional income per average household in this country. there is another study done by boston university where they conclude that it would result in $3,500 in additional income. so the impact of the tax cuts are really twofold. one is you -- american families would have more in their pockets. why? because we double the standard deduction. in our bill we double the child tax credit. we lower rates, all of which impact lower and middle-income families in this country. those are all features they can take advantage of which generate

additional benefits to them, benefits which, by the way, if you are an average family in this country, typical family of four with a combined annual income of $73,000, results in a $2,200 tax cut. that's a 60% tax cut over what they would pay under current law. so that's $2,200 in that family's pocket that they will be able to spend on themselves and their families instead of as asisending that to washington, . we happen to have a lot of confidence that the american people are better prepared and better equipped to side thousand spend -- to decide thousand spend their own money. that's a direct benefit, number one. secondly, as i said earlier, if you get the benefit not only of the tax cut that comes to middle-income families but also the additional growth in the economy that generates better-paying jobs, it generates higher wages, that increases your overall household income. that is how american families benefit directly from the legislation that we're considering today. my colleague from ohio is here. he pays a lot of attention to

what the economic trends are and i think it's interesting to note that the congressional budget office and the joint tax committee, which in their analysis assume 1.9% growth in the economy for the next decade, we think we can do a lot better, and i would ask my colleague from ohio, aren't we already starting to do better economically? i think we've seen a significant improvement in growth in the economy just in the last couple of quarters. and if we would continue to stay on that track or a similar track, which i think this tax reform legislation helps enable, we might be able to goat a point where we're growing at a more historic rate. what was the growth rate just for example in the last couple of quarters in this country? mr. portman: we've had a debate here this afternoon about economic growth and one of the realities now on both sides of the aisle, we agree that the tax relief that we're putting out there, which is helping

middle-class families to be able to have a little healthier family budget but also helping workers with regard to the international competition. right now our workers are competing with one hand tied behind their back, that all of this is going to generate more economic growth, it's going to come from more investment, more productivity. and in fact the number that the joint committee on taxation put out today, although it is significantly lower than other numbers, you know, is over $400 billion. more revenue coming in. so enough growth it'll generate that much more revenue coming into the federal government. mr. thune: that's based upon assumption that the growth rail in the economy for the next decade is going to be 1.9%? mr. portman: exactly. so that's the number. let's say roughly $400 billion that they have. by the way, there are 137 economists who tell us that it will be not $400 billion, but it'll be $1 trillion. and this is their quote. their letter came out yesterday. it said, economic growth will

accelerate if the tax cuts and jobs act pass, leading to more jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living for the american people. this is 137 economist who say it is going to be more than twice as much as joint tax says. and there are other studies that indicate there will be even more economic growth. mr. thune: we're already seeing that, right? the we're already seeing it pick up? mr. portman: so that's one part of the debate is how much economic growth is going 0 come out of these tax reforms this we're putting afford. we know it will be a lot. the question is how much. this is all based an a congressional budget office estimate of growth over the next ten years, the g.d.p. growth, the economic growth. so we're sort of in a straitjacket that although we believe this tax reform proposal will help in terms of that growth, we have to go by this number of 1.9%. and 1.9% is anemic growth. that's sad. if we can't do better than 1.9%,

we've got real problems in this country. that's for the next ten years projected. as you have said, it is kind of interesting they're projected 1 moi 9 -- 1.9%. others are projecting other numbers. it was adjusted yesterday to 3.3%. the quarter before, the second quarter this freer's year,3%. so 3%, 3.3% the last two quarters and yet they're saying 1.9%. again there are others out there. there is a private forecast. others indicated 30.4% next year. the average since world war ii is far higher. even with a lot of recessions and other natural as does it is 2.5% or movement so this is not normal. this is a relatively low rhode island i know we can do better. i don't say as some do that this is somehow the new normal. we've got to do better. if we don't, we can't begin to get wages back up again which have been flat really for the

past couple decades. weigh know we can do better. that's one reasoning this is important to give the economy that shot in the arm. let's assum for a minute that it will only be 1.9% growth. let assume this tax proposal passes. let's assume we get the benefit of the increased revenue. what we say is about $1.4 trillion to $^1.5 trillion of tax relief will be a part of this. that that's out of the re reven. we know the growth will make up for that. let's assume this is true. let's assume you use the right policy baseline, assuming that we are going to continue with the current extenders, which we always d we end up -- stick with me here -- with about $533 billion deficit over the next ten years, if you assume this really low rate of growth. if you assume that instead of 1.9% we go not to 3%, not to

2.5%, not even to 2.4%, 2.3%, 2.2%, but let's say 2 boy 1% growth. very conservatism i sure hope we're going to do better than that. that will generate enough revenue because it's roughly $270 billion per every .1%. to have this tax reform proposal actually result in money going back into the treasury, reducing the deficit. so i think this is very fiscally responsible. i think it is very conservative. i think 2.1% growth is not something that is at all out of bounds. i think it's going to be far higher than that, based on the growth we've already had recently and the growth it's projected in the future by outside forecasters. outside forecasters. in the growth is projected in the future by outside forecasters. to folks who are hearing about somehow blowing the hole in the deficit, i think the opposite.

i think it will result to more money going into the federal treasury to get thetr deficit dn this is a debate we can have, but we have got to deal with the growth aside if we are going to get the deficit under control. we have got to get-- even to do the important work we have to do on a bipartisan basis is more likely be true it with growth if we are 1.9% let's get the economy moving. let's do something about the debt deficit and we can do that by 2.1% versus 1.9% and take money that is currently in the economy at 1.9%, not moving much. let's get moving more, great work, connectivity and do that to the growth rate up a bit and then let's actually begin to reduce the deficit.ed

i went to make the pointt. when you hear about this is somehow fiscally unresponsive either gets fiscally responsible responsible conservatively and i think we will do better with 1.9% growth certainly 2.1% growth reduces the deficit and i think it should be brought into the debate. to our colleagues and i count myself measure the senator from ohio as well among those of us who consider ourselves fiscal conservatives realize that in order to deal with debt deficit we have to get our arms around out-of-control washington spending and we have got to do something to make those programs that are driving that out of controlsf- the need more sustainable. we have got to do the other side of this, which is to restrain spendingbu, but order to deal wh that deficit we really need the growth and economy because it means people are working, paying taxes, taking realization and

paying taxes and government revenue goes ups. >> time has expired. >> that's what this bill will accomplish. i backed down for my time. >> senator from oregon. >> wrote would like to respond to the majority leader who has what he claimed the great benefit coming from the republican tax reform bill. colleagues and i say to the public following this this is it tax reform at all. with this is is a grab bag full of special interest goodies from multinational corporations, powerful political supporters and lots of the people who are in a position to have vast amounts of influence to sway the

tax code their way. the fact is that the independent tax empire while joint committee on taxation has just told us 37 million middle-class families are going to pay more in taxes in 2027, so that is the consequences of the republican bill right in black letter law a double standard. permanent breaks for the multinational corporationti and temporary breaks for the working class. you-- we will have more to say today on analyses that are being done by the joint committee on taxationte, but already we have seen a variety of reports indicating that this proposal

will produce negligible growth and big deficits. that's why republicans are talking about how they would like to have some kind of trigger to deal with this proposal. what's been in the bill is the republicans wildest dreams which says a lot about their priority. if there wildest dream is about magical growth come truel in the bill causes federal revenue to skyrocket, multinational corporations would get another automatic tax cut. they already get some 35 to 20 and by the way when we had our bipartisan bill they didn't insist on going to 20 or spending hundreds of billions of dollars more that could go to

the middle class d beyond what e bipartisan bill called for and on top of that the trigger says that the republicans get their magical unicorn mathematics about the growth fairy multinational corporations will get yet another tax cut, so i wanted to respond briefly to what the republican leaders said becauseoe this does not resemble the kind of tax reform ronald reagan and democrats wanted and i will close by way of saying that it did not have toay be ths way, mr. president. 17 democrats led by senator kane, mccain, mccaskill, tremendous outpouring of good faith said would like to have a bipartisan bill and asked me to come because i had written a

bipartisan bill and i want to show the contrast between what ronald reagan did in 1986 with the democrats and what's happened, unfortunately, here. in 1986 bill bradley, someone i talked about bit on the floor as democrats that served on the finance committee with good government and growth and innovation. he flew all over the united states, mr. president, all of the united states to work out with republicans the various provisions of tax laws to make the bill bipartisan, so in 1986 democrats who around the country to meet with republicans to get bipartisan reform. this year republicans have not been willing to walk down the hall to discuss specific provisions about how we can move

forward on a bipartisan tax reform bill. that's why our moderates are so concerned that we are nixing a great opportunity. multinationals-- by the way look at the first letter from the joint committee on taxation. we could be looking at interest rates to make it hard for people to buy a house and car because of what this bill produced p or this bill is not tax reform. it's a grab bag of goodies for special interests. it in beds in tax law a double standard with a breaks for the multinational and vanishing benefits for the middle class it didn't have to be-- it still does not have to be. there is another alternative and that's with 17 moderate democrats and i was proud to

join them well we will have more debate on this over the course of the morning,, but since the leader did talk about how this was sort of a textbook case of what tax reform should look like i will make sure we started this morning by injecting a bit of reality with respect to what's offered and i yielded to the floor. >> mr. president, later tonight or in the early hours of our morning we will vote on final passage of the republican tax bill. i would like to make two main points about the tax bill in my speech this morning first on process and second on substance. from the beginning the republican tax bill has made a mockery of the legislative process. republican leaders disappeared behind closed doors, negotiated a framework for a tax bill without a shred of democratic inputt and then wrote a bill

behind closed doors without a shred of democratic input. republicans brought that bill through a markup in the finance committee when it underwent the scrutiny of one are p1 expert witness, that's it. finance committee democrats offered 60 amendments to the bill. republicans rejected every single one. committee republicans made a crystal clear they weren't interested in bipartisanshipar. now that the bill before us is on the floor even further significant changes will likely be made by the b majority leader today who wants huge changes in the bill today and wants to vote on it tonight and it's passed one of the most complicated issues before us even these changes and the way the majority leader is handling this make it

impossible for any independent analysts to get a good look at the bill and how it would impact our country. from the one sidedness with which it was drafted to the reckless haste with which was considered the republican taxpayer-- bill has failed to go through anything resembling the normal legislative processg. before the night is out i hope my republican friends asked themselves if this is the way they want history to remember how the first major tax bill was passed in over 30 years. i hope they ask themselves if the process has lived up to the fine traditions of this body as they were eloquently described by my friend d from arizona both senior and junior j. in the american people are clamoring for a store together and believe our politics is broken. they think our politics is starved of common sense and compromise and it is. the way the tax bill is rammed through is exactly why the

american people believe our politics is so broken. now, let me address the substance of the bill. without exaggeration i believe if this bill passes it will be remembered as one of the worstli pieces of public policy in decades. a vote for passage will be a vote my republican friends regret. at a time of immense inequality the republican tax bill makes life easier on the well-off and eventually makes life more difficult on working americans exacerbating one of the most pressing problems we face as a nation between the rich and everyone else. corporations enjoying record profits get a permanent tax break 6 while over 60% of the middle class will pay higher taxes before the benefits expire -- because their benefits expired. health-care premiums will go up 10%. 13 million americans-- fewer

