republicans plan, powerful corporations can still deductti their state and local taxes, but they completely eliminates the state and local tax deduction for individual taxpayers. this deduction ensures households are not taxed twice by the federal government on money they have already paid in state and local taxes including property taxes, but with the current senate plan nearly one in three west consummates will lose their personal income, sales and property tax deductions. >> we will leave these remarks and turn live to the floor of the u.s. senate. mr. nelson: madam president, are we in or do i need to do a

lifting of the quorum call? the presiding officer: the senator may proceed. mr. nelson: thank you, madam president. madam president, the matter that is before the senate is the amendment that i have offered, and it simply is that in this tax bill, since the corporate rate is reduced from 35% down to 20% -- and that is permanent -- but the modest middle-class tax breaks are not permanent, in seven or eight years, they cease to exist, they sunset. so you want in this tax bill to give permanent, huge corporate cuts from 35% down to 20%, which by the way if the american

corporation is doing business overseas, it's basically a zero tax rate, which is an incentive to go overseas, send jobs overseas, american jobs lost. while giving those huge corporate breaks, at the same time it is giving modest breaks to the very people who need the tax cuts. that is, hardworking american families, the middle-class. and then, oh, by the way, in seven or eight years, vamoose, it's gone. it goes back up. it's a tax increase. now, that's simply not fair. now, this little amendment simply says, go back to the finance committee and correct this inequity. go back to the finance committ

committee, make the middle-class tax cuts permanent, and then get the finance committee to offset those with revenue from someplace. and you know where that someplace should be? it ought to be the huge corporate tax cuts. that's where the revenue ought to be taken back from to give that revenue or tax cuts to the middle class. it's a simple issue of fairness. and, madam president, i'm delighted to be joined by my colleague from minnesota. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i want to thank senator nelson for his leadership on this amendment. it's a very simple amendment for a very simple proposition, and that is that the tax code should

be simpler -- that's true -- we should make it more streamlined -- that's true -- but our focus should be helping the people of america. and our problem with the bill that's on the floor right now is that it is weighted much too heavily in terms of helping the wealthiest among us and not the middle class. and senator nelson's amendment, which i'm a proud cosponsor, gets right to the meat of this, to the bread and butter, to helping the middle class with their groceries -- since i used meat and bread and butter -- but also with their mortgages, with paying for college, with everything they need to do. and our problem with the bill right now is that too much of it goes to the top. in fact, when you look at the numbers, it's quite startling. the first thing you notice for the middle class is that $1.4 trillion in additional debt comes out of this bill. now, our colleagues were claiming until yesterday, well,

that's going to be offset with all this economic growth we're going to see. and what did we find out? even if when you consider that -- and this is by the nonpartisan committee on -- joint committee on taxation that looked at this, like the umpatience they do the scorecard -- like the umpire, they do the scorecard. they looked at this. yes, it is about $1.4 trillion, $1.5 trillion in debt. but guess what the net, over $is trillion in debt. now, whose shoulder is that going to be on? on the kids and grandkids. that's the number-one reason why i'm so concerned about this bill and why i stood with 17 other domes, including senator nelson, just this last week and said, come to the table. this is your moment for our colleagues on the republican side of the aisle. while the white house is busy sending out tweets and going after this person and that person and this group and that

group, someone has to govern. and this is their moment to govern, to work with us on a bill that doesn't add this debt, that gives the middle class more than just a lump of debt in their stocking. and what senator nelson's amendment smartly does is that it says, let's go back and actually have hearings. let's go back and in a deficit-neutral manner help the middle class. that's what we have to do. and even though we appear to be very close to voting on this bill, we still don't know what exactly is in the final version of this bill. we know what isn't in it. where is the buffett rule that would make it more fair for everyone? what are we doing about the oil giveaways? what are we doing about the carried interest loophole? none of this is in the bill. instead, $1.4 trillion in debt. so that is why i strongly support senator nelson's

amendment. i would also add other amendments that should be considered that i have introduced -- savings for service members to help lower the out-of-pocket costs for national guard membersment, an amendment that would help address the costs millions of people face when they are providing elder care for loved ones, an amendment that would make it easier to use 529 education savings accounts to help workers develop the skills that they need for 21st century jobs, and also other ones related to agriculture. senator nelson's amendment and all these amendments, they are geared and focused on the middle class. we are living at a time when the wealthier have been getting wealthier and the middle class have been losing ground. they may have jobs now because our economy has rebounded, but the cost of things have gotten so expensive, whether it is

their cable bill, whether it is their cost of sending their kids to college, and this is an opportunity with this tax bill to address that. a tax bill should be the value statement for our government, the value statement for america. so i ask my colleagues to come back to the table, to come back to the table to talk about a bill that would bring down that corporate rate. i am all in favor of that. i have 18 fortune 500 companies. i know how important they are to jobs in my state. but they don't have to go down to the extreme rate that they're at. instead, that money should be used to help the middle class while bringing down the corporate rate, while trig bringing that money from overseas and plugging some of that in this nation's infrastructure to literally help with us the roads and bridges and rail that we have now. but that isn't in this bill so we tell our colleagues this is a moment in time where you could actually work with us on something that makes sense for america.

