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: may i ask how

much time remains on the unanimous consent agreement? the presiding officer: you may. the democrats have approximately six minutes. mr. van hollen: all right. thank you, mr. president. i see senator menendez from new jersey has arrived to cosponsor together with senator cantwell and myself on this amendment. i want to thank senator cantwell for her leadership, and she has covered a number of important points. the main one is that from the beginning of our federal tax code in 1913, we established a principle in the united states to avoid double taxation. it makes no sense that any citizens of this country send a dollar of tax to their state governments to help schools or roads in their state and then they are turned around and taxed on that same dollar by the federal government, but that's

exactly what this republican tax plan is doing. now, weeks and weeks ago the republican leader, senator mcconnell, and the speaker of the house, paul ryan, made she's public -- these public statements about these bills, we're going to raise taxes on everybody. they both had to publicly reverse those statements because in order to provide huge tax breaks to the biggest corporations of this country, this bill will require millions and millions of middle-class families to increase their taxes. and a main vehicle for doing that is by removing the deduction for state and local deduction for those citizens. i will give you some quick numbers. 100 million americans use the deduction for state and local taxings. half the families in my state of

maryland use it. 38% of taxpayers making between $5,000 and $75,000 claimed the state and local deduction. that's 7.6 million households. 56% of taxpayers who make under $100,000 and 86% of taxpayers making under $2$00,000 make that. it is wrong to double tax those families in order to provide a huge tax breaks for big corporations. and just to add insult to injury, the corporations in our state, they still get to deduct their state and local taxes. we just don't let them do the same thing. let's pass this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i'm

here to speak out against the tax bill that is nothing short of highway robbery on new jerseyans. this tax plan is about one thing. it's about cutting taxes for wealthy corporations and asking families to pay for it. it is especially bad for families in new york, new jersey, washington, maryland and other high-earning states that make bold investments in education and generate the most federal revenue. don't let the republicans fool you if they air drop an amendment at the last minute that throws a few crumbs at new jersey families. this is -- it will be nothing but gimmicks meant to distract the public from what is really going on. no matter how you slice it, limiting the state and local tax

deduction is an attack on the most economically productive state. by doing this, republicans will force millions of middle-class families across america to pay taxes on their taxes. in 2015 alone nearly 1.8 million new jersey households deducted a combined -- these families aren't living large, they are middle-class folks who had to work hard for every dollar they have. in fact, i.r.s. data shows more that 85% of taxpayers who claim the deduction make under $200,000 a year and half middle class under $100,000 a year. it is unfair to ask those who had to fight0 the -- fight to get to the middle class to pay

more. rubbing salt in the wounds is the fact that the republicans let corporations deduct their state and local taxes on top of the huge tax cuts lavished on them by this tax plan. if deducting state and local taxes is so important for big corporations that make billions of dollars each year, republicans should understand why it's so important for middle-class families in cities and suburbs across america. that's why i'm offering this had motion with senator cantwell to send the bill back to committee to fix this fatal flaw and restore the salt deduction. if it is good enough for huge corporations, it should be good enough for middle-class families. i heard many of my republican colleagues complain about the salt deduction as if it is a subsidy for states like new jersey. far from subsidizing successful states like new jersey or new

york, the salt deduction actually benefits the entire nation which is able to share in the economic rewards created by the high-powered economies of states like new jersey. and now republicans want to take even more. well, we're sick and tired of it and we want our money pack. i'll make a deal with any republican from a taker state. since you're so opposed to subsidizing other states, how about you take all the extra federal dollars you receive beyond what you pay and give it back to donor states like new jersey. sound like a deal? i don't think so. each and every year states like new york, new jersey, and virginia generates taxings -- money and gives it to states that are more reliant on federal spending. they are america's economic powerhouses, america's donor states precisely because they invest in public education, law

enforcement, mass transit, infrastructure, and economic opportunity for all. so it's no surprise that everyone from the fraternal order of police to the american hospital association to the aarp support keeping the state and local tax deduction. taking it away is a direct threat to the funding states needed to educate our kids, keep cops on the beat, and provide health care to the most vulnerable. all of this just to give big corporations big tax cuts. if multinational corporations get to keep deducting their state and local taxes, there's no reason to stop millions of middle-class americans from doing the same. and make no mistake, any reduction in the state and local tax deduction is a direct assault on america's highest-earning, most innovative, moss economically pro -- most economically productive states. guess what.