americans will have health insurance as a result of repealing the individual mandate the cbo said yesterday even if we pass the alexander bill into law but it would have little or no impact on either of those two things and when it's all said and done the tax bill will balloon in deficit by at least 1.5 trillion adding to the debt burden borne by the next generation and diminishing our ability to support the military and invest in our schools, roads and scientific research. including support for men women in uniform ultimately this deficit busting tax cuts will endanger social security, medicare and medicaid as was admitted yesterday when he set

higher deaths-- deficits will mean changes to social security medicare for the future, so a win today for the gop will be a temporary one that would be enjoyed almost exclusively to the political media of who's up today and down tomorrow but fails to grasp the bigger picture. it won't be a long-term win politically with recent polling showing this tax bill is less popular than previous tax hikes. more portly, it won't win in the country or be a win for 13 middle class families who pay higher taxes in 201987000000 middle-class families who pay higher taxes in 2027. it won't be a win for the single mom in the suburbs who no longer

can deduct a state local taxes and finds it that much harder to send her daughter to college. and won't be a winin for the 13 million americans who go without health insurance and everyone else who faces 10% . of those hard-working americans have waited years for their congress to pass legislation to make things to be easier on them. that watched an economy that rewarded hard work and failed play turned against them producing more wealth for the already wealthy and less pay, . for so many this read economy but it these to be behind as a source of frustration, anger and despair. donald trump and his campaign spoke to that anger and yet his tax bill, the republican tax bill is a betrayal of the working men and women who filled anger making it worse problems

that led to it the first place. we can do a better job and tax reform, but only if we work together. the way this congress has careened from partisan bill to partisan bill with no attempt to make bipartisanship has brought shame on this bodyt hi and reinforced the skepticism that so many americans have without politics here to write my-- my republican friends today my republican friends have an opportunity to turn back from this partisan bill in this partisan process. if they do, i guarantee they will find a democratic leader, democratic senate caucus and democratic partyes that's eagero work with them on the kind of tax reform t our country deserv. we won't sit in our corner and make unreasonable demands. as many of my colleagues know there's a lot of sincere intent on the side of the aisle to do tax reform. i have worked with senator hatch, senator corker and many others of my caucus has worked with republicans on tax reform ideas for years.

we can put together a bill acceptable to both parties that reduces burdens on middle-class i'm a makes our economy more pecompetitive, creates jobs are home and do it in a deficit neutral way. the bill doesn't do those things , but we can write a bill that does together. let's give it a shot. as my republican friends close the door on their partisan tax bill tonight they will find an open door for bipartisan tax reform tomorrow. i yielded the floor. >> l i have sat here and listen to two democrats year after year talk about how they are so much more committed to the middle class and the poor as they have driven us right into bankruptcy. instead of trying to work on these matters so we are not

driven into bankruptcy it's more and more spending, more and more federal government, more and more regulation, more and more controls all of which tend to make us less and less efficient, less and less successful, less and less able to do the will of the people, less and less able to do the things we've been sent here to do. now, we are having complaining about what's going on right now, but to make a long story short the democrats were pushing financial system that was bound to take us into bankruptcy. yeah, we might have had to your desk more years, but we would've gone right straight to hell as far as being able to handlee

matters that are so important to everyone of us in this country. i have to admit our side has flaws to. some of our people think that you know, we should do a better job without any money. or we should do a better job without any increase in taxes or we should do a better job withoutit the federal governmens both sides have been in error. both sides have been from time to time wrong, but i have to say is a former democrat when i was coming up in pittsburgh pennsylvania when i went to bring american university that by the end of my time i thought how could i have believed this stuff.

which was more and more governmentmo, more and more spending, more and more bureaucracy, more and more control over all of our lives and less and less freedom. i can remember the days when we couldn't get the other side to work as hard as they should on national security issues that were critical. both sides have room to grow. both sides have room to improve. each side could do a better job here and i have lived for the day when we both will work together arm and arm for the good of this country, but the good of the country is not socialized medicine which is

where the country actually took a sent out finally pulled them back a little bit. we had help of some republicans to do that and the fact of the matter is they were moving us right to socialized medicine which has never worked anywhere and it's as though they prey on as though they are the only ones that can help them when in the fact they are part of the reason we are poor. the government's cannot do everything. the government should not do everything. we as a people have to help ourselves and do a lot to help our country in the process. i get a little disgusted sometimes when i see a lack of communication between the two sides, a lack of working together. one side believes the better

government is the last answer to everything. you have to be an idiot to believe that. maybe i should not have put it that way. of the other side sometimes has trouble seeing how we should help the poor and help those who are less fortunate than we are. but we have a lot of people on the republican side who spent a lot of time trying to help the poorng and get this country goig again and get the economy on top so we can help the poor and not just mouth off about it. i'm very concerned because if we don't get together and start working together it's going to get worse and worse and worse. i think the crocodile tears on the other side as we watched then pushing us more and more towards socialized medicine, something

that will not work, one-size-fits-all government programs with no real growth in spending, just more and more buying votesg and i have come away pretty disconsolate and concerned about the directions we are going. both sides have enduring process from both sides are wrong in some ways but we have to sooner or later find some way of assisting the greatest country in the world, which has the greatest economic system in the world which believes in the free market systemar to do so without government total control.

my friends on the other side like that government control because it means more controlled by them. we dislike it because we think it's-- they should not have this kind of control and we know that it's not good for the country. it's not good for the people. it's not good for the future. it's not good for our economy. that's where we are. i would like to see as someday really start working in the best interest of the country and a little less in the best interest of our respected parties. i'm concerned about where we are going. i'm concerned about how little effort is put forth to try to bring us together. i'm concerned about the itty-bitty stupid partisan infighting that goes on here constantly.

it's not all bad, but it's not , either. i'm very concerned about a lot of this driven by a media that is one-sided, that really doesn't tell the truth, that really doesn't help us in this country, everybody to know it's wrong. i think the media has gotten better recent years, but it's pretty one-sided. i don't think anyone's-- anyone with brains would deny that. i'm really concerned because i believe we have great people here. there are some wonderful people on the democrat side and we know we have a lot of good people on the republican side. we have to somehow find a way to bridge the and get together and make this country solid,

dependable and economically sound and deserving of the appellation of the greatest country in the world. i think we can do that. but, we can't do it if we don't work together. we can't do it if we can put aside republican and democrat problems. we can't do that if we don't care and we can do it if we keep having the ridiculous stupid politics i go on around here year after year to year it's not

all bad, but it's are the not all good either. i hope some other reasonable people on both sides will start a work together.. i remember when i became chairman of the labor of human resources committee in 1981 with the advent of ronald reagan. the democrats have been in control for years and they knew it and when i got here there were 60 democrats in the senate, 62 democrats, 38 republicans. it was hard to get a point of view across, republican point of view that is. then ronald reagan came along and i have to say it brought an awareness to the public that something was wrong here and was able to bring us together.

i saw some of the greatest senators over the years on both sides work together. i saw daniel patrick monahan come here and work with people like me, some mentioned senator kennedy and senator hatch when i became chairman of the labor committee, labor and human resources committee. kennedy had become a ranking member and i have to give him credit because he was willing to give it to work together. he always had to have his share of whatever it was, but he did move the. did come over. he was willing to an some point of that particular hatch kennedy was a good time in the u.s.

senate. kennedy was calling me from the cape before he died knowing i cared for him, knowing we were people who fought there a hard battles against each other from time to timet, but who really respected each other because we both believed in our respective sides and we were willing to stand up for our particular beliefs i don't see as much of that today as i did then. maybe i'm shortsighted, no, but i don't think so and i'm very concerned that we are not doing the job here for the american people and our little bitty fights that we have around here that don't amount to eightha hil of beans.

i'm very somewhat depressed because of the way things are going right nowre. i can't say i'm discouraged becauseee i keep thinking we can come back and do better and when this thing and find ways to get together. we can work together, but so far i have notf seen that for a number of years and you can blame both parties for it, i'm sure. one party believes that the federal government is the almighty blessing to all of us pay while the other one believes we need to not allow government to control everything. it's good we have assumed differences of opinions in these areas.

i don't think it hurts the country at all to have differing opinions, but it does hurt the country when one side thinks their opinion is the only opinion that should be given any credence for consideration. i have seen a lot around here and both sides are at fault, by the way. i'm very concerned about it. and i look over my colleague morgan when he was chairman i was his ranking member and when i was chairman is my ranking member and we got along well. he's a proud liberal and deservedly so. and i'm a proud conservative and i think most people would say deservedly so.

to people who could help make this place safe and good working together to help our country, but i see this two bit partisan politics arising all the time around here and i don't think we benefit from it. in fact, i know we don't benefit from it. not meaning to blame anyone b, t i think we ought to all do some self-awareness studies and determine just what role do we have in the deterioration of what's always been great about the u.s. senate. what role do we have. are we living itin plus or a mis

role? it would be wonderful if we could all live plus roles. i like my democratic colleagues, every one of them. there is not one of them i don't care for and i'm hoping we can start working together and open our eyes and our hearts are mind to some of the points of view of the other side. it's hard to do sometimes because we have some people that think there's only one side and i can tell you there are two sides. i remember the day when republicans would not vote for any social spending and i remember the day when democrats but everything should be eight social study program and didn't care where the money came from. i have seen both sides, both extremes throughout my 41 years in the u.s. senate.

i have also seen times when leadership, true leadership has brought us together where consideration was given to the democrat side. consideration was given to the republican sideid and we worked out our difficulties. we worked together. we didn't mouth off all the time against the other side. naturally, i like those states better than what we have today and-- yes, sir? >> thank you senator hatch. >> i did not yielded to you. i just said to have a question? >> yes. our exchange of the finance committee the other night. >> i feel bad about that. >> i just want to clarify something that the senate budget priority on what we had a couple

thursdays ago i talked about the bill and i thought it was more heavily weighted to the effort to talk 1% and i want to put a number out there and ask your opinion that senate for budget priorities yesterday said that in the bush tax cuts 27% of the cuts went to the top 1% in this bill, their study shows that 62% of this tax cut goes to the 1%. i know in the bush days people thought too much of it went to the top 1%. that was only a quarter peer dissolve most two thirds and i wanted if you would explain that to us. >> i'd like to look at the particular analysis. there are other analyses indicating that we could do better on this bill, but also would disagree without.

i don't happen to have my hands on those documents at this time, but to make a long story short we know you can come up with any outside liberal faction and come up with criticisms of anything around here and we also know we can find some upside conservative factions that would cause most of us to really cringe in wonderde what's goingn i continue this, i know it's going on and that is we are spending ourselves in the bankruptcy and we are not a good job here. we are note watching the monies of the american people. one reason we cannot watch them well is because they are all spent. we continuously have people come here to the floor and act like they are better than others because they want to spend all

their money to help the poor. i would love to help the poor. at one time i grew up in a very poor family, pour in the sense of money. great in the sense of everything elseet. let's be honest about its peer we are in trouble. of this country is in deep debt. you don't help the poor by not solving the problems of debt n. and you don't help the poor by continually pushing more and more liberal programs through a don't to the job anyway and you don't help the poor by continually pushing programs that really don't work d. >> with the senator yield for further questions? >> for a question. >> i accept that, but this bill is not spending money on the poor except senator lee and senator rubio want a child tax credit and you supported some of

this, bute one of the things we could do instead of the bill is the chip program which he probably offered 20 years ago and there are letters, soon-to-be letters that will go out to people in virginia and ohio. >> i got the point. >> this is not a giveaway. this is something we have done bipartisan. >> lets me take the floor back. everyone-- no one believes more the chip program and i. i was the one who wrote. kennedy came over and became the one that helped put it through. >> we recognize that. >> of course i do. i don't think i do everything on my own here. i have to have democrat friends to do it. alito you something. we will do chips. there's no question about in my mind and it has to be done the right way.

but, the reason treat chips is having trouble is because we don't money anymore. we add more and more spending a more more spending and you can look at the rest of the bill for the more and more spending. i think chip has the nature of fixed job for people who really needed the help. i have taken the position around here for my whole senate service and i believe in helping those who cannot help themselves, but would if they could. i have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won't help themselves , won't lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything. unfortunately, the liberal philosophy has created millions of people that way that believe everything they are or hope to be depend upon the federal government rather than the

opportunities that this great country grants them. i have to say i think it's hard to argue against these comments because if you look it over for decades now we have been spending more than we have s fielding more and more federal programs, some of which are lousy and some of which are well intended and some that are actually good like the chip we will get chip through, no question. i will see it gets through. >> will the chairman yield one more moment? >> for a question. >> i went to make one comment about chip if that's okay. i so respect what you did with senator kennedy and i know your work was exemplary 20 years to start the children's health insurance program. >> i wrote the dog on bill.