don't squander it. i appreciate the time, senator nelson, and your leadership. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president, on behalf of the majority, i yield back all time. the presiding officer: the gentlemen yields back all his time. the gentleman from florida. the senator from florida.

mr. nelson: we yield back all time as well. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question is on the nelson motion to commit. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 48, the nays are 526789 the motion is not agreed to. question is on the baldwin motion to commit. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 48, the

nays are 52. the motion is not agreed to. mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i ask consent that senator cardin be recognized to offer a motion to commit and that the time until 2:00 p.m. be equally divided. following at 2:00 p.m. the senate vote on the motion. i further ask disposition of the motion the majority leader or his designee be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. karld card mr. president, i have a motion at -- mr. cardin: mr. president, i have a motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from chairld mr. cardin moves to commit the bill h.r. 1 with instructions to report the same back to the senate in three days not counting any day in which the senate is not in session with changes that are within the

jurisdiction of such committee and two this order to fix and enhance our country's infrastructure and use one-time revenue for one-time spending, designate the revenue raised which the -- by the redeemed provisions of the bill for improved infrastructure. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: this motion will send h.r. 1 back to the committee on finance with instructions to return it within three days to deal one of the principal purposes of this act, and that is to create jobs. i'm pleased that i'm joined in this effort by senator feinstein, blumenthal, casey, stabenow, and harris. i want to go over this, if i could. this particular motion is based upon a bipartisan recommendation in the last congress that came

out of the senate finance committee. we had working groups that took a look at the different aspects of our tax code in areas that we need reform. and there was general agreement that we need to deal with the fact that american companies have earned -- earnings overseas and they have parked those funds overseas and have not brought them back to the united states because of the differential tax rates between our corporate taxes and the tax rates overseas. the american companies were not willing to pay the taxes so therefore they leave the money overseas. to bring that money back, it's called repatriation where the money comes back to the united states, and we've done this before and we impose a lower tax rate in order to get the moneys back here in the united states. the challenge with that proposal is a couple of things, but, first, it's not a permanent

revenue flow. it's a one-time only revenue flow. we had the numbers on the house-passed bill which would bring in somewhere around $300 billion of one-time only revenue. the problem is that h.r. 1 includes appropriations that use those -- provisions, but it uses the money to give tax relief to businesses and that puts us deeper in a hole as it relates to the deficit of this country. so this bill already is too expensive. we know that. i think my republican colleagues know that. the american public knows that, that it will add to the deficit. we now have not only the scores that we traditionally use from the joint committee on tax as to how much it would cost and we know that is somewhere in excess of $1.5 trillion, closer to $2 trillion if you extend all

the sunsets that are in the bill. but we now have the dynamic score, that score that takes into consideration predicted economic changes which tries to make it more favorable, and that's in excess of $1 trillion. that should be unacceptable to every member of this body. this p amendment will help us -- this amendment will help us in doing that in that it will take at least $300 billion which is one time only revenues and not allow it to be used in the budget itself. instead we wall that off and use it for infrastructure. mr. president, i serve on the environment and public works committee in addition to the senate finance committee, and i can tell you the unmet transportation needs, water infrastructure needs, energy infrastructure needs in this country are well documented. we know that we need to modernize our transit systems, our roads, our bridges, our water infrastructure, our energy

infrastructure. we need to modernize, particularly if we're going to be competitive. this motion will set up the right priority for modernizing america's infrastructure. what does that mean in regards to jobs? because speaker ryan used the number a little less than one million jobs, that's about $1 -- 1.5 million in jobs. we have projectses, far less that 500 trillion will create great jobs in america. here's a chance to create jobs but at the same time produce a much more up-to-date modern transportation system for this country. i have the honor of representing maryland in the united states senate. i can tell you we need significant resources to update our transit system.