everyone will lose out when the powerful states are not so powerful anymore. i ask my colleagues to stop punishing success and join me in protecting the salt deduction. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, we are about to embark upon a vote that i think will be historic, a once in a generation opportunity, in my view. the last time we did major tax reform in this country was 1986, 31 years ago. believe it or not, i happened to be a staffer here back then. although my boss was not on the senate finance committee, i was

the tax l.a. in the office. i had the opportunity in a very, very small way to be a part of the 1986 tax reform act, which at that point was landmark legislation and very historic and far-reaching and had a positive impact on the economy. here we are 31 years later, long overdue, i might add, to get to the point where we can do something fundamentally about a tax code that puts us at a competitive disadvantage with countries around the world with whom we have to compete. so we have an opportunity today and we'll have an amendment process here that will get started very soon in which members will have an opportunity to lay down their amendments, to debate them, and to get them ultimately voted on. but when it's all said and done, i believe we'll have a final product that moves us fundamentally in a different direction when it comes to our tax policy. in a direction that is good for

jobs, economic growth, than is good for wages in this country for hardworking families and people who have been living paycheck to paycheck for a really long time. and we didn't get here overnight. there's been a lot said about this is all of a sudden rushed to the floor. i have to tell you, mr. president, i got on the finance committee in 2011. since 2011 when i joined the committee, we have had 70-plus hearings on tax reform. 70 hearings examining different aspects of the tax reform, listening to recommendations for how it might be changed, how it might be modernized, how it might be updated, how it might be improved, and a long process, a methodical process to get us where we are today. we also two years ago in 2015, the chairman of the committee, senator hatch, created five working groups and each of the working groups had a specific area of responsibility to look at different elements of the tax code and to come up with a

series of recommendations again for how it might be improved. and so i was privileged to chair one of those working groups along with senator cardin. we had democrat and republicans both participating in that process. at the end of it, each of the working groups submitted papers, recommendations much of which, i might add, is included in the mark that we're going to be voting on later today. a lot of those ideas came from those bipartisan working groups. and so there are a lot of democrat and republican ideas that have been incorporated into this legislation. i would hope in the end take there might be some democrats who ultimately will vote for it, but it should be -- it's important to note, i think, mr. president, for those who believe that perhaps this was somehow rushed in here, that there has been a lot of thought over a long period of time not only months but years, literally years of work that has gone into bringing us to where we are today. and when the bill was introduced, the mark was wut out -- was put out there by the

chairman, that put in place a process in the committee where we had a markup. and so we spent 23 hours over several days marking up the bill. we voted on 63 democrat amendments and all 69 thereabouts amendments on the bill while it was being marked up before it was reported out here to the floor. since it was reported out of the committee, there have been a number of changes that have been made in response to concerns and issues that have been raised by individual members. senators on both sides of the aisle. and so that brings us to where we are today. but i just say that by way of context, mr. president, to let people know that this has been a long process, an arduous process, i might add, and, frankly, one that is really overdue. i happen to believe profoundly that it is high time that we undertake the important work of readapting and readjusting our tax policies to reflect an

economy and a marketplace that is very, very different than the one the last time this was done in 1986. so that gets us to where we are today. and so in trying to figure out how to modernize, how to update our tax code, there are a couple of things that clearly needed to be dealt with. and one is that we have a tax system that has the highest rates on businesses in the industrialized world. we have a 35% rate for corporations. and you look at every other industrialized country in the world, if you look at the average, it's down to 22%. but a number of countries have gone well below that. we continue to hemorrhage jobs and businesses and profits to other places around the world because our tax rate and our tax code, frankly, isn't competitive. we also operate a worldwide tax system which not only do you pay a tax in a country in which the income is generated but you also pay a tax when it comes back into the united states. and of course at the higher

level at the 35% rate. and so that also had to be adapted, mr. president, and we're moving now more toward what's called a territorial tax system in which the income is taxed in the jurisdiction in which it is generated, and that, i believe, will make us a much more competitive economy globally and make america a much more attractive place to do business. we get the corporate rate, the business rate down to 20%. i say on businesses, that's on what we call c corporations. there's also slightly different treatment for what we call pass-through businesses, your partnershipses, l.l.c.'s, sole proprietorships. we also significantly produce rates on small businesses. we believe this is important to growth. this needs to be a pro-growth bill. we want to grow our economy at a faster rate because a faster growing economy, an economy that's growing at rates that are more normal to historic averages means that we're creating better-paying jobs. that means we're lifting wages