>> we appreciate that, mr. chairman. my concern is when you write a bill like that and you meet these families that benefit. 209,000 my state alone and some of those kids their parents will get a letter in the mail if we don't move on chip in the next week or so they will get a letter in the amount assessed sorry sorry your child's health insurance will expire. i know you said you grew up with the poor people i think it's how you set up the other night, but i worry that families with jobs and you know that about chip. they don't have insurance and they will get letters saying your insurance is canceled. how can we let that happen, mr. chairman? >> i don't intend to letr. that happen here i think we will get chip it taken care of and hopefully a number of other things, but we will have to resolve some of these big problems around here before we get those problems solved tob.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> to prey upon the chip program as though it's the be-all and end-all of everything here and every aspect of this debate is not quite right either. all i can say is i don't know anyone here that would not support chip when we bring it up i'm one that wants to make sure we bring it up and i appreciate my friend's feelings on this matter. look, i like my friend from ohio he's sincere, dedicated, liberal and well-meaning, but i would like to see him be more concerned about everyone else. let me finish by saying that i'm happy to be in this party it's the greatest body in the world, but we are not living up to our potential and we are not doing the job. we are getting into these little

snip sent fights around here that don't amount to five hill of beansat in the final analysi. i would like to see us get togethero and run this country a good manner living within our means, finding ways of increasing our economy so we can take care of the poor that are than we are right now and doing the things we all know we should be doing. with that i will heal before. >> to respond briefly to the chairman, the chairman i think said about eight times that what really ought to be the focus here is working together. i so share that view and i would like as we start voting today for the public to understand that this side was never given the chance on this tax bill to

work together, never once. of the majority leader announced right at the outset that the most partisan process would be used called reconciliation. it means it's our way or the highway. we have the votes and that's the end of it. i have appreciated what the chairman said about emphasizing working together.. that was put off the table by the majority leader when we started when it was declared we would use reconciliation process now, there are other areas that i just touch onus that the chairman made mention of the fact that everyone over here is for socialized medicine. will right now what we are trying to do is ensure that we don't have a pupil in the

private insurance marketplace because of the majority's effort to unravel the affordable care act. it's not socialism. it focuses on private sector choices through the exchange and what the challenge is going to be is if you further hammer this effort to increased choices in the private sector marketplace. you will just cause more problems for our people and make it more difficult for us to hold it down the cost of medicine and i will close this affection of the discussion simply by clarifying again this point about the middle class because senator brown was correct with respect to the number of familiesli that will get hammerd

under the republican bill, but when the republicans said that they partisan group the figures that senator brown talked about are supported by nonpartisan organizations as well. of the joint committee on taxation which are the people who are independent tax referees have indicated that by 2027 more than 50% of middle-class persons are going to see a tax hike. that's not a democratic group, republican group that's an independent group, so i think this has been constructed this morning and as one who has tried to dedicate my time in public service t to find common ground, senator cornyn senator toomey both of whom i've talkedke with again and again when the

chairman who i very much enjoy working with in this tax bill has really been an anonymously. it's been so different than everything else and it's important the public knows when there's discussion about working together the majority leader put that prospect off the table. it was ruled out, not going to happen. this was going to be a partisan bill, just the opposite of what democrats and ronald reagan have wanted and that's why 17 moderate democrats earlier this week made one more plea as we will continue through the day to talk about that if you want to do tax reform right has to be bipartisan to bring certainty and predictability to the private sector, not about socialism. it's about certainty unpredictability for private

sector growth. i yield the floor. >> senator from pennsylvania. >> i want to respond to my friend morgan and i have enjoyed the many conversations he and i have had on tax reform and other policiesgl, but i want to strony disagree with this characterization of this proces. what our friends on the other side of the aisle wants to do is to be able to kill tax reform by filibuster. that's the goal here that's what they want to do and in fact they were kind enough to be explicit about it in a letter that they made public. 45 of the 40 democratic senators stipulated the terms under which they would be willing to work with us and one of those terms included that we had to use a process to allow them to kill it by filibuster. they put that in writing. 45 of the 48 signed the letter. now, how could we proceed and

deliver the tax relief and tax reform we want to provide for the american people and our economy with the democrats holding this overhead that they would kill it by filibuster. let me finish my point and then i will be happy to yield. obviously it would be malpractice rest to allow them to kill this that way and so we have taken on approach that fully allows unlimited democratic participation, but at the end of the process it's a simple majority vote and a minority will not be able to kill this bill by filibuster. every step along the way our democratic colleagues have every opportunity to weigh in, engage. we had i don't know how many hearings on thisar with a full markup in the middle-- committee. unlimited amendments were offered, debated, voted on and over the next i don't know day or two i expect to have many more amendments. there is no limit to the

amendments offered. it's not true to say the reconciliation process precludes bipartisan participation and i hope it doesn't because this bill cuts taxes for middle . that is a fact. it lowers taxes for working class families middle income families. that is a fact. it will encourage tremendous economic growth by allowing businesses to be competitive and we will get into why in the details, but the fact is this is exactly what our economy needs right now and more importantly it's what our constituents need and there is nothing about this process that precludes my democratic colleagues from offering their amendments, engaging in debate and supporting the product in the end and by the way i'm hopeful there will be supporting the end because i think it will be hard to explain opposition to a working-class tax-cut and

corporate tax reform will generate strong economic growth and i would be happy to yield to the gentleman. >> his time has expireds. the republican time has expired. >> the majority time has expired senator from a whileth. >> i amd so amused at how any of my republican colleagues can talk about this legitimate process. i said at the white house with senator wyden, senator toomey a number of probably 11 or 12 republican senators on the finance committee, five, six on the democratic side u and i went to the president with a copy of two bills. i brought it to the whole group on which i will speak at a moment that does exactly what president trump wants to do rewarding corporations that pay good wages, decent benefits and

keep their production in this country and the president said he liked it. he had an interview with either forts or fortune magazine not much earlier talking about them and i brought up the president the working families which puts money directly in the pockets of people making 25, 50 and $75000 a year and the president said he likes that. he said it then and in a phone call that we were on later, bute they all went down the hall to the majority leader's office, my republican friends walked into that office with the wall street lobbyists and drug company lobbyists and that's where they wrote the bill. there was no light of day on this and then my colleagues on this committee tell us it was a legitimate process. the night we had a markup and finance committee if you call it legitimate you give us the bill with no warning and try to jam it through and change in the middle of the night in the next thing you change in the middle of the night again and add a c healthcare provision that the

budget office said 13 million people will lose their insurance and rates will go up. if you pay 500 a month today you will pay 550 next year and 605. the following year, i mean, don't even insult us by saying it's legitimate. i don't even want to talk about the process because it doesn't mean much. this letter my friend mentioned, the first line is the right to express interest in working with you. look at it. i want to talk about my amendment a which is exactly wht candidate trump campaigned on an exactly what pretty much everyone on this side of the aisle stands for, but most importantly exactly what the american people have asked for. if you do the right thing and you are company that pays good wages and provides decentathe retirement benefits to your

employees and you do your production in the us you get a significant tax break based on the number of employees you hire. president trump said he liked that and told forbes he wanted a bill with economic development for companies. he has said repeatedly that i want legislation, a tax bill where we support companies that stay here and are patriotic and he said we penalize companies that don't do production in this country. this bill now, it's for friends from pennsylvania notwithstanding gives a massive permanent tax cut to corporations and gives them more incentive to move offshore. the present writing officer grew up in the suburbs, a plant shuts down where i grew up and it moves overseas and gets a tax break now. don't you think we should fix that?? this bill greases the wheels to send more jobs overseas.

of all the things we should fix, .hat is it that's what the president wants to do and that's with senate democrats want to do, but instead senate republicans want -- are writing a bill that gives huge tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country senate or budget priorities just yesterday came out-- this was done precisely a query to the numbers, 20%-- 27% of the bush tax cut in 2001 and three went to the top 1%. of this bill has more than double that had 60 plus% of the benefits. it won't mean a tax break for the middle class and they know thatat. in addition, it kicks 13 million people off their insurance. this bill-- let me say it this way, under this bill us companies would pay rate of 20% on profits earned in a manufacturing plant in ohio or

it could shut down, lay off the workers, build a new factory in asia and get a tax deduction for the cost of moving and as a potentially likely pay 0% tax rate. t 20, even in the senate committee where people are not as quick as you might think they are, 20 is a larger number than zero and even we can figure that out, so 20% means there's even a greater tax decision. look the presiding officer knows cleveland well. in our neighborhood there were more foreclosures in my neighborhood the first half of 2007 than any zip code in the us it wasn't the wall street scam that caused so much foreclosure later. it was mostly about lost manufacturing jobs.

that's partly because of trade agreements like nafta and other trade policies, but it was as much about the tax legislation oving incentives to move overseas. why are we doing more of it, mr. president? this bill rewards companies for sending jobs overseas. patriot corporation act will work to keep jobs here. we know are these corporate taxg cuts won't end up in the pockets of ordinary working americans. senator hatch and i had a public discussion the finance committee when the bill was voted out o oe of the things we talked about-- a number things we talked about, but one is promise, this myth that if you give a company a big tax cut that they will handed out to their employees. that doesn't happen. that's never happened's.