the system is old, it needs improvements, it needs investments. we're in the second-worst congested area here in washington. our bridges are in serious problems. we have a major water main break every day in this country. we need $1 billion to fix the water infrastructure. here's an opportunity for us to speak to two major priorities, one, fiscal responsibility. let's do this in the right way and not spend one-time only money. two, we can take care of the tax problems of companies that have money overseas. and, third, we can repair our infrastructure without raising the debt. i would urge my colleagues to support this motion so that we can really create jobs and not add to the deficit and help the people of this country. with that, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from washington state. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor this afternoon to speak on behalf of myself, along with senator wyden, about the incredible health care impacts that this tax bill will have on families. you know, it is astonishing just how far my republican colleagues are willing to run from the truth in order to jam this terrible tax bill through congress. they said it was going to lower taxes for the middle class, well, it won't. they claim it is going to create jobs. experts tell us the exact opposite. they are once again telling families to place their face in tired, trickle-down economic theories, and we have seen how that works. it doesn't. unfortunately i could go on. but i did come to the floor this afternoon to clear up any remaining confusion about one particular claim that the senate republicans are making in order

to justify handing more tax breaks to massive corporations and the wealthy. mr. president, the senate republican tax bill includes a truly devastating health care change that is going to raise families' premiums. it's going to cause millions of people to lose their coverage. and it is going to create even more chaos and instability in our health care markets. now, people have rejected every single republican attempt this year to undermine their health care. so it's pretty worth asking, why are they doing it again? why are republicans doing it in this bill? well, the answer is simple. republicans wanted to spend the savings from taking away millions of people's health care tax on what? on tax cuts for the rich. mr. president, taking health care away from families to pay for big corporations' tax breaks is bad enough. you know what makes it even

worse is how they're trying to deny what they're doing. senate republicans are claiming that if they pass the bipartisan bill that chairman alexander and i agreed on, all the damage from the health care sabotage in their tax bill will somehow go away. they couldn't be more wrong. our bill, the alexander-murray bill, was designed to shore up the existing health care system and deal with the problems that president trump and republicans already created, not to solve the new problems in this awful republican tax bill. and just yesterday the nonpartisan congressional budget office confirmed that and here's what they said will happen regardless of whether alexander-murray becomes law as well. premiums will go up 10% each year. 13 million people will lose coverage. and markets will be even more unstable which experts have said will cause some of our communities to lose their

coverage options. now, mr. president, there's been some discussion of whether passing something called reinsurance, which is a program designed to help with the cost of enrolling the sickest patients might mitigate the serious damage that this republican tax bill would do. the answer is no there as well. this policy is good policy on its own, but it will not stop the premium increases. it will not stop the coverage losses. and the chaos that this republican tax bill will cause. mr. president, republicans are doing everything they can to avoid the facts. doesn't make them go away. while hiding behind these bipartisan bills might seem like a good talking point here in washington, d.c., political covered doesn't pay families' medical bills or give them their coverage back. it does not help people with preexisting conditions who may get priced out of the market.

it doesn't help people in communities where markets are already unstable, thanks to president trump's year of sabotage, meaning insurers are ready to exit if things get worse. and one more point, mr. president. over the last year of roller coasters on health care, there's one thing you could count on, and that is president trump and the republican leaders making empty promises. so republicans who are comfortable voting for this awful tax bill because of promises they got from president trump who called his own trumpcare bill mean when it suited him and republican leaders who have written check after check they couldn't cash on health care are placing a bet that is more than risky. in fact, this bet is so risky, it requires house republicans voting in favor of supporting obamacare changes that they have already said that they oppose. mr. president, if you spent five minutes in this congress, you should know getting house republicans to support obamacare

is as tough as a sale as it gets. the truth is if republicans are serious about not undermining families' health care, there's a very easy way for them to actually do that. step back from the brink right now. work with democrats on health care and taxes in ways that actually help, not hurt the people we are supposed to be here to serve. their' far down the road, i understand, but it's not too late. they can turn around. it's not too late to do the right thing, and that's what we're asking. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. i want to pick up where senator murray left off and emphasize to colleagues here that not only would this bill raise taxes on

millions of middle-class families, but it would also be a dagger in the heart of the affordable care act causing millions to lose their coverage and raising costs for millions more. by gutting the personal responsibility portion of the affordable care act, this legislation is going to take america back to the days when health care was for the healthy and wealthy because it will green light once more discriminating against those with preexisting conditions. it will say that the insurance companies again can go out and beat the stuffing out of somebody who has a preexisting condition. and if that's not enough evidence, this morning in the

papers it shows that this will trigger a new wave of health insurance scams and ripoffs that are going to harm our people. this morning in the paper they talked about how what this is going to do is encourage these cheap, junk short-term health insurance policies which often lack consumer protections and in so many instances have been a magnet for fraud and unscrupulous sales practices. for example, the paper this morning talked about how -- i'll just read it here. examples abound that people were dumped from such policies, these short-term policies or denied coverage, mired in debt and medical bills totaling thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. and it documents the various