in this country. wages have been flat for so long, so long. last decade or so the american people have rarely had anything that you could characterize as a pay raise. and so that's why we needed to update our business tax rates, our business tax code so that we can get the economy producing and growing at a faster rate to generate those good-paying jobs and to provide higher wages to american families and american workers. we believe that this bill does that. and i think the changes that have been made in addition to lowering the rates by allowing for expensing of capital investments, allows businesses to recover their cost of investment faster, accelerate that cost recovery which enables them to get that capital that they can use to expand and grow their operations and thereby, again, create those better-paying jobs. those are key, key changes, mr. president, that are fundamental to greater economic growth, to better jobs, and to higher wages

in our economy. there's been a lot of analysis and study that has been taken that demonstrates how in fact that might work. if you look at what the president's council of economic advisors says, they suggest that lowering the rate on businesses will generate $4,000 in additional average household income on an annual basis. so additional $4,000 in the pockets of families in this country as a result, not just of the tax reductions, which i'll get to in just a moment, but the changes that we made in the business side of the code generate an additional $4,000 annually per household. there's another study out there by boston university in which they conclude that it would increase average household income by $3,500, so slightly less than $4,000. but safe to say that families in this country, households in this country, people in this country are going to benefit because

when you create a more favorable environment, favorable conditions for investment and creating jobs, you get competition for labor. when you have competition for labor, it raises the price of labor. when the price of labor goes up, companies have to pay higher wages. and that means we get bigger paychecks for american workers. that's precisely what these particular studies have shown. and let me just say, mr. president, too, because i think that as i've listened to our colleagues on the other side, they consistently make the argument that somehow this is tax cults for the rich, which i don't think is any surprise. that's normally what they say any time we have a debate about reducing taxes. because my experience here in the time i've been in washington as a member of the house of representatives and now as a member of the united states senate has been that generally speaking, democrats like to grow government. we like to grow the economy. we believe the best way to lift all boats to generate better paying jobs, to improve the quality of life and standard of

living for american families is to get a stronger economy that is creating those better paying jobs and raising wages in this country. suffice it to say that our colleagues on the other side have attacked this bill as they do most bills, this is no exception. most tax reform bills for delivering too much relief to high income earners. well, i have to say, mr. president, that i take issue with that because i think if you look at the actual contents, the substance of the bill, you'll come to a very different conclusion. i said this before. i mean it sincerely. i hope people don't take it from me. sit down and look at your own tax situation, plug in the changes that we are making here, and find out if you come out better or worse than you are today. but i will tell you that if you look at the average family of four with a combined annual income of $73,000, you're going to see -- they are going to see a $2,200 tax cut.

$2,200 tax cut is what your average family of four making $73,000 in this country is going to see. what does that represent to them? that's a 60% reduction, a 60% tax cut relative to what they are paying today under current law. so by reforming the tax code, putting in place the changes that we are putting in place, average family of four, combined annual income of $73,000 sees a $2,200 tax cut or about a 60% reduction over what they are paying today. now, why does that happen? well, it happens because we are making some changes that provide significant relief in the tax code relative to families when they file their taxes. the first, of course, is we double the standard deduction. the standard deduction is the amount that people can deduct from their income right away

from their adjusted gross income in which they lower the amount which is actually taxable to start with. so the standard deduction under our legislation for both married couples and those who are filing singles, they actually get a doubling of the standard deduction. the second thing that our bill does which dramatically reduces if you're raising kids the tax burden that you will share, that you will have, is we double the child tax credit, which under current law is $1,000 per child. well, under the legislation, that will double to $2,000 per child. the other thing that we do is we lower rates. we've got significant rate reduction through all the different brackets in the code. the combination of a doubling of the standard deduction, doubling of the child tax credit, and the lowering of rates means that middle-income families are going to pay less in taxes. and so we think that we have found the right balance in designing a bill that delivers