win this body passed the tax holiday a decade plus ago the money brought back from overseas in a know in a low tax rate went to stock buybacks and dividends. almost all of it-- workers did not get raises and they did not invest more in our companies. they are sitting on huge caches of cash and they could hire poor people now are they are not doing any of that so what we ought to do instead of shoving more money to these corporations of outsourced jobs, we should cut out the middleman, put the money directly and middle-class. if my friends went to give a tax cut to the middle class, why don't we give a tax cut to the middle class directly putting the money there. i know the president said he is a big loser and it w will personally cost him and we know that's not even close to true, but if we really care about the

middle class i asked my colleagues let's give a tax break to the middle class. they are not even hiding what they are doing here. these cuts go to corporate stockholders. they don't create jobs. they go to stock buybacks. they don't go to middle-class people. we know what will happen and then as senator rubio said after we pass this bill and the president signs it into law the budget deficit explodes and again you know what will happen, heno you will all say we got budget deficit and we have to raise the social securityea retirement age. you know the what that means to someone working a manufacturing job in mansfield, ohio? they cannot work until they are 70. a lot of our constituents can't

and if that is the scenario and that's almost inevitable we pass this bill with big tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country and we drive a: the budget deficit. .. maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to discuss four amendments that i have introduced to the tax cuts and jobs act that would strengthen this legislation in ways that this legislation in ways that that are important to our middle income families. i want to express my thanks to the majority leader, my colleagues, and the administration for working with me on these proposals. mr. president, the first amendment would allow taxpayers

to deduct to $10,000 in state and local property taxes. in recent years more than 95% of all those who itemize on their tax forms, 2 and 20% of all federal income tax filers deducted state and local taxes, including property taxes. yet, the senate bill would eliminate this deduction altogether. mr. president, the deduction for state and local taxes has been part of our tax code since 1913, with the income tax became law. it was intended to prevent a federal tax from being imposed on a state tax. in other words, it prevents double taxation.

this deduction is especially important to the people of maine. in my state, 166,000 item misers deducted a total of $725 million in property taxes on the federal income tax return. this amendmentur would allow the vast majority of mainers who itemizeo to continue to fully deduct their property taxes. improving the bill in this way, by preserving the property tax deduction up to $10,000, is crucial for middle income taxpayers across the united states. in fact, for filers earning less than $75,000 who itemize, the state and local property t tax deduction is typically larger

than the state and local income tax deduction. while i would prefer allowing the deduction of both state and local income and property taxes, the benefits of the property tax deduction articulate important to middle income families with less than $75,000 in income. in addition, by allowing a deduction of up to $10,000 in property taxes, my amendment parallels the provision that has been included in the house version of the tax bill. mr. president, my second amendment would strike a provision that could lessen the retirement benefits of church, charity, schools, and government employees, including firefighters, police officers,

and teachers. i appreciate very much that my colleague from ohio, senator portman, has cosponsored this amendment. mr. president, we are in the midst of a retirement crisis in this country. according to the nonpartisan center for retirement research, there is $7.7 trillion gap between the savings that american households need to maintain their standard of living and retirement, and what they actually have. as americans are living longer, seniors are in danger of outliving their saving, or of no longer being able to enjoy the comfortable retirement they once had envisioned. we must do everything we can to

encourage people to save more for retirement, not less. employees of churches, charities, schools, and local governments are generally paid less than theirpa counterparts o are working for for-profit businesses. and thus, they are less able to save for their retirement, especially early in their career. accordingly, there are special catch-up rules that allow these employees to contribute additional amounts c at the endf their careers when they're likely to have higher salaries. there's also a special role that permits churches, charities, and public educational institutions to make contributions for a place after they retire so as to make up for the shortfalls inir the employees retirement savings

during their working years. regrettably, as drafted the senate bill would hurt many church, charity, schools, and government workers by eliminating these critical tax rules, including the ability to make these catch up and make up contributions to retirement accounts. striking this provision as my amendment would do would ensure that those employees who have served the public achieve greater retirement security. my third amendment, mr. president, would improve the child and dependent tax credit, the child t and dependent care x credit, by making it refundable, thus providing much-needed assistance to low income working

families. making this credit refundable would help many families afford high-quality childcare, or adult day care for older parents or other relatives who can no longer care for themselves. working families are increasingly faced with difficult decisions when it comes to balancing care and work, with some concluding that the steep cost of care serves as a barrier to working more, or working at all. nearly 15 million children in america under the age of six have working parents. these parents, particularly single parents, often struggle to find affordable, quality day care that insurers that they can continue to work while having the peace of mind that their

children or their elderly parents are well cared for. congress should make this tax credit refundable, meaning that families of no federal income tax liability but the other taxes will also benefit. since it is not currently refundable, most low and some middle income taxpaying families are unable to take advantage of the childcare tax credit. in fact, mr. president, according to the tax policy center, almost no families in the bottom income quintile have been able to claim that credit. think about that, mr. president. these are the lowest income families who need help the most

in paying for child care or care for a dependenter elderly parent or grandparent or other relative, and yet virtually none of them qualify for the credit. none of them are able to claim the credit. to pay for making the child and adult dependent care credit refundable, my amendment would close the carried interest of loophole, a tax reform that the president has endorsed. finally, mr. president, high medical expenses are continuingn to burden many american consumers. yet due to a highly unfortunate provision in the affordable care act, consumers can deduct medical expenses only if they exceed 10% of their income. that threshold used to be 7.5% %

and my amendment would turn the threshold to the level to taxpayers and particularly seniors who are struggling with the cost of long-term care for a loved one. just this past week when i was in maine, and elderly gentleman stopped me in the grocery store to tell me that he simply cannot afford long-term care for his beloved wife, given the change in this threshold. for those who suffer from chronic mental conditions, experience unexpected illnesses or injuries, or find the long-term care services are a necessity but are not covered by insurance or medicare, health care expenses can quickly become an unbearable burden.

many americans are forced to choose between purchasingme medical services and making other equally necessary expenditures. since worldd war ii, a medical expense deduction has provided much-needed assistance to americans with catastrophic medicalen expenses. we should reverse this ill-advised provision of the affordable care act and reinstate the ability of those hard-pressed by high medical costs to deduct expenses in excess of 7.5% of their income. mr. president, i believe that all four of these amendments would strengthen this legislation in c critical ways, and make it more beneficial for

middle income americans. thank you, mr. president. >> and thank you, mr. president, for the recognition. mr. president, the republicans tax bill is a disaster for the american people. it would give the ultra wealthy tax cut and make middle-class families pay for it. and i can tell you how strongly i am opposed to it. we heard a lot from the president and the republicans how their tax cuts will be a rising tide to lift all boats. but this claim just doesn't hold water. look carefully, on the top of the $1.5 trillion, a new deficit, they are hiding more than $5 trillion of cuts over the next ten years will come from. and just who will actually benefit? the republican budget would force steep cuts in health care, education and other programs

that working and middle-class families rely on. it's a terrible plan for my home state of new mexico where a lot of families already have a hard time getting by. plain and simple, the republicans plan is a massive redistribution of wealth. it would takeis money -- listeno this who it is taking money from and where they are giving it to. it would take money from working families, seniors, children, the sick and the disabled, rural families, and the poor, and give it to the very top, the top 1%. and they propose it at a time when the gap between the very rich and everyone else is alreadyow growing. we now have greater income inequality in the u.s. than at the height of the gilded age

over 100 years ago. mr. president, i want to highlight for my colleagues across the aisle another big problem with the republicans bill. it is not been talked about enough but it's important to my home state of new mexico, 80 many western states. the republicans that have secrg tax cuts are going to cause automatic sequestration. and this will cut several mandatory programs under the pay-as-you-go act. one of those is the middle royalties from oil and gas drilling, and coal mine in lands that the federal government shares with the states. new mexico's royalty share is projected to be $437 million next year. other states count on these payments for millions of dollars in their budget, too. colorado received over $80 million in 2016. all of that would be at risk. wyoming received over

$660 million last year. it's state budget cannot affords to lose that kind of money. utah, montana and north dakota all received tens of millions in mineral payments last year as well. these are royalties that new mexico and the states are entitleded to. in new mexico we mainly use this money for public schools. other states use for vital government programs like healthcare, roads, and police. our state legislature has struggled the last couple of years to balance the budget. that year and vice chair of the new mexico legislative finance committee wrote just this week to our. entire delegation. they warned the losing so much revenue would have, and i quote here, would have a devastating impact on thege state budget and would wipe out the reserves our

state has struggled to rebuild, end quote. mr. president, new mexico schoolkids just can't afford to take a $437 million hit. and now i know it's possible, nowss i know it's possible for congress to pass legislation sometime in the future to take mineral royalties out of sequestration, but there is no guarantee at all of that ever happening. and i'm not willing to take chances with the education of new mexico school children. the republicans tax cut will also hit medicare hard. that's also another concern for new mexico families. tax cuts for the super wealthy and big corporations will mean new mexico could lose out on about $178 million of federal medicaid payments every year. i am opposed to trading off

seniors health just so the rich can get richer. but the republicans seem bound and determined to take away america's health. even though the american people havep spoken up loud and clear. they want their current health care rights fully protected. republicans want to doua away wh the individual mandate under the affordable care act. c but we also know that that will mean millions of americans will lose coverage. and we know that premiums will go upnc because the insurance companies will be covering the sicker population. i am opposed to trading off the american peoples health just so the rich can get richer. mr. president, the majorities bill is a bad idea are basically everyone in new mexico, and across the country. except for the very wealthy individuals, multinational corporations, private equity and

hedge funds. these are the folks that are being helped, the very wealthy, multinational corporations, private equity, and hedge funds. let's instead get down to the business of governing on behalf of the american people, not just the top 1%. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. >> thank you very much mr. president.es ifca you look at the united stas america today compared to say when my dad grew up we have seen very disturbing trends in our economy. fact we doy. not have the same economy, the same bargain that we had in my parents generation that we have right now. you see, even if you were someone that had minimum wage job back in the '50s and 60s or the 1960s, if you work that minimum-wage job you are making the equivalent of over $20 and out of y the fact that part was that in the trend of america eat you were willing to work hard, if you're willing to sweat and

struggle and sacrifice, you can make ends meet. you could make it work. what we've seen disturbing over the last few decades is that economy twist and contort that we've seen massive disparities in income come about in our nation with a wealthy dating wealthier and wealthier doing better and better, compounding, doubling down the privilege to see the middle-class shrinking the united states of america, and the poverty track where people are playing by the rules, where people are working hard, they've seen their wages stagnate and everything going up. prescription drug costs, , o cof food, cost of childcare, the cost of college. the bargain in our country is not working now, and we need to do something to change this. at a time that american families are feeling the burn and the

challenge of high taxes, low income, high c costs, we could e targeting middle-class americans. we could be targeting low income earners in a bipartisan tax bill that wouldp not only help those who are struggling in america, but when you give a break, a tax break to those folks, that money gets reinvested in our economy because people spend that money and you literally have a turbocharged, boost to our overall economy. but that's not what we're seeing right now. we are on the verge tonight as the republican scramble for the vote, we're on the verge tonight and doing something completely counter to what evidence, facts and logic would tell you to do if you're going to devise a tax plan to truly help the middle class, truly help working americans come to truly help those struggling wonder why

they're not doing as well as their parents. understand this, if you are a baby boomer in america, 90% of baby boomers in america by the time they were 30 were doing economically. well, that has now been cut in half in the united states of america. if you're a millennial bornor in the '80s, it's now half of that rated andf better than the parents because of the challenges i've described, because of the economic hardship, because the bargain is a working. everything is going up the wages are stagnant. we know factually for the past 40 years p while workers' wages have failed to rise alongside increased productivity, , workes are getting more and more productive, but for 40 years now workers' wages have failed to rise alongside of the increase in productivity. whate we've seen is corporation,

their profits have reached a 60 year high. the facts in a country are disturbing when we see indices of social mobility, the ability for someone poured poor to makt of poverty, we see other nations from canada to classic england doing better and increasing social mobility better than we are. we see other countries out american ines us taking the very idea of the american dream that every generation should do better than the one before and showing more progress than we are. social mobility integral to our country disappearing. wages stagnating. corporate profits all-time high. cost skyrocketing. everyone here knows it. i live in the central board of newark, new jersey. i see itse in a family in grocey stores, hard-working families