sales tactics used to rip people off. mr. president, i remember what those tact ibs were -- tactics were like, because when i was director of the senior citizens, the great panthers, at home it was common for agents to sell policy after policy after policy not worth much more than the paper they were written on. and it sure sounds to me like these short-term policies while a different time are going to encourage the same kinds of ripoff practices that are going to harm our people. now, as we have touched on, we've heard from senators on the other side that they think if they vote for this bill, what they're going to be able to do is get two other bills that somehow will mitigate, will eliminate a lot of the harm that

this horribly flawed bill is going to do, where it's going to harm millions of middle-class people who don't get a fair shake in the marketplace and then inflict all this damage that i just described on health care. now, these two bills i happen to think are constructive bills. the alexander-murray bill will make payments that will help limit the amount that low-income americans pay for health insurance. our colleagues, senator collins and nelson, another constructive idea, reinsurance money. that helps to stabilize the insurance market which, by the way, the president of the united states has worked so hard to actually destabilize. the fact is that the congressional budget office, which is the nonpartisan group of experts we use, have made it clear that these two bills will not even come close to wiping

out the disastrous consequences of the health provisions in this bill that the senate is about to vote for. so i want to be clear, mr. president. this is not just a tax bill, not just a bill with handouts to multinational corporations and a grab bag full of goodies for campaign supporters and powerf powerful, well connected interests. it is not just that. now it is a big step backward in the cause of making sure that all our people have affordable, accessible health care. what we ought to be doing is looking at ways to come together and find common ground, find common ground on provisions that we know are cost effective,

things like the children's health bill, which if i had my way would have been passed a long time ago. and community health centers and other vital provisions. we should be building on what we have holding down the cost of pharmaceuticals, for example, targeting the middlemen who are the heart of the problem. that's what we ought to be doing. we should not be doing what's on offer this morning. what is on offer this morning is turning back the clock on american health care, turning back the clock to those dark days when the insurance companies could beat the stuffing out of somebody who had a preexisting condition. we are better than that. we are better than that. we still have time, as i've said on the floor as the ranking democrat on the finance committee, we still have time to

choose a different course. 17 democratic senators said a few days ago led by senators manchin and kaine and donnelly, heitkamp, big group of them, came together and said we want to find common ground on taxes. i've written two bipartisan comp hencive federal in-- bipartisan comprehensive federal income tax bills. thwe don't have to go this rout. we certainly don't have to do it on health care. there are approaches that would bring us together, and i've just described several of them. but what i know we shouldn't do is turn back the clock to the days when health care in america was for the healthy and wealthy. that's what you get when you green light discrimination against people with preexisting

conditions. if they're healthy, no problem. if they're wealthy, they can take care of them. we should reject this bill and especially the provisions that relate to health care that take america back to dark days, horrible days when health care in america was essentially for the healthy and wealthy. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you very much, mr. president. it is no secret that i am strongly opposed to this disastrous, unfair, and destructive piece of legislation that we are debating today that will give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our one, to the most profitable corporations, and to billionaire campaign contributors. what really concerns me is that

we are debating as everybody acknowledges, a very complicated and confusing piece of legislation that is over 500 pages long. and here we are a few hours before we're going to be voting on this legislation, frankly, nobody has seen it. nobody even knows what is in this legislation. it's probably being written as we speak right now. not a very effective or intelligent way to deal with legislation that impacts every american and trillions of dollars. one of the concerns that i have as we look at this bill is there are provisions in it that nobody really understands in terms of who it impacts and whom it

benefits. buried in this legislation just as one example, buried in this legislation on page 503, section 14504 is a paragraph entitled, quote, modification to source rules involving possessions. end of quote. that's the title of that section. what does that mean? it means that as best as we can understand, if you are a hedge fund manager who is a resident of the virgin islands, you will be able to get a major tax break on capital gains and a 90% reduction in tax liability on your income. now, mr. president, it has been estimated that had corporations and the wealthy are avoiding

over $100 billion each and every year by stashing their cash in the caribbean and other offshore tax havens. it appears that this provision will make a bad situation even worse. adding insult to injury, mr. president, it appears that this provision may only help a handful of wealthy hedge fund managers who have claimed residency in the virgin islands. it has been estimated that this provision alone -- one provision in a 500-plus-page bill -- will cost over $600 million in lost revenue in the next decade. $600 million in lost revenue

when we have a $20 trillion debt and 40 million people living in poverty. now, i see no republican senators on the floor, but i'm sure that staff is watching this discussion, so i have a question that i would like to discuss with senator wyden but, more importantly, with some of our republican colleagues. and what i would like to ask my republican colleagues is whether or not there has been a hearing on the need to provide tax breaks to wealthy helen fund managers -- hedge fund managers that have established residency in the caribbean. i would say to my friend from oregon, there are a lot of problems facing our country -- a