tax relief to hardworking middle incofamilies -- middle-income families in this country. at the same time we are reforming the business side of our tax code in a way that unleashes our economy, unleashes those job creators, and a lot of that investment that's been sitting on the sidelines and allows our small businesses, our larger businesses to expand their operations. and as they do that, to have to hire more workers and pay those workers higher wages. we think this is a -- the combination of those features of this bill make this a very, very -- a bill that's very, very beneficial, i would say, to middle-income families in this country. so those are just a few of the features of the bill that lead to, as i said earlier, mr. president, an average tax cut for a typical family of four of $2,200 or about a 60% reduction over what they are currently paying. so as we have listened to the debate from the other side, they

have attacked it as being tax cuts for the rich. they have attacked it for being rushed out here. they attacked it for being a windfall to corporations. it's very predictable. there's nothing new in these arguments. i've been around here long enough to know that you can pretty much know in advance what the other side is going to say. but in this case, these argumentses simply -- arguments simply don't comport with reality. they don't fit the facts. they don't fit the data. now, with respect to the issue who pays, we pay a lot of attention and we should to tax burdens in this country. and one of the things that this legislation that we will be passing today does is it maintains in the current law progressivity in our tax code. we have the most progressive tax code, i would argue, in all the world. so what this does -- and we paid very close attention to this to make sure the tax burden, when this is all said and done, doesn't change very much from

where it is today. so the people with different income groups, income categories continue to pay similar burdens to what they are paying today. so what this shows, mr. president, is that those in the $20,000 to $50,000 category today pay about 4.3% of the entire tax burden. taxes collected in this country, people between $20,000 and $50,000 pay about 4.3%. under our legislation, that will go down to 4.1%. those in the $50,000 to $100,000 category, those who are earners in that group today pay about 16.9% of all the taxes collected. that's their share of the tax burden. under this legislation, that, too, would go down to 16.7%. so again a slight reduction in the overall tax burden relative to what they have today. those making $100,000 or more actually will see their taxes tick up a little bit. not a lot but a little bit.

they're currently paying 78.7% of the tax burden in this country. they'll go up to 78.9%. so those at $100,000 or more, almost are paying about almost 80% of all the taxes that are paid or collected in this country today and that number is very similar to what it would be up a little bit. but that's really the only category that is going to pay morell tif to -- more relative to what they are paying today. to me that is a demonstration clearly of how when we went through this process, we committed to ensuring that there was fairness in the code and that we paid attention to the tax burden to ensure that people continue to pay their fair share and that particularly those in those upper income categories pay their fair share. so all that to say that when this is said and done, because another argument has been made by our colleagues on the other side which is interesting to me because it's a revelation to many of us that awed of -- that all of a sudden they're concerned about deficits, that

somehow this will blow up the deficit. we did allow for a net tax cut in this. there's about $5.5 trillion of tax cuts overall, about $4 trillion of which is offset by what we call base broadenners or killing and getting rid of preferences and loopholes in the deductions in the code, the balance of which will be made up through economic growth. now, there are debates about how much growth will occur in the economy, but you think it is fair to say that this is going to grow the economy. even the joint committee on tax acres which uses numbers that are, to me, inaccurate, it is hard to believe that our economy is not going to grow over 1.9% over the next decade. but that's what they assume. if we can continue to build on our growth, we will more than pay f. for and have lots of revenue left over when this is all said and done. if you assume modest amounts of economic growth, about .3% of

additional growth in the economy per year, it more than covers what we're talking about here in terms of the shortfall of foregone revenue associated with this tax legislation. so, mr. president, we have a bill that's based upon reasonable assumptions about growth. we have a bill that if our economy really does pick up -- and i believe it will if we put the right policies in place that encourage investment, attract investment into this country, and provide the right incentives for businesses to expand their operations -- we'll see an entirely new economy where 1.9% growth, which has become the normal for too many people -- there are too many people in this country that don't knee know anything but 1 .9% -- we can do so much better than that. this is eric in. we ought to be able to -- this is america. we ought to be able to get up to that 3%, 3moi 5% growth rate.

we'll have higher wages and bigger paychecks. i hope we can get a yes vote later on today and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the motion. 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 that would like to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 43, the nays are 57. the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that there now be 30 minutes equally divided for debate only with no amendments or motions in order and the majority leader be recognized at the conclusion of time that. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object . the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: colleagues, the senate is looking at making