working full-time jobs sometimes to owners find it hard to make their money stretch to meet their families need your often find themselves more month at the end of their money and money at the end of the month. families all across america sitting at kitchen tables finding it hard to balance the budget. parents who are working two jobs tried to forget how the kids are going to get to college and come out with a tens of thousands, over $100,000 worth of debt. the bargain is not working, and we should be working in this body to figure out a way to empower and overall economy and if our middle-class workers. we are not doing enough to american workers incomes grope it were not doing enough to make the bargain t work. we are not doing enough. but i'll tell you this. the tax plan that seems to be moving to the floor today, it will not help restore that

american bargain. it willic not help reinstate the american progress. it won't get us back to those days, and it won't help american workers. will actually make things worse over the long-term. we canod debate philosophies abt tax code all we want, we cannot escape the fact thatth an effective matter is this plan is not pro-growth. it's anti-middle-class. it's not pro-worker. it's an even more severe violation of that bargain betweentw american workers and this nation that created our modern economy. it's an affront to the idea of hard work, earning a living wage in america. this plan is not investing in the success of americanar worke. it's not a plan that gives hard workers a break or boost ticket isn't going to make our economy more fair. the bill is poorly designed and

devised by the president of the republicans in congress to get a tax cut to those who need it least on the backs of those americans who need it and deserve it most. now again, this is not partisan rhetoric. a recent nonpartisan report from thepa nonpartisan joint committe on taxation found that on average americans earning less than $75,000 will face a tax increase over the next ten years under this plan. and remember, adding insult to that injury, the corporate tax provisions of this plan are permanent but the individual tax provisions are not. in other words, this plan actively targets the folks who are struggling the most. it targets of them with a tax increase and ap sunsetting of e provisions that were intended to help them.

meanwhile, on the other hand, the biggest corporations in the wealthiest individuals will receive a massive tax-cut. and they will receive that tax-cut, this is not n free mon. this is borrowed money, $1.5 trillion added to our deficit, borrowed money that we will have to pay for over the long-term. it is a massive giveaway to the wealthiest of people in our country and corporations, all under the theory that some of this is going to benefit the average american worker. rolling of the deficit and pumping more money to the wealthiest in our country at a time that work disparities are already greater than it being in a century. now, some of my colleagues argued that this bill, giving $1 trillion to corporations also have resolved -- result in a

trickling down of things like races for workers and some are creating new jobs. but to me this is a fantasy. i am a believer that you look at facts, you look at history and we don't have to look that far. this fantasy has been disproven, this idea of giving it to the wealthiest will symmetrical down, at some of giving it to corporations trickling down to job creation. this has been disproven time and time again by economic data, historical data, by the words of corporate leaders themselves. listen to the facts. a new survey found that the majority of small business owners, these are the people out are the backbone of our economy, creating jobs,s, they oppose the plan. six in ten inc. the benefits going to wealthy corporations the most it will, that's not

just been thinking that. that is actually the facts of this plan. take the word of leading economist, university of chicago, a collection of many of the top economist in this countryth from a range and the spectrum of political philosophies. the recently, these economists asking and a quote that asked if we passed a bill similar to the one being considered by congress, whether u.s. gdp substantially be higher a decade from now that t is currently unr the status quo? will this bill help our economy grow? 42 respondents, 41 said no, it will not. there's only one dissenter. there are some of the world, these are some of the world's preeminent economists. we didn't invite them to the united states senate to their opinions. we didn't have hearings we did have an open process were not in

the best economic minds from both sides of the political aisle. from both sides of the political spectrum. we did not have a process that brought in the best and the brightest to inform the investments were making. $1.5 trillion. and what they're saying now is this willt not do what republin leaders say it will do. senate republicans wrote a budget to free up $1.5 trillion. that's what this will do to our deficit. to create these tax cuts they could distribute these resources any way they see fit. and somehow they have managed o great a tax bill, astonishingly, a tax bill that will increase taxes on low income and middle income people, especially in states like new jersey. by getting rid of the state and local tax provision.

this is why republican congress, people in my state against this because this plan has been devised to hurt middle income families, doubling down to places like mine. states like mine. they created a bill that small businessebusinesse s don't like because they note that the benefits are largely going to the wealthiest. and the biggest corporations. and the kicker is that economists say it will not even spur economic growth. and then when major corporations see their earnings go higher or get an influx of capital, what's going to happen? well, it's far more likely that their executives and shareholders, , not the frontlie workers, will benefit. don't take my word for it. look at what's happened over the last decade. we see record corporate profits, and what is happening with those

profits? 80, 90% of those profits of not being interested in hiring more people are increasing pay the overwhelming majority of the profits of corporations are going to paying dividends and stock buybacks. that's the fact of what happened when corporations are getting more resources. and don't take my word for it. look what corporate leaders themselves are saying. they have made it clear time and time again that increases in profit will not trickle down to workers. majorr american companies had said point blank that they will not use their huge tax windfall to raise wages for workers. companies from cisco t to pfizer to coca-cola, companies like vanguard had said that their tax breaks will goiv to dividends fr shareholders, not for wages for workers. according to bloomberg, one ceo said on an earnings call in reference to the tax plan, and i

quote, we will be able to get much more aggressive on the share buyback. that's what corporate profits have been going for a decade or more, creating more wealth fore the wealthiest and not for the average american worker who has seen decade after decade of stagnant wages. this shouldn't be surprising. corporate profits, record high right now, and we see wages at a record low. that is a fact. and to double down on what we know is not factual, that we know is not happening now, it's just a fantasy. corporations are making more money today than they have in over 80 years, but the average workers' wages are at the lowest point in six decades. but this plan gives more wealth to corporations and not direct tax to middle-class workers and low income workers.

we could've gotten rid of carried interest come something even the president of esi the ud states talked about on the campaign trail and targeted the child tax credit or the earned income tax credit, but that is not what this plan does. this tax plan is a fundamental and costly misdiagnosis of the problem raising american workers across the country. and the rightdd way to go about addressing them is not being done. so here's an idea. insteadg of giving massive tax breaks to corporations and hoping thats some of the worker, let's just give that money directly to workers by giving the lion share of this tax break to middle-class, working-class and low-wage earners. this is not complicated. we don't need some fancy system of hoping things will trickle down. let's cut out the corporate middleman that's a bill i would

support. we should've been discussing here and a bipartisan meeting come in hearings, discussing hoe we can empower american workers in the middle-class because of pop with economy today is not that the rich are not getting it is that middle-class workers are not seeing their wages grow. we should be discussing what we can do to break up this culture amongst financial institutions and across the country that will prioritize short-term returns over long-term workers investment. it's making ceo after ceo stock buybacks to many flickr stockst prices up an increase their incentivize pay but are doing nothing for the corporations long-term strength or the workers were on the front lines doing the work and actually earning a profit. right now despite record profits investing in the long-term success of countries and employs two things like pay raises, pathways to promotion, innovation, that has become the

exception in american society and not the rule for too many corporations. we havee. a problem on this tax bill doesn't address it. it will make it worse. there is no evidence to suggest that the senate tax plan which hands 80% of that $1.5 trillion, barred from the chinese and other countries that are controlling that only our treasury bonds, that $1.5 trillion, 80% of it, is going to corporations and business owners, and the top .1% of the wealthiest. there's evidence that suggests this will somehow reverse the trend and increase wages for workers. this is insanity. this is folly. this is fiction being foisted upon the american people. too many employers are failing to hold up their end of the bargain when it comes to fair wages. safegeaf workplaces, workforce investment. and now republicans in congress

want to reward them with a trillion dollars and more. this is bad policy. this is unfair. this is bad faith. this is going to worsen the erosion of the american dream and the american bargain, that people who play by the rules, work hard, who sockeye for the families can get it. it's not going to stop the transit stagnating wages. it's not going to stop the transit of england of butter sour spigots not going to change, be the change that we need. trickle down economics no matter how it is discussed, disguise, doesn't work. and republicans attempt to camouflage it at its tax reform isen offensive and won't work fr american workers. we have proven that we're a country and society that can create wealth. we've got that covered. we have proven.

what ween haven't proven and wht this tax bill fails to do is to show that we can be justified to create great wealth and great opportunity for all. we have gotten off the tracks from where we've been generations before. we've got to get this train back moving inha a direction that tas all of its cars, all of the american people to the promise land that this country needs to be, must be and was designed to be. this is the challenge before us right now, to stop a tax bill that will make our problems and the disturbing trends worse, and design one that's directly targeting middle-class americans, working-class americans with policies that will help our nation be one that fulfills its promise and its dream. mr. president, i yielded the floor. >> if i have time at the end of

my remarks i would like to yield to the distinguished senator from hawaii, and i will try to be prompt. mr. president, soon the senate will take a first-order vote that i will impact every americ. these votes do not come very often. the last was decades ago. and we all understand, i think, or at least most of us understand how critical tax reform is. all of us in the senate on both sides of the aisle are familiar with the burdens and complexity and the lack of competitiveness associate with our current tax system. it is abundantly clear that this complexity or antiquated corporate tax system ask as asa brake on our economy. it is equally clear that in recent years are economic growth rate, our gross domestic product, has been stuck at a

historic low level of 1.9% or less.. now, there are many of the news as to why our economy has been so stagnant causing american job loss, a unemployment and more reliance on government programs. and i want to underscore what the people of kansas have told me repeatedly as to why at least has happened. small business owners, manufacturers, our community bankers, other lending institutions, individual workers laid off or hang it on paycheck to paycheck workers, virtually everybody in rural america, farmers, ranchers, growers, every town hall meeting have told me the number one issue of concern is the crushing weight of federal regulation. now, that was summed up by one western kansas rancher who said pat, i feel ruled, not governed. but we are unwinding right now this regulatory overkill. today we aret making government partner, not a regulatory, a

regulatory adversary. how on earth did we reach the sad state ofe affairs? are many factors. administered a policy that seem to mimic or compare to the european monetary policy, government agendas and central control. but with thishi tax bill, that n change. and it will change. if only we recognize and take this important opportunity, an opportunity that many members in this body have never had to truly make a difference. this time we can. can america get back to a place to make history and want to get experience the power of the american dream? i am confident that we can. we have before us now a comprehensive plan to address these issues. cleaning up and modernizing the tax code to generate more growth in our economy. the bill before the senate does

exactly that, providing meaningful tax relief for families, small businesses, farmers and ranchers and growers. i am especially pleased with the rates and bracket structure the legislation would put into place on the individual side. we have done a good job pushing these rate reductions down to low and low income families. this would provide a net tax hit for families and chances of about $2500, and over 10,000 new jobs. as many have pointed out today we accomplish this by reducing individual tax rates, raising the standard deduction, and increasing the child credits in the tax code. let's be clear. these are consensus bipartisan ideas, and our proposal that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have in the past at least, not now i know because of the legislative

standoff we've been going through, but in the past proposed and supported. mr. president, levy also comment on the concerns raised by some of my colleagues that we simply cannot afford this bill. and that it will worsen the countries financial condition. in putting this bill together, we have used very modest economich growth estimates, belw their store post-world war iino norm of 3%. in fact, the congressional budget office is probably projecting 1.9% growth over the next tend years, and we learned today that the joint committee on taxation says the senate bill will create only modest economic growth. now, notwithstanding the fact that i haven never seen a cbo or joint tax projection that has been really accurate, i think these estimates are far too low