declining middle class, 40 million people living in poverty, 28 million people having no health insurance. i am not aware that one of the great crises facing this country is the need to provide tax breaks to wealthy hedge fund managers who have established residency in the caribbean. it may be one of those great national crises that i have missed, but i don't quite perceive it as being an issue that the american people seem to be deeply concerned about. and i would hope, mr. president, that my republican colleagues -- maybe senator hatch or others -- will come down to the floor and tell us who this provision benefits. are we talking about one hedge fund manager? are we talking about two? are we talking about three? hedge fund managers who are going to divvy up some $600

million in tax breaks over the next decade. and i would yield -- or ask my colleague from oregon, who is the ranking member of the senate finance committee, his thoughts on the issue. mr. wyden: i'm very pleased that my colleague from vermont is discussing this issue on the floor. the finance democratic staff has been looking into this and been working also with your staff. and i think it would be fair to say that every few hours this bill just seems to get worse. i mean, we don't know whether in the middle of the night somebody added another round of favors to the powerful interests, the politically well connected, and what i can tell you is what we have been able to put together

as of now. in 2004, legislation was written that we were very much involved in that helped eliminate the loophole by requiring u.s. citizens to be bonafide residents of the virgin islands in imposing u.s. tax on income effectively connected with the united states. now, in the dark of night -- as i've indicated -- it appears we've got a provision that is relaxing this rule. now, obviously -- and i know the senator from our conversations understands we all want to help the people of the virgin islands after a devastating, you know, hurricane. are we helping people by creating a huge, new loophole, possibly for a handful of those

people who are especially we will connect -- well connected and can get to the finance committee? i'm convinced that if you look at the paradise papers, the "panama papers," what they were warning in those papers is about all of these efforts to stash money and create new options for people to wheel and deal in offshore accounts. so my colleague is right. you know, i continue to wonder why, when we want to ask these really important questions about special interest favors, we look to the other side -- we have this barrier between both sides of the aisle. we need somebody here to explain to us and explain to the american people how this seemed to just fly out of the sky. so i'm very appreciative of your

raising a question about what looks like yet another scam that has come into a process that has been one big sham from the beginning. and i appreciate my colleague's question. mr. sanders: thank you very much, senator wyden. and i will just say, according to a number of independent studies, despite what president trump and the republican leadership are saying, the overwhelming bulk of the tax benefits in this legislation go to the top 1%. i believe the number is 62% go to the top -- mr. wyden: if my colleague will yield, there is no question that he is correct; that in terms of stacking the deck, this is not just stacked to the top, but the top 1% dosh a fraction of the -- or a fraction of the

1%. mr. sanders: 62% of the benefits going to the top 1%. and, meanwhile, by the end of the decade, my good friend, senator wyden from oregon, there is no question that tens of millions of middle-class americans will be paying more in taxes, is that correct? mr. wyden: there is absolutely no question about that. we are looking at something like half of the middle class paying more in taxes come 2027. mr. sanders: so here we have a nation today which has a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality, worse than at any time since the late 1920's. the top 1% owns more than the bottom 90%. 62% of the new income is going to the top 1%. and the republican solution is to make this grotesque inequality even worse by giving

62% of the tax benefits to the top 1%. but i want to get back to this one point. i suspect that when you rush a bill of this magnitude through the united states senate, when there have been virtually no hearings, no experts, no real ability to have significant debate and discussion at the committee level, what you're going to find the day after this bill is passed is absolutely outrageous provisions. and i suspect -- i don't know, and i would like my republican colleagues to help us here. i suspect -- can't verify because we don't have the information -- but i suspect that on page 503, page 503, section 14504, there is a

provision that will provide $6 million of tax breaks over a ten-year period. i suspect that will end up in the pockets of a handful of wall street hedge fund managers. that's what i suspect. maybe i am wrong and, therefore, i would hope that some of the republicans who put this provision in the bill will tell us how this is going to benefit the people of the united states or the virgin islands or anyplace else. but, as i understand it -- and again i am speaking to the ranking member of the senate finance committee, who knows something about this -- is this an issue, senator wyden, that has been discussed for one minute? mr. wyden: not a minute, and the reason my colleague's questions are so important is this is certainly an example of what seems to turn up every few hours, practically in the middle of the night.