$10 trillion of changes in tax policy on the fly. the biggest change in federal income tax policy in more than three decades. legislation that will determine our country's economic future for a generation. and at this time, the senate does not have the language the senate will be voting on. my colleagues have been saying that they are out looking for it and i'd like to ask the distinguished majority leader -- i have a couple of questions. when will the senate be able to actually see the full text of this legislation? mr. mcconnell: i say to my friend to oregon, it will be in

plenty of time for him to read it. mr. wyden: again, through the chair, we're talking about complicated material. we're talking about extraordinarily difficult, technical issues under the best of circumstances and while i respect the majority leader to just be told we'll have plenty of time to read it, what i can say coming on the fact that we didn't have a single hearing on the actual legislation, nothing with regard to specifics, i think on this side of the aisle we have a right to some sense of when we will actually be able to see this. it strikes me as a reasonable and pretty straightforward request given the fact that the

american people have been kept in the dark about this for so long. so, again, i respectfully ask the majority leader when will it be possible to see the text of this bill? mr. mcconnell: there were four days of hearings in the committee. the report has been out at least two weeks. i'm totally confident our friends on the other side are fully familiar with almost all aspects of this and the final version he'll certainly have an opportunity to read, but he's very familiar with the various parts of this. he had plenty of time to look at it in committee, and as i said, there will be plenty of time to read the final version of it before the vote. mr. wyden: further reserving my right to object. i know that on the other side there have been discussions of

scores and scores of hearings, i would say to the distinguished majority leader, there was not one single hearing, not one, on the specifics with respect to this legislation. there was not one single hearing on the health changes that the majority seeks to make to put a dagger into the heart of the affordable care act. so i will ask my colleague once more and if we don't get a sense of what time we're actually going to see this bill, i intend to object yect. -- object. mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: reserving my right to object. i'm not sure what meeting i sat through for 12 hours about two weeks ago where we essentially litigated each aspect of this

legislation. i'm not sure where we've been for the last several years as we've had over the last five or six years several dozen hearings. the reality of this legislation is every facet of it is something that we've discussed. there's not a new part to the legislation. yes, we fused it together over time, there's no doubt about that. but to sit here and say that we have not had opportunities in the finance committee to hear the facets of the bill is just disingenuous. mr. wyden: would my colleague yield? mr. scott: certainly. mr. wyden: could my colleague tell me when the hearing was held in the health changes envisioned in this legislation? mr. scott: it is not a secret

that our party and this body has been working on health care for ten years. so anybody who doesn't appreciate the individual mandate and its effect in our bill takes nothing at all away from anybody who needs a subsidy, anyone who wants to continue coverage. it does not have a single letter in there about preexisting conditions or any actual health feature. what our plan does on the individual mandate is good news for the average american. here it is -- here's the good news for every american. they ought to hear it loud and clear. 80% of the folks who are punished by the individual mandate -- 80% of those folks live in a household of less than $50,000 of income, a third of those folks live in a household of less than $25,000. therefore, benefit of our actions is to set folks free

from being penalized for doing nothing. mr. wyden: would my colleague continue to yield? just one moment. would my colleague yield for a question? i believe i have the floor. the presiding officer: is there objection to the pending -- mr. wyden: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request? mr. wyden: it's my intention, mr. president, to come back every 30 minutes until we get an answer to the question. i just asked my colleague from south carolina was there a hearing on the sweeping changes

that were -- that are being proposed in this bill, the affordable care act. i ask him for a date. he said nothing with respect to the date. mr. president, we'll be back in 30 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request? without objection, so ordered. there will be now 30 minutes of debate. the gentleman is recognized. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. just on the matter that was just being discussed, i'm on the finance committee. there has not been a hearing on this bill, not a single hearing. a markup is not a hearing. people might say, why is that a big deal? why is that relevant? because a hearing is an opportunity for the american people to say whether they want this bill or not. a hearing is an opportunity for an economist to come to the senate and say whether they want this bill or not. a markup just like the other stuff around here is a chance for senators to say what's on

their mind, not for the american people to be able to say what's on their mind. and that's what i'm thinking about today. i wanted to start my remarks with a little bit of a history lesson because this chamber seems to forget what it has sa said, where it has been and it's only if you had a case of terrible amnesia that you could support this legislation. when bill clinton left the white house, he left his successor a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. that's what george bush inherited when he became president. and the senate was actually having hearings about what to do with the surplus and whether that surplus constituted some sort of threat to the economy. that's what he left behind. then george bush with this congress cut taxes in 2001. didn't pay for those tax cuts. didn't need to because they

would pay for themselves. that's what they said. it's exactly what they're saying today. it's exactly what they're saying today. then in 2003, mr. president, they passed another tax cut and they didn't pay for it. but they said it would pay for itself. and incredibly, the 2003 tax cut came after we had invaded iraq under pretext by that administration. and not only did we never ask the american people to pay for those wars, we cut their taxes and put the burden on their children. and, mr. president, that supply side economics which is exactly the same movie that we're seeing today resulted in the worst recession since the great depression.