your card to believe simply unacceptable. i refuse to that we cannot return to a more robust economic growth. and i think we will achieve a better growth creation, observe we're well on her way recent economic activity bears this out. the economy is now growing at a solid pace with low unemployment and low inflation. real gdp growth during the first two quarters of your average 2.1% at an annual rate, and since january the unemployment rate fell .6 percentage points to 4.2% in september, the lowest rate in about 16 years. and overall growth is poised to average about 3% over the second half of this year, 3% in the second half of this year. these arere positive trends, but my colleagues, we can do more. we need even stronger growth. stronger growth leads to higher living standards, less

dependence on government support and lower need for spending on entitlement and other programs. so how do we get there? we have a tax bill. a tax bill to maximize growth to create jobs and increase wages. this is not what we've just heard from any on the other side, trickle-down economics or any other name that you want to call this. this is common sense economics which i've yet to see be refuted by any mainstream economist. increase the supply of capital in the economy and expand the productivity of the economy. this result is more business investment leading to worker productivity gains, workers who can then earn more, increase their after-tax income and in the end raise their living standards. now, i want to turn to an essential sector of our national economy, agriculture. those arere responsible for

feeding america in a troubled and hungry world. i'm pleased, very pleased, that the bill reflects the importance of production agriculture to our economy. it is important to keep in mind that few other sectors of the economy face the multiple uncertainties of production agriculture were talking about whether, storms, fires, volatility and our global commodity prices, trade disputes and transportation issues, and the list goest on. when we pass this bill, the agriculture industry will have a number of provisions in the tax code that recognize the uncertainty and the volatile nature of the income and expenses associate with agriculture operations. these provisions, and we're talking about 34, 35 of them at last count includelu accounting rules that allow farmers to manage their income and expenses. for example, in a year with our commodity prices are low, and

yes, this year they are low, they can account for cost in a way that keeps them in operation. there are also specific inventory rules to help manage costs associate with the livestock and dairy operations. and to handle items for other basic operations such as fertilizer and also proper treatments. there are unique rules for timber operations. now, you want to get down to specifics and just how far we drill down to be of help to agriculture, mr. president, even baby chickens have their own inventory rule. which by the way differs from the rules for hostages and emus per cow would imagine nobody would think about goingou down o that extent -- ostriches. the our rules for how to damage damage crops and livestock disasters. they are certainly important as of today. i can tell you that these disaster rules provide a

critical boost to ranchers in my state enabling them to begin to recover from the devastating prairie fires in western kansas earlier this year. turning to the new provisions in the bill we have developed with agriculture in mind. and here i would be remiss not to mention the strong input and advice i received on this medicine senator grassley, senator thune, senator scott and others, my colleagues who also share a strong interest in the agricultural economy. the bill, for example, liberalize his the depreciation rules agriculture operations, giving farmers and ranchers five-year property depreciation and permitting full expensing of plant and equipment purchases. the bill would greatly improve the ability of the agricultural community did use the cash method of accounting which provides flexibility and managing cash flow which is essential to providing certainty in operations. there are significant provisions in the legislation had

established a new income tax rate for pass-through organizations. now, this is a very important issue, mr. president, for the agricultural community. a majority of farms and ranchers are set up their pass-throughs and most of the income earned by farmers flow through these structures. the bill also includes new rules for farmer cooperatives which are a very important part of production agriculture. we work very hard to ensure that the benefits of cooperative farming are held whole in this tax reform plan. the bill also doubles the exemptions on the estate and gift taxes, up to 22 million per couple. now, i know this sounds like a lot of to some of my colleagues, but for land owning cash constrained farmers, they can hit this exemption amount very quickly. especially in my state of kansas. and even when they do not, many farmers and ranchers spent thousands of dollars a year on lawyers and account fees to plan

for thehe best way to pass their lives work on to their children, something very special in rural and small-townil america. while i will continue to press for a permanent repeal of the death tax, for now let's modified so we reduce its damaging reach. finally and above all, the legislation will provide farmers and ranchers with certainty during a very difficult time that we are going through. certainty that it will be not tax at a business on a down here. certainty that they will have cash available to find their own operations. certainty that their hard earned income farmer ranch will not have to be sold off just because someone hason died. certainty that the federal government recognizes their irreplaceable role in meeting the challenge of a very fractured and hungry world. so i am very pleased to say the least that the senate bill keeps the ad tax provision but will also help our farmers by treating a much more pro-growth

tax system, lowering theen tax burden in some find the tax provisions relating to the agriculture sector. mr. president, we have an opportunity to experience a renaissance in our american economy, for too long seems to me we had sort of a copycat and economic policy based on the european union. were talking about a. lot of government control. we're talking about more taxes. we're talking about a lot of things that simply have enabled us to tread water. i know that we're in a difficult time in this senate with regard to partisan differences. it reminds me a little bit of a country western song that obviously my staff would hope that i would not mention, but it was the bridge has washed out and i can't swim, my babies on

the other side. the bridge ishe not washed out. and the tax bill is on the other side along with an american renaissance that will make america enjoyed even more economic growth and get us back to that is stored 3% growth rate, and even more. i urge my colleagues to consider it ase a go forward in this debate. hopefully we have t the votes ad then if we have the votes, and i think we do, hopefully some of my colleagues across the aisles. will join us. mr. president, i yielded the floor. >> or do i ask in its consent to speak for up to five minutes. >> without objection. >> mr.bl president, the republin tax plan with debating today is a sham. it is a a solution in search oa problem that the president and his allies in congress are bound to determine to give the richest people in our country and large corporations huge tax cuts that will magically trickle down to great a fantastic, , incredible,

wonderful economy. why? why do we even need this? corporations and the richest 1% of people in our country are doing just fine, thank you very much. they certainly don't need any more goodies. over the past ten years corporate profits have grown exponentially. more wealth is concentrated in the hands of thent top 1% that t any time since the great depression. groups like u.s. chamber of commerce claim this bill was for an investment and help workers. what world are they living in? corporations have sheltered over $2.6 trillion offshore to avoid paying taxes. this is money they could already be using to create jobs, build factories, or raise employee wages. not happening here won't happen. these people and corporations do not need more money and profits. on the other hand, middle-class families have been seeing stagnant wages for nearly 20

years. healthcare continues to be a political football, with the president sabotaging the affordable care act and congressional efforts to repeal the healthcare law. the cost of a college education is increasingly out of the reach of middle-class families. the list goes on. rather than crafting a tax plan that would actually middle-class families, donald trump and republican partyca have decidedo screw them over instead, all to get rich people and corporations hugepo tax cuts they do not nee. in hawaii, we have the word to describe what's t happening here the word is -- or bs. we found little time to debate the devastating impact of this massive bill but even that short amount of time we that it's clear how many of the major provisions in this bill would harm the class families. for example, this bill eliminates individual mandate for healthcare which is just another way to repeal the affordable careth act.

how many lights out of this repeal apple are the republicans going to take? 13 million people will lose their health insurance.13 premiums forth everyone else wih increasing effect only every year as a result of this yet another bite out of the aca apple. do they think that these millions of people who will be hurt will not notice what's happening to them and their healthcare? i don't think so. that definitely devastating ims bill is not limited to the parts that we've all heard about. the republican tax scam has no provisions that are having a real cause real harm. the health bill, for example, emanates the ability of state and local governments to issue something called private activity bond. this kind of on is not something you about being discussed and "morning joe" r wolf blitzer but they are critical toy our communities. through privatee activity bonds the federal government allows state and local governments to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance certain kinds of

projects to help our communities. state and local governments will issue these kind of bonds because schools, hospitals et cetera. although this bill hasn'td even pass congress yet, it's already having a devastating impact. let me give you a concrete example. residents of west maui having waiting for hospital for decades. right now on their sideof of the item if there is a medical emergency the only way and anglers can get from west maui to maui memorial, the islands on hospital, is on a two-lane highway. the lane winds around the side of the cliff taking it susceptible to rocks and flash floods. the other lane is being eaten away by colson erosion. so on a normal day when nothing goes wrong it can take over an hour to reach maui memorial from west maui. but if there's traffic on accident on highway, you can forget about it. for serious injuries and illnesses even an hour is too long to wait for life-saving

medical care. construction of this west maui hospital medical center is put important and needed. when the project is completed west maui where for the first time dedicated emergency rooms services and other essential services. it will save lives. and although initial work on this project has begun, construction has stalled. why? because financing for f the project is being held up out of fear the republicans in congress will eliminate the private activity bonds this project needs for completion. other hospitals in hawaii have used these kind of activity bonds, hospital for women and children in a wider focuses on prenatal care and services for women have expanded their facilities and their ability to treat literally thousands of new people. i have visited this hospital. i have heard from them. they cannot understand why

donald trump and his republican allies in congress could in good conscious cut a program that saves lives, all to finance tax cuts not needed for the richest people and corporations in our country. so if we are serious about a tax plan that will truly help middle-class families in a meaningful way, we need to kill thisl terrible bill and start over. mr. president, i yielded the floor. >> center for michigan. >> mr. president, i asking in this consent i be allowed to speak for five minutes. >> without objection. >> mr. president, today we are debating legislation that will dramatically reshape the american economy. it was written and continues to be rewritten in secret by only one party. it didn't have to be thisen way. done right, this process could have had broad bipartisan support. we could have passed tax legislation that was fair, that

was simpler, and it was fiscally responsible. we could've passed tax t legislation that was truly focus on f middle-class families and raising their wages. instead, we have a bill that fails dramatically on every single one of these principles here this bill fails in so many different ways and i think it is helpful for us to talk about each myth that is being told. first, let's dispense with the myth that this is a middle-class tax cut. the bill makes dramatic, permanent cuts to corporate taxes while making very small, temporary changeso to the taxes on middle-class families paper according to the joint committee on taxation, for many working families tax changes are less than $100 per year. or more simply put, about two dollars a week. that is not a middle-class tax cut that is a myth.

the second myth is that corporate tax cuts in the bill will trickle down and raise wages for average workers. if that were true we would probably here some ceos delivering the good news to the hard-working employees. but it's not. it's not true. it's a myth. we know this because that ceos of themselves are telling us what they will do. yes, they are actually telling us, and it isn't raising wages. they have been clear they are going to use the money that this bill gives them to buy back shares of their own companies stock, and they're going to increase payments to wealthy shareholders. ceos are telling the white house this directly, and in a november 14 ceos gathered, gary coleman, the widest top economic advisor was in a room full of executive that were asked what to do with the money from the tax cuts. would they put it back into the business?