and my colleague raised a very good point with respect to the development of this bill. i mean, we're talking about making $10 trillion worth of changes in tax policy on the fly, not a hearing -- your colleagues, chairman enzi, the budget committee, said -- and i've heard it several times on the other side -- that there were 70 hearings on this bill. there was not one on this piece of legislation. it certainly didn't examine this issue. it didn't examine the question, for example, of what's going to happen to people with this dagger to the affordable care act. and i can tell my colleague, because he is right to talk about how you bring parties together -- i know my colleague did that on the veterans' committee with senator mccain as part of a major bill.

our former colleague bill bradley mentioned that when he wrote a tax bill, he flew all over the country to work with republicans. in this case, apropos my colleague's question, not only did nobody do that sort of thing, they wouldn't even walk down the corridor to talk about working with the other side. mr. sanders: two points as i wind down here -- number one, yesterday i challenged my republican colleagues to tell us that after this bill is passed, tell the american people that when they rack up a deficit of $1.4 trillion, tell the american people that you are not going to come back and cut social security, medicaid, medicare, education, nutrition. tell the american people that you are not going to balance the budget and compensate for your

huge tax breaks to the rich and large corporations by going after the middle class and working class of this country. i challenged my republican colleagues yesterday to come to the floor and tell the american people that they would not do that. they have not responded to that challenge. second challenge today -- tell us what is in section 1145-- 14504, page 503. this is a provision that would provide $600 billion in tax breaks to my republican colleagues, who is going to get those tax breaks. we believe and tell us if we are wrong -- maybe we are -- that we're talking about a handful of hedge fund managers who are there? how many of them are there? so i would ask respectfully that senator hatch or any other republican come down to the

floor and tell us who benefits from section 11450 -- 14504. mr. wyden: would my colleague yield for a second? i'm not sure we really laid out the timetable of what's ahead. my colleague is the ranking senator on the a budget committee and is very up on this. we have all been very concerned because we've seen it before. you pass these big tax cuts. you get a sugar high in a relatively short period of time. then deficits short rolling in. and what we see next are the cuts in the programs that are a lifeline for millions of people -- the anti-hunger programs, medicaid, medicare, social security. i was under the impression, because i saw comments in the paper, that what my colleague is concerned about has already been announced by the speaker of the house. i understand that what the speaker of the house has said is

that his plan to take up next the issues of what he calls entitlement reform. they're not talking about the things that the american people care about that i'm going to hear about at town hall meetings at home this weekend, holding down the cost of prescription drugs. they're talking about rolling back the safety net, medicaid, and the anti-hunger programs, and social security. is that my colleague's understanding that the -- mr. sanders: they will talk about saving social security. they'll talk about entitlement reform. what they mean is cutting social security, cutting medicare, and cutting medicaid. and as you've indicated -- this is not some kind of an abtract theoretical idea. it is what speaker ryan is already talking about. but more to the point, that is exactly what was in the budget that was passed here several months ago.

my friend from -- mr. inhofe: will my friend yield for a unanimous consent request? mr. sanders: i will. mr. inhofe: i ask at the conclusion of the remarks by the the senator from verges i be -- from vermont, i be recognized for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer:? objection? without objection.. mr. wyden: reserving the right to object if i could. i see our colleague from washington. mr. inhofe: i have a point of inquiry. es with that already grant -- was that already granted, the unanimous consent request? the presiding officer: the chair said without objection because the chair did not hear objection. mr. wyden: i would like to reserve my right to object at this time. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving my right to object. and i will not object.

i would just like to make sure that our colleague from oklahoma and our colleague from washington are both accommodated in this matter. senator sanders and i have finished. i believe senator cantwell said that senator inhofe will go ahead. we thank senator cantwell for her usual collegiality. senator inhofe will go first. and then i will ask unanimous consent that senator cantwell follow senator inhofe. and i will withdraw my reservation. i withdraw my reservation, and i ask unanimous consent that senator cantwell follow senator inhofe. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. sanders: let me conclude my remarks. i would urge my republican colleagues to come down to the floor of the senate and explain

to the american people what section 14504 is about, who benefits from some $600 million in tax breaks over a ten-year period. is it two hedge fund managers? is it five hedge fund managers? what is it? that's my request, and i hope we can get a response to that question as quickly as possible. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. chairman? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. chairman, let me pause in this class warfare for just a minute to make a couple of observations that i think are, they're important to me. first of all, i agree, no one has said that the underlying bill is perfect. incidentally i'm not going to respond to those specific requests until i have time to go

back and get the proper response and then i'd be glad to do it. i would say this, we are going to have a conference. there's going to be an opportunity for us to go and get some of the things ironed out, some of the things that we are concerned about. there are a couple of things i want to serve notice right now that i'm going to be concerned about. one is the bill that we have punishes trust ownership on -- doesn't treat the trust ownership the same as it does ordinary ownership. and i think they should be treated equally. and i've talked to a number of people who will be participating in this on the other side of the aisle. and i would like to kind of serve notice that we're going to be talking about this because i think that's very significant. the second thing is that, you know, we hear a lot of good ideas, and there's kind of this