we had a 10% unemployment rate when barack obama became president of the united states. and guess what else we had? a $1.5 trillion deficit. not a $5.6 trillion surplus. a $1.5 trillion deficit because of two unpaid wars, because of two tax cuts that weren't paid for that were going to pay for themselves, and because they passed something called medicare part d, the prescription drug program for seniors that they didn't pay for. and the minute barack obama became president, they said it was his deficit. and they wouldn't lift a finger to help working people in america who had lost their jobs in the worst recession since the great depression brought on by

their own economic policies and by the recklessness of some of the largest banks in this country. they wouldn't lift a finger. then minority leader mitch mcconnell said in 2011 -- this is in 2011 -- he said now we've reached a point where our deficits and debts are so large, they're suffocating job growth, threatening the wider economy, and imperiling entitlements. that's -- a recession we had not seen since the great depression. and when barack obama left office, the deficit was about $550 billion. today it's $660 billion and as a result of this plan, jpmorgan is telling us yesterday i guess or the day before, this will be the largest nonrecession caused

deficit in our history since world war ii. what a disgrace. and for what? to give taxes to the wealthiest people in america? this is an unusual thing to do, but i'm putting up the republicans' chart. this is their chart. the senator from pennsylvania is on the floor. this is their chart where they're telling my farmers and ranchers in rural colorado that they should be satisfied with these percentages they're giving them. these rate cuts they're giving them. you can't eat percentages. you can't feed your family on rate cuts. you can't run your farm or your ranch. do they think they're not going to get figured out, mr. president? colorado's republicans are too smart for this bill. they are too smart for this bill. so are colorado's democrats and

independents. because unlike us, they actually have to worry about the next generation of americans. that's all they do. and they know our politics is not up to that. it is not up to the aspirations they have for their kids and for their grandkids. and no piece of legislation could illustrate how right they are than this piece of legislation and the -- used to sell it. this is a middle-class tax cut. this hurts the rich like me. no, it doesn't. and what people are concerned about and what they will be concerned about is their after-tax income as a result of the changes that are being made. and this is the best year, mr. president. i didn't bring out the worst year. this is 2019. this is what you're going to be getting, folks. it's great if you're up here, if you're making more than a million dollars.

where, by the way, i have not met a person -- and i was in business before i came here, mr. president -- not a person in my old work life who says that they got cash flow problems that this tax cut is going to help them with. i know a lot of people in colorado and i bet you in arkansas and i bet you in pennsylvania that are still struggling because middle-class family incomes have been flat for 20 years and the cost of housing, higher ed, early childhood education and health care are forcing them to make choices that their parents and grandparents never had to make for their kids. what a shame to be taking health care away from 13 million people in this bill instead of trying to make the system better. this bill rejects all the testimony that we had in hearing after hearing on the health, education, and labor committee. this is my final slide, mr.

president. this is the math of this bill. this bill takes $34 billion a year, not one year, a year, $34 billion in thax -- in tax cut as year and gives it to 572,000 taxpayers. you can't even see that you can't see it on the tv. it looks like a pencil line because that's the scale. that's how few people that is in our economy. 572,000 people getting $34 billion. if you include the estate tax which i didn't here, mr. president, it's $39 billion. it's $40 billion going to families that are lucky enough to make more than a million dollars a year. this is -- these are the taxpayers who make $50,000 or less in our economy.