with the grow growth of busine? with the increase wages? and only a couple hands went up in a very large room. they have no reason to live. their intentions have always been clear. they're going to take the money that this tax bill hands them, and reward their executives and their wealthy shareholders. again, we know this is going to happen because ceos are telling us. and the bill keeps getting worse. we're hearing this myth these tax cuts will pay for themselves. well, they won't. after use telling american public important it is to address the debt and deficit, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are now going to pass the bill that dramatically increases deficits. .. hat $1.5 trillion of had new debt, debt that my republican colleagues should be prepared to accept as their own creation if this bill passes. $1.5 trillion in new debt for

our children is not fiscally conservative. it is irresponsible. we can build a tax code that allows working families in michigan keep more of >> families in michigan see more of their hard-earned money levelling the playing field for our businesses and keeps jobs here in the united states. michiganders and all americans deserve a tax code, that's fairer, simpler and more responsible, not more multinational corporate give aways and massive due debt. this bill clearly fails on all of those points and i would urge my colleagues to vote no. >> the senator from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have had the privilege of sitting at the floor and listening to this debate on tax reform. our friends of the left have

done a really good job of painting a picture of fantasy land, that doesn't exist in america. when i think about fantasy land, i think of the sugar-free cookies will not help you gain any weight. anyone who has had sugar-free cookies and too many of them can attest to the fact that that may not be an accurate picture, but indeed they may, in fact, be sugar-free. my good friends to the left often times speaks in illustrious language, compelling words, but they are not necessarily 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'll 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 a he 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 single parent households? it is because the average single parent household with a couple of kids earns around $40,000. so we want to paint a clear picture, not a picture filled with facts, but facts that lead you to the truth. 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 cuts for that average typical american family is 60%. here is 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 their ends meet, why is it not a bipartisan-- why is there not a bipartisan coalition working to make sure that 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 payer house old from a standard

deduction of $9300 to $18,000 is something my friends on the left are resistent 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 thi thing. where is the controversy around saying that instead of getting

$1,000 child tax credit, we're going to make it $10,000. where is the controversy? why can't we find our friends on the left a part of that conversation? why is it that our friend on the left have finally come to the conclusion after eight years of running the nation from the white house and taking a $10 trillion debt that was accumulated over 230 years and then 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 4700, 4700 businesses would still be american businesses, according to eny studies, if we

had 20% tax code, corporate tax rate, 4700 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 senator from alaska. >> 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 and i couldn't agree with him more. this is about families. this is about american families. the poster boards are 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 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, some people watching that might not seem like a lot, but it is. over $2,000 per year in every tax bracket that we have right now in the senate bill would get a reduction. so, i want to act on the word of my good friend from south carolina. it 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're doing.

and that they would spend and twist the facts to make the public believe that the middle class is getting a tax increase. the public is getting spun by that. this would be a tax cut for these families. significant amount. that's a plain fact. and what is so puzzle about this debate, mr. president, is that about those who oppose this bill is how they would try to deny the americans who need it, we need it, extra money in their pockets, particularly right now. mr. president, i want to talk a little about an article i read last year in the atlanta magazine, still haunts me. the article is titled the secret shame of the middle class. here is a copy of it. secret shame of the middle

class, where it says nearly half of all americans would have trouble finding $400 in a crisis. the author 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 work force.

it was happening to college grads as well as high school drop-outs. 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 if 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 are struggli struggling. they tell us they felt left out of the system and nobody is listening. this bill, mr. president, is listening. it's about listening to them. it's about giving them a voice through more economic security. but the other thing this bill does, the other thing that it's so important to do in this copi congress, the other thing 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, it's 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 gdp growth. so let me explain it a little bit here. you're starting already, eisenhower, kennedy, johnson, nixon carter ereagan, bush, clinton, bush 43 and president obama. these are the numbers. the green is growth, you already have a couple of years, 8, 6, 7% growth, but the line i want people to take a look at at this 3% gdp 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. 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 we get to the obama years. actually we get to the ten years that we've had, the last ten years, we never hit it. we had the bush great recession. and then the entire eight years of president obama, never hit it. now, gdp sound like some kind of technical economic term. what it really is is a proxy for the health of our economy. it's a proxy for the american dream. it's 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 talked about growth, growth, growth, growth. and how we've got to get back to traditional levels of gdp 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 colleagues come down and talk about this on the other side of the aisle. that this number below 3% is 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% gdp growth

during the reagan era. strong growth during the clinton era. don't expect that anymore. the new normal is about 1 1/2, maybe 2% if we're lucky. i'd ask one of my democratic colleagues this morning, do you believe in the new normal? do you? 'cause that's a surrender, that's a surrender of the american dream. there's a lot of talk about what makes america great 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. the families, take home pay, and finally getting back to traditional levels of strong, robust, economic growth, that's

had, enjoyed bipartisan support, bipartisan support from every president since the end of world war ii. and yet, somehow, on the other side of the aisle, they don't want to talk about it. well, 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 article, i mentioned, mr. president. and 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 '60s, american economic growth, democratized prosperity. everybody had opportunity with strong economic growth. that's what he's talking about right here. and then he says, but in the 2010's we have managed to democratize financial insecurity. we went from democratizing prosperity for families, to democratizing financial insecurity where almost half of the american people don't believe they have $400 in a emergen 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 gdp growth true tax reform, through energy, through infrastructure, through permitting reform and we can do i it. any american watching, please don't believe this idea of the new normal that we'll never get back to these strong rates. that somehow our future is destined to be below this 3% line. don't believe it. what we need are policies that can get us there. that's why i'm hopeful, still, that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to join us and promoting this tax reform that will 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. we need to act. we can't accept this. mr. president, i yield the floor. my colleague from connecticut. >> mr. president, the distinguished senator from connecticut. >> 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 dirty word. compromise is not a four-letter word, neither is bipartisanship, and yet, our republican colleagues have insisted on a republican plan,

on a 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 overwelcoming, oppressive debt that they would force on the american people, not on ourselves, but on our children and our grandchildren, generations to kcome, 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 or $1.5 trillion. in reality it's probably larg larger, but the main point is that they have foisted it on our children, grandchildren, to pay, to shoulder the burden simply so that the wealthiest in this country and corporations would hapass 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. very simply, republicans voted for middle class taxes to ride so that the president's taxes and other billionaires can go down. 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 will rise over a 10-year period. it sells a false bill of goods. the promise of middle class tax cuts is a lie. plain and simple. a scam. the president sent the administrator of the small business administration, linda mcmahon to connecticut to announce, 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? we know who benefits. the wealthiest benefit and corporations benefit. about you the ones harmed, according to the congressional

budget office are the majority who receive less than 75,000 a year and worse off in the next ten years. in connecticut, that means 468,200 taxpayers in the bottom 80% of income distribution will experience a tax hike under this plan. the republican tax plan ends, state and local tax deductibility, which means families are going to be taxed twice. it increases the federal burden on connecticut families, who already pay more federal taxes than they received in federal funding. now, what i hear, again, listening to my friends and constituents in connecticut, is that they're willing to pay their fair share. they're willing to pay even more than they may receive back from the federal government if they feel the system itself is

fair. not rigged in favor of the wealthy, or big corporations or special interests. and they are the ones who will benefit from this tax scam. state and local taxes, paid by my constituents in connecticut are vital to supplying communities with resources that pay for essential, local services. we're talking about police and schools. and, yes, infrastructure. we building roads and bridges, parts, airports. vital services. in connecticut, 723,773 households deduct state and local taxes. the average deduction is $19,664. assuming somebody pays a 25% rate of taxes or 30, apply that

to 19,000, we're talking about real money. the bill also abolishing a critical deduction that provides relief for taxpayers who experience losses on their property, including, home owners in connecticut. thousands of them that have crumbling foundations, uninsured for those repairs, lawsuits that under current law, the irs ruled just last week could be deducted. they will be robbed of those deductions under this cruel, maligned, malicious, misguided bill. the bill also hits working class families. it expands the child tax credit, for example, but tips the scales in favor of the

wealthiest families. it values a child fortunate to be born into a wealthy family to be worth a $2,000 tax credit. meanwhile, an estimated 140,000 military families who have median adjust gross incomes of $28,000 will receive a child tax credit worth only $75 or less. if you're wealthy, it's worth $2,000. if you're less well off, adjusted growth income of $28,000, it's $75 or less. what is fair or rational about that distinction, but in fact, it epitomizes what is wrong about this bill. it increases inequality. it enhances and heightens the

insecurity that my colleague from alaska mentioned earlier. it is wrong. it betrays american values. first responders are harmed. earlier this month, the national president of the fraternal order of police wrote a letter to the house and senate leadership urging members of congress to protect the state and local tax deduction as-is. if this deduction is eliminated from local budgets will be strained, which includes the salaries and equipment that support our law enforcement. no wonder the head of the fraternal order of police objects to eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes. teachers are harmed. the national education association has found that gutting the state and local tax deductions will seriously harm already underfunded public education, risking nearly 250,000 education jobs.

those are middle class family jobs in a profession that's profoundly important to our future. we talk a lot in this chamber about the importance of skills training and education, to the future of our work force. and making sure that jobs are killed by people with the right skills for them. and here we are, gutting our educational system. and those cuts, in turn, will lead to approximately 250 billion dollars in cuts to public education over the years to come. and finally, job creators are harmed. the job creators who do the infrastructure work in construction and in killed traini training, there is common ground here on infrastructure, there is bipartisan support for

an infrastructure bank or a public financing authority and a number of those proposals, in fact, would involve repatriating funds at lower tax rates so that the money part, abroad trillions of dollars that companies put there because they want to avoid taxes on the profit could come back. the money should come back. the money could come back at lower tax rates and be invested in infrastructure, but this proposal makes no such proposal because it is bereft of a realistic view of what is necessary for infrastructure. the sick are harmed as well. illness is not about a red or blue state. illness strikes any one of us anytime. the republican tax plan will raise insurance premiums and kick 13 million americans off

their health insurance, all to pay for a massive corporate tax cut, passthrough to benefit the wealthiest. other reductions in taxes that are give aways to the people who need them least. the corporations that today move overseas to evade taxes and benefits from special interest loopholes to lower their effective tax rates are going to be rewarded under this program. lets be very blunt. they will have increased incentives to move those jobs overseas. the bill borrows, 1.5 trillion to enable them to have lower rates. and those billions will line the pockets of corporate ceo's, in fact, that 1.5 trillion is equivalent to all veterans health care and benefits payments to every single veteran in america over the

next decade. with 1.5 trillion dollars, you could increase the benefits to our veterans, enhance the quality of their health care, train them for jobs that exist now, and by the way, you could also pay off all the student loan debt in our nation. think of this for a moment, think of all those young people whose lives would be different, transformed if they were ab solved of the worry about paying off those hundreds of millions of dollars of loans for each of them, tens of thousands, that crush their futures and drive them to jobs that were not their first choices, but which they have to do simply to pay off debt. rather than working toward

bipartisan tax reform that creates opportunity for all americans, this bill divides our nation, it increases the divisions economically, but also, socially, and culturally, and, yes, politically. it drives a division in this body between two sides of the aisle literally, physically, between our republican colleagues and ourselves. how wonderful it would be for us to take the time, use hearings and real markup, and do what was done in the 1980's when the last major tax reform, true tax reform was done.

the time, and the consultation and the discussion and, yes, the compromise were at the core of that work. what is at the core of this work and this bill her very simp simply blatant partisanship. there's no question that our tax code needs to be reformed. i am prepared to work on real tax reform, not the lie that we have before us. real tax reform that supports our middle class and drives our economy forward and creates jobs. that would be the right way to do it, and that would be the way we could do it if we take a step back and it's not too late. we could do it tomorrow. never too late to do the right

thing. i urge my colleagues to take the time, and to engage in real compromise. legislation that is worthy of the name and a tax reform measure that truly is reform and benefits all americans. thank you, mr. president and i yield the floor to my colleague from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. president. senator from new jersey. >> mr. president, this tax bill is truly astounding. only in washington, only in washington could republicans borrow a trillion dollars from china to fund massive tax cuts for big corporations and still

need to raise taxes on millions of americans in order to pay for it. look, i understand my republican friends are in a pickle. they need to give president trump a win. the problem is that this white house is asking them to pass a tax plan built on the most unpopular policies in america. and i think my colleagues know it. they know that after all the american people have been through, the financial crisis, the great recession, decades of wage stagnation and soaring education housing, and health care costs, after all of this hardship, cutting taxes for corporations, taking health care away from 13 million people, and raising taxes on the middle class isn't exactly a recipe for winning the hearts

of the voters. let alone the strategy for building a more dynamic and inclusive prospect for all americans. yes, republicans are in a tough spot. they know if we had a sensible campaign finance system, policies this disastrous would spell disaster for them in 2018. that's why they designed a tax bill that has nothing to do with simplifying our tax code. nothing to do with growing the wages of american workers. i appreciate my friend from alaska talking about growth. i'm all for growth, but first of all, i want to see growth in american wages and it's really hard to have growth when you take a trillion dollars or more and add it to the debt of the next generation and think

you're going to have growth, when you're saddling them with greater and greater debt. it's nothing to do, this bill, with creating jobs, and everything to do with pleasing corporate special interests from their campaigns. that's what brings us here today. that's how senate republicans are on the verge of trying to pass massive tax cuts for corporations that will be permanent and don't have to worry about it, they will be permanent, paid for, however, by raising taxes on working families, and saddling our children and grandchildren with trillions in debt. now, i know that some of you at home might wonder, how does the g.o.p. get away with parading this bill around as a middle class tax cut? well, it's because they're using smoke and mirrors to dupe you into thinking you're getting something of a tax cut.

these so-called deficit hawks, they've passed a budget that gives themselves permission to add 1.5 trillion dollars to the national debt by 2026. only short, nine years from now. so long, however, they don't add a dime to our deficit of the year after in 2027. isn't it nice if you could be at home and give yourself permission to go ahead and add enormous amount of debt and not worry about it? that's what they do. but here is the problem. it's damn near impossible to permanently slash the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% without hiking taxes on millions of average people. i call it inconvenient math. that's why republicans offer some families tiny, temporary, i underline temporary tax relief without owning up to the

fact that cinderella's chariot turns into a pumpkin really fast. by 2019, americans who make under $30,000 a year will be financially worse under this plan. by 2021 americans earning $40,000 a year will be worse off. and by 2027, anyone earning less than $75,000 a year will get hit. now, i'll admit they've found some pretty clever ways to pull off this con job. first, they end the state and local tax deduction, and force millions of hardworking middle class families in states like new jersey to pay taxes twice on the same money. these families aren't high

rollers. in fact, 83% of new jerseyens who claim the state and local tax deduction make under $200,000 a year. as a matter of fact, nearly half of them make under $100,000 a year. so, i'll say it again, ending the state and local tax deduction is like one giant hit job on middle class families in states like new jersey. my constituents can't afford to subsidize the rest of the country any more than they already do and speaking about some of these comments, earlier this evening, my colleague, junior senator from pennsylvania said on the senate floor that the state and local tax deduction is a subsidy, subsidy, to states like new york and new jersey. he said, and i quote, i don't know how it could possibly be fair to force my constituents who lives in, say, south bend

county, pennsylvania, why they should pay more in income taxes to subsidize someone who gets to live in a multi-million dollar condo in the upper west side of manhattan. closed quote. well, that hypocrisy is just amazing to me. far from subsidizing successful states like new jersey and new york, there are states that are actually taker states, they get more than they send to the federal treasury. in fact, according to the rockefeller foundation on average each resident of pennsylvania takes nearly $1500 per year in federal benefits, more than they pay in federal taxes. but even if the rockefeller foundation is wrong, let me go and read part of a letter sent by some of the very county executives and elected officials who represent south bend county. here is part of a letter that's

sent to their representatives, as county elected executives representing pennsylvania's counties. we are writing to express our deep concerns with proposals to eliminate deductions for state and local taxes as the primary funding offset for federal tax reform. and they go on to say across the state, meaning pennsylvania, more than 1.8 million households claim the state and local tax deduction for a total of $32.24 billion. we're particularly concerned that the loss of the state and local tax deduction will harm middle class home owners and overall property values. without the state and local tax deduction, our taxpayers, pennsylvania taxpayers, would be doubly taxed. such a policy is contrary, i'm reading from their letter, to the intentions of our founding fathers and overturns the

precedent set in the income-- proposed-- i is should not say proposed. imposed by president lincoln in the original federal tax code of 1913. there is strong rational why the state and local tax was included as one of the original six federal tax deductions. simply put, the state and local tax deduction is not a special loophole, but instead, a core principle of federalism that should be preserved now. that's the letter and there's more to go on, but signed by a series of individuals who are elected representatives in pennsylvania, including those who represent dauphin county. so, every year, successful blue chip states like new jersey and new york and virginia contribute billions of dollars

in tax revenue that goes to americans in less productive, lower income states. and now republicans are trying to take even more. well, we're sick and tired of it. and we want our money back. in fact, i'll make a deal with you, since you claim to not support states subsidizing other states, how about you send all of the federal tax dollars you receive above and beyond what all of your taxpayers pay to the federal government and you transfer that back to my state of new jersey. i'll make that deal with you right now. sounds like a deal? i didn't think so. and here is another thing that really ticks me off. it's the sneaky, secret tax hikes that republicans buried in this bill that took billions from american paychecks in the next two decades. again, we know why they have to

do it, even after borrowing $2 trillion from china, there's no way to pay for permanent corporate tax cuts without taking a bigger cut from american workers. and, boy, have they found a sneaky way to do it. it's the most complicated, convoluted, boring tax increase in history, but, boy, it takes $500 billion out of american paychecks and sends it straight into the coffers of multinational corporations. that's something really to be proud of. it's called the chain cpi. it's a-- feels like a tiny tweak to how the government measures the cost of living. something we call inflation. now, here is the thing about inflation, ask any american walking down the street if their wages have kept pace with rising costs. they'll laugh in your face.

they'll tell you their incomes have barely budged, while everything from the cost of milk to college tuition gets more expensive every year. but what if the government pretended that the rising costs weren't such a hardship? and that is what we call the chained cpi tax increase. don't take it from me, take it from a republican tax hero, grover norquist. here is what he had to say about this very provision, chain cpi back in 2013. he said, quote, this is one of those things invented by people who are trying to raise taxes and pretend that they're not. if you change the law to get more money, that's a tax increase, doesn't matter how

you do it or what you call it, closed quotes. so, look, we all expect to pay a little more in taxes if we get a big raise at work, but now republicans want you to pay more in taxes even if you don't get a raise. each year more of unincome under this provision will be taxed in higher brackets. at the very time time that your deductions and tax credits slowly lose their value. it's a clever way for the government to shave a bit more off your paycheck every year, even if your income hasn't risen in years. it's a republican tax on wage stagnation and a republican tax on the millennial generation. that's right, millennials are

just now entering their prime earning years, and apparently, they haven't had it hard enough. not after the great recession, not after drowning them in student loan debt, because that's what congress really is doing. stick it to the millennials so the koch brothers can get a nice tax cut. the american people deserve to know the big lie at the heart of the trump tax plan. the meager tax cuts for families are written and disappearing income. while the sneaky tax likhikes, they're carved into stone. it's the republican majority's dirty little secret. secret that even after borrowing $2 trillion from china, they can permanently cut taxes for corporations without hiking taxes on millions of middle class americans and millions more who dream of

becoming middle class. and we've heard this all before. wild claims about tax cuts for the rich trickling down to working families, well, truth is, they never do. lock. i was in the house of representatives back when congress passed the bush tax cuts and i oppose taking the history surplus that bill clinton had created to be used by president trump which he inherited and squandered it on tax cuts, 27%, that went to the top 1% of americans. but that's chump change compared to the 60 plus percent that goes to the wealthy in the trump tax plan. by 2027, americans who make 40 to $50,000 a year will pay a

combined 5.3 billion dollars more in taxes, while those who make millions, they get a 5.8 billion dollar cut. pretty close. americans making 40 to 50,000 a year, they can pay a combined 5.3 billion more in taxes. those who make millions, they get a 5.8 billion dollar cut. so, there you have it. republicans are a-okay with wealth redistribution so long as it's taking from working families and giving it to the richest 1%. and that 60% number doesn't include the death blow this plan delivers to the affordable care act. the financial cost to families when 13 million americans lose

their health care coverage, and everyone else gets saddled with higher premiums. now, meanwhile, some republicans are openly admitting this tax bill will be the first shot fired in their race to dismantle social security, medicaid and medicare. in fact, the congressional budget office, the nonpartisan scoring division for the congress, already said these tax cuts will trigger huge multi-billion dollar cuts to medicare. and that's not the only way this bill screws over america's seniors. according to the aarp, 5.2 million seniors will face higher taxes in the next decade. think about that. asking seniors, who have given this country a lifetime of hard work to pay for corporate tax cuts. and we know what corporations

do with those tax cuts. during the bush tax holiday back in 2005, republicans promised big gains for workers, but corporations didn't bring the billions of dollars they stashed off shore back home so they could build new factories or create millions of new jobs or pay their workers better wages. the lion's share of the windfall went to just two things, higher pay for ceo's, kickbacks for their investors on wall street. so i'm not sure why white house advisor gary cohn seemed so surprised the other day when so few ceo's that were before him said that they used the tax cuts to invest in american jobs. he asked for a show of hands. only a couple raised their hands. does anyone actually believe things will be different this

time? of course not. how do we know? because unlike my republican friends in congress, corporations cannot lie to their shareholders about what they plan to do with the trillion dollars in tax cuts. their ceo's are openly admitting this windfall will go straight to wall street. that's why i've been pushing for changes to this tax bill that would take away these big corporate tax cuts if workers don't see bigger paychecks. of course, that's not what republicans have in mind. this tax plan has nothing to do with helping hard working families in new jersey and across america get ahead. it's not about helping folks who have good jobs, but still live paycheck to paycheck. it's about one thing, one thing, cutting taxes for big corporations permanently, that

are raking in record profits, but just straight out refuse to pay their workers a decent wage. it's about cutting taxes for trust fund kids who were born on third base and think they hit a triple. it's about paving the way for massive cuts to medicaid, medicare, and social security, and bankrupting states of the resources they need to invest in education, infrastructure, public health and creating the growth for opportunity for all. these are the backwards priorities of this legislation. tack cuts for big corporations, wealthy campaign donors, paid for by taking a bigger cut out of workers' paychecks and saddling our grandchildren, like my granddaughter eadvantaevan eadvantage --

ev evanalina. the only ones benefit are those at the top. so much for draining the swamp. this is about as mucky as it gets. i hope my colleagues come to their senses and put the brakes on this terrible tax bill. we can have tax reform, tax reform that's bipartisan, tax reform that can be permanent. tax reform that creates stability. tax reform that creates growth not just for companies, but growth for american workers wages and creates a better economy for all, but this deal, this is a bad deal for the american people. and they deserve much better. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe the absence-- >> as the u.s. senate is meeting nor what could be its final day of debate for the senate version of the tax reform bill. about seven hours of debate on the bill, a final passage vote can take place late this

afternoon. senators are offering changes through motions to commit, votes are planned for 11 eastern on two motions, and now, live to the floor of the u.s. senate, here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god you have truly been good to us. even when we stumble and fall, your mercy continues to sustain us. lead our lawmakers to realize that the abilities you have given them are only maximized