idea that somehow the -- there isn't a good idea unless it's emulated from this body. i've got to tell you this is interesting for me to be standing here because i'm not on any of the committees that have anything to do with this bill. i'm not on the finance committee. i'm not on the budget committee. if you want to talk about defending america and roads and excise, i'll talk to you about that. that's my specialty. i'm on the committees, senior membership in the committees. as a member who is not directly involved in this debate, i look at it and i see, i hear good ideas from the outside. i heard one several weeks ago and studied it since then. it came from a show called the "hugh hewitt show." i heard an idea that i tried to pick apart and can't find any faults with it, and so i've developed an amendment that we're going to have that will address this idea that i'm

talking about. and that amendment would, would offer an alternative to those who have retirement programs where the individual is not to pay for the income until the withdrawal date, let's say age 59 1/2. now the amendment would, would provide that -- okay. the amendment would provide that there would be a onetime opportunity to withdraw up to 25% of the retirement account for a single flat fee of 10%. now -- in lieu of paying the

income tax at that time. now there are a lot of benefits i think that are pretty obvious. this would allow -- we're talking about retirement programs where the individual is not to pay for the income until withdrawal dates. let's say age 59 1/2. this would have the immediate revenue of 10% of all savings that are withdrawn. this would actually amount to billions of dollars. and we're talking about immediate dollars, not dollars that may be there in the future. now could argue that this might reduce some revenue at some future date because the individuals will have already pulled this out for a fee of 10%. and so it would have perhaps some negative effects in the distant future. but when you stop and think about the benefits -- and i know that a lot of people on the other side of the aisle don't

realize this, that we're going to have huge benefits. if you just look at what's happening in this administration in the second and third quarter of this year, we've gone through eight years of obama administration when we were talking about maybe 1.5% increase in g.d.p. and we have enjoyed 3% in the second quarter and 3% in the third quarter. that's a huge increase. for each 1% increase over a period of ten years we're talking about $3 trillion. and so we're all considering this. this amendment that we're talking about, merely allowing people to take money out that's already their money, is something that would have a great stimulation in the economy. i'm one of the few ones who was around here -- not in this body but i was in other bodies and aware back during the revenue, during the years of 1981 and

1986. in 1981 the amount of revenue that we had coming into the federal coffers was $469 billion. ten years later that was $750 billion. and that was after the first great reduction. let's remember, that reduction took the top rates down from 70% to 50%, and then again in 1986 when the total revenue was $569 billion, that was a further reduction. in fact the top rate went down from, from 50% to i believe it was 28%. now with all those reductions, that increase ten years later, that amount raised it from $569 billion to $1 trillion. and consequently we know that if we can stimulate the economy we're going to have more revenue

coming in. that's a fact. and i think this will be something that i think a lot of people can look at. i'm talking about when we get into conference, i won't be one of the conferees, i'm aware of that. but there are a lot of good ideas out there that i'm sure a lot of us on the floor have and they'll be pursuing those at the time. that's assuming we pass this bill, and i assume we will pass it. with that i'll yield the floor. one other thing. the tax reform that will ensure that american families and businesses will see a meaningful reduction in their tax burden, the senate bill provides a substantial tax reduction to small and family businesses that are structured as pass-through entities. these small and family businesses are household names like travel stops, like the country stores, hobby lobby. we're all very familiar with hobby lobby. by the way, i would say mr. chairman, that in the event

there is anyone here who has not been down to see the museum of the bible, that's hobby lobby. they are the ones who paid for that. those are the types of people that would be beneficial. unfortunately this senate does not allow a tax deduction for these companies or pass-through entities if they have trusts. this is not right. i've already said this once before. you weren't here. for these companies, trusts are used for long-term business planning purposes, not to evade their fair share of taxes. these companies use the income to invest capital in their operations, grow their businesses, hire people and contribute to the economic growth that we need in this country. and we should not penalize pass-through companies for their businesses because they are the trust. and my amendment would fix that. with that, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent that senator cantwell and senator van hollen be

allowed a total of 15 minutes to discuss some very important issues. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i come to the floor with my colleague from maryland to talk about the state and local tax deductions. and i thank the ranking member of the senate finance committee for his hard work on trying to articulate what is fair tax policy for americans. senator wyden and i come from parts of the country with probably some of the uniquest tax codes. he doesn't have a sales tax in oregon. we don't have an income tax in washington. we are not an expensive tax state. we are not an expensive tax state. there are other states like texas and nevada and florida that also don't have an income tax. and under this bill, those states and the citizens of those