there are 90 million of them, not 572,000. there are 90 million of them. they get $14 billion out of this bill. that's an average tax cut of $160. $7.50. these aren't talking points. this is the math that is at the heart of the deal that the republicans have said is a middle-class tax cut. you know what's even worse about it? just like the 2001 tax cut, just like the 2003 tax cut, they're not paying for it. they are borrowing the money from middle-class families all over the country, from the sons and daughters of teachers and firefighters and police office officers. that's who's going to have to pay back that bill. and for what? to end poverty in america? no. to invest in infrastructure or health care or to strengthen our

safety net? no. to fritter it away on $34 billion worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest people in america. i want to close just by saying this. i would never ever before i got here nine years ago have believed that something this cynical could happen on the floor of the senate. i wouldn't have believed it. and colleagues of mine who said for years this is all just about getting to cuts to medicare and social security, medicaid, i would say no, it's not. people care about this. they want to shore up our fiscal condition. i was wrong. they were right. this is about that. and that's what they're going to come back here and do. and it's going to be really hard to withstand with -- to withsta.

president trump the last ten years around here, since we were trying to fight out of the worst recession since the great depression, which we did, by the way, in the name of fiscal responsibility we had fiscal cliffs. in the name of fiscal responsibility we had government shutdowns. in the name of fiscal responsibility, we passed 30 temporary budgets that no school district in colorado could get away with once. and have we managed to restore our fiscal health? no. have we piled on more debt for our kids and grandkids? yeah. and that's what's going to happen here. but it's no wonder when we elected a president, somebody who told the american people and was nominated by the republican party and elected by the united states of america, president trump promised that he would eliminate our debt, quote, over a period of eight years. that he'd deliver, quote, a

giant, beautiful, massive tax cut. that was for the forgotten man, unless if people make over a million dollars are the forgotten man, he didn't deliver that. one of the largest increases in defense spending in american history while saying, quote, i'm not growing to cut social security and i'm not going to cut medicare or medicaid. there is a job that every american has to do for the next generation of americans. and that is to leave more opportunity, not less to the people that are coming after us. and, mr. president, with this bill, it has been so falsely described and written in such a way that actually denies the middle class in america the benefits that it would really use and does so by putting a bunch more debt on the backs of their children is something this

senate should reject. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. toomey: mr. president, i'm going to be brief. i'm going to yield to my colleague from south carolina. i think our colleague from south dakota has a few comments. i want to respond to my colleague from colorado some of the points that he made. first, i want to thank him for bringing out our chart. and what our chart illustrates is that every category of income earners in america gets a tax cut under our plan. and that the biggest cuts in -- thanks. i appreciate that. if you look towards the left of the chart you see, that the biggest reductions go to the people in the lowest income categories and a percentage term. my colleague said percentages don't matter. percentages don't matter. so i'm a little bit confused because it seems to me that i think they do matter. i'll give an example.

under our tax plan, our tax reform, and our working class and middle klaas tax cuts -- middle-class tax cuts, the average single head of household, a single mom who is the head of a household, has one child and earns the average income, $41,000, that doesn't make her a millionaire, not typically, $41,000, she's going to have a $1,400 tax cut. that's a 75% tax cut for her. now maybe our colleague from colorado thinks that percentage doesn't matter. i think it probably matters to her, a 75% reduction in the taxes she has to pay probably matters to her, probably pretty helpful. or you could take the case of a family of four that earns the median national income -- that's $73,000. they, on average, will have a $2,200 tax cut. that's a 60% tax cut. so i am at a loss for why that

doesn't matter to that family? i think it matters a l i think that family can do lot with $2,200. the fact is our bill lowers taxes on every category of income earner, and the proportionate share is greatest for the lowest income earners. this is good for working americans and middle-class americans, and i'd yield to my colleague from -- mr. scott: thank you, senator. here is what i also find astonishing. as we have been talking about this for a number of months -- frankly, for years we have been talking about tax reform. since 1986 we have been talking about tax reform. our plan removes millions of low-income americans from having to pay taxes. i think it's interesting that our friends to the left -- i think their argument is sincere but wrong -- misses the fact that if you are living in a

single-payer household with a mother or father working paycheck to paycheck, getting another $100 a month is real money. why are we not talking about the actual benefits to the specific people that benefit from this tax reform? when senator toomey talks about the typical american family seeing their taxes slashed by 60%, why is that specific saving of $2,200 not meaningful -- perhaps transformative -- savings that allows someone now to save for college, save for retirement? this, to me, is where the rubber meets the road. yes, here on the other side of the potomac it is okay to talk

in platitudes. i prefer to talk to individuals about the impact of our actions in their households, the impact of our actions in their accounts, and it is a very simple way of doing the math. you do not -- do not -- have to pull out a calculator. 75% savings for the average single parent who makes $41,000. and the reason why we use $41,000 is that is the average income of a single head of household. the reason why we use $73,000 is that is the typical american family's income. so when we're talking about the benefits, we're talking about real people, people like sheri back in south carolina, single parent, two kids, trying to

start a business, struggling to keep her ends together, believing that someone somewhere sees her, that the decision-makers in washington don't see her as invisible or unimportant. i'm not talking about tax philosophy. i'm talking about real people who need their money more than the government does. and if we're going to talk about tax cuts and tax revenues, let us be clear that had from the 1920's during the melon tax cuts that slashed the high rate from 70% down to the 20%, revenues

went up. under the kennedy administration, we cut taxes and tax revenues went up to the government from those cohorts where we cut it. so what we have is a history -- our friends on the other side said there's no actual history. well, there is history that proves that in the cohorts where the bracket -- the brackets where the cuts occur we can demonstrate that the revenues have increased. i yield to the senator from south dakota. a senator: mr. president? how much time is left on our side? the presiding officer: eight and a half minutes on the majority side. two and a half on the democratic side, and the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. bennet: i don't want to get in the way of my friend from south dakota, so i just would

answer -- i'm sorry -- my friend from south carolina for whom i have tremendous respect. that nothing i said was about anything other than real people and the real people in colorado are going to be able to do this math. and they're going to know what it says. it is .1%, .2%. those 1920's you mentioned ended up with them the worst depression since the beginning of the country. we had the worst income inequality in 1928 than we had had. and guess when the next time that happened -- when george bush handed over the keys to barack obama. and that has not been fixed. it is being made worse by this plan. the final point, if you got this much conviction at least you could pay for it. it would be nice for you to pay for it. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. scott: i will say to my

good friend from colorado -- the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: -- my friend from colorado, who we are having a spirited debate and we're diametrically opposed on the issue, we do have some common ground on other issues that we are working together on. i appreciate your passion and i know you are sincere. i will tell you that there is a truth that is truth that is perhaps missing from the conversation. and it is simply this. if you don't control spending, you can't raise enough revenue to keep up. so when you look back at the cataclysmic occurrence throughout history, one thing you'll find very quickly, is even with more ref lieu knew -- with more revenue, in your spending outpaces your revenue, you will find yourself in a challenging predicament. mr. thune: mr. president, our country has always been about opportunity. the american dream is the hope that your kids and grandkids, those that come after you, will have a better life than what you've had. one of the ways we do that is we get a growing, expanding economy

that creates better-paying jobs, more opportunity, and higher wages. when you get higher wages, you improve that standard of living, you improve that quality of life, and that's what americans aspire to. that's what every american family -- mom and dad -- aspires to for their kids and those thor going to come after them. -- and those who are going to come after them. and i would say, mr. president, to our colleagues on the other said, who, like said, have a newfound interest in deficits and debt, that one of the ways that you deal with deficits and debt is to grow the economy. when you get an expanding economy that's creating better-paying jobs, more people are working, more people are investing, more people are taking realizations and more people are paying taxes, and what history has shown is that when you have a vibrant, growing economy, you get more government revenue. and of course the official scorekeepers, whether you use the congressional budget office or the joint committee on taxation, all agree on what that

-- that you are geek get more revenue when you get more growth in the economy. there might be a slight difference of opinion on how much. c.b.o. says that for every .1 of 1%, you see an additional $273 million generated over a decade. almost $3 trillion for every percentage point increase in gross domestic product. but if you want to get serious about dealing with america's physical icle problems, you've got to restrain spending, which there hasn't been much appetite around here, but you also have to get the economy growing and expanding. that's what this exercise, what we're going through here, really is all about. because 2% growth isn't good enough. 2% growth is not and should not be the new normal for the american economy. but that's what we've had for the last eight years. during president obama's entire time in office, we didn't have a single year -- not one year --

where the g.d.p. was more than 3%, not one year. and if you go back historically, literally the end of worl worldr ii, and roll forward to today, the average in the american economy has been 3% to 3.5%. but not a single year in the last eight years where we had 3% growth in the commitment o -- i. what does that mean? that means without that kind of businesses are not expanding, they're not invetting, they're the no hiring new workers, paying those workers more and you end up with flat wages. and we have had literally a decade of flat wages where american families and individuals aren't seeing any groth in their income. -- any growth in their income. what we hope