states, like many others, are going to be penalized. middle-class americans are going to have their taxes raised to give a tax break to corporations. while we might want to discuss what is fair tax policy as it relates to the competitiveness of our economy, the good news for the people of the state of washington is we have very competitive p businesses, whether they're microsoft or amazon or starbucks or costco or boeing, they're all working hard. they all are working in multiple places. and, yes, they're all doing really, really well. the question is, do we need to reduce their corporate rate so significantly, and to do so take money out of the pocket of middle-class families across the united states of america? the reason i mentioned senator wyden and the state of washington -- oregon and washington -- is that because even though we have a unique tax code, our state's economy have grown faster than the national

average every year since world war ii. so that is to say that the uniqueness of our tax code has not hurt us. and yet in the state of washington hedge we've had the t minimum wage for a long time in the united states and now we're raising it in various parts of our state. we've had a unique view of where our revenue should come from. so why now? why now after 100 years of tax deductibility by taxpayers in this country, why are you taking away their ability to deduct only to give a tax break to corporations who are making record profits? after 100 years, why are you doing this? well, i think some of my colleagues have said it best. they've called it double taxation. you are going ahead after 100 years, and saying it's okay to tax the same amounts that we pay to the state that you're also going to tax that at the federal

level. as one article mentioned, request, quote, alexander hamilton in the federalist paper said the federal government might try to monopolize to the exclusion of the state governments. that's right, our founding fathers said do not have double taxation. so for 100 years, 100 years we've protected the citizens of this country. and yet someone over there thinking, you know what, i need $1.4 trillion. where can i get it? let's do it on the backs of middle-class families because they might not notice until 2019 when their tax bill comes and they have a different equation. now i get my colleagues think that they have solved this problem by getting rid of the deductions and now all of a sudden giving you a double standard deduction. i've done the math. i've done the math for us in

washington state. and over 300,000 people in washington will see their taxes go up immediately, probably paying anywhere from $750 to $1,000 more in taxes. is that fair? they are sitting in the shadow of these large companies who are making record profits and doing quite well asking why are they the funders of this teaks break? -- tax break? why are we getting rid of a policy that has existed in our country for over 100 years and penalizing them just to give this corporate break? now, i can tell you i don't buy the notion that this is going to trickle down to product activity and -- productivity and wage growth. what is growing in my state is innovation, whether it is making

software or new ways of doing business and, yes, it is a constant challenge. those businesses tell me we need more infrastructure, more affordable housing, a better transportation system, better education. so they are very concerned about the ideas in this legislation. so you're going to tax immediately about 300,000 washingtonians. and according to joint tax and other entities, probably by the time this is done over one million washington tonian -- washingtonians will pay. i'm concerned, along with other states that have been fighting this battlele for so long, why now? what is the urgency that you are taking away the ability of my citizens to deduct their local sales tax, property tax and other expenses, whether they are medical or education or their mortgage. so it is just beyond me when the

middle class has suffered so much and has not recovered from the downturn in the economy that you think the best economic strategy is to take money out of the middle-class taxpayer. now, i want to enter also for the record a letter from the national governors association, from governor sandvall from nevada. their letter says deductibility of state and local taxes have been a part of our stability and they are about meeting the needs of our citizens. so the notion that we have the governors association, realtors, and so many people concerned about this is falling on deaf ears, where i guarantee it will not fall on deaf ears when citizens have a chance to respond to this. the notion that we not only are

taking away this ability to deduct but we are also in this legislation making a change to the way inflation is calculated, what is called chained c.p.i. i will not bother to explain the details to you, but i will tell you this, it will change your tax bracket and you will be in a higher tax bracket. so they are pushing, besides giving you less deductibility, they are changing a formula and making you pay more taxes. this bill needs to slow down. it needs to focus on what will help our economy grow, and economists don't believe this bill will do much to help the economy grow, it is going to give those corporations money to pay for dividends -- 75% to 80% will go to their shareholders and their shareholders and the stock market will do well. what we also need to focus on is the investment that middle-class

families need to stay in their home, to make education affordable, to pay for health care, and to have communities work. the fact that the fraternal order of police is also against this legislation because of taking away of this local deductibility, it is like hamilton said -- why are you doing this at a federal level? i thought the other side of the aisle with the -- were the states rights people. i thought they were there to protect the uniqueness of the tax code, to say that states have rights and should be table tole determine their own future. well, after 100 years you're taking that away today and you're going to hear from the citizens of this country who are upset that they have to pay higher taxes just to give the successful companies a corporate tax break. mr. president, i yield to my colleague from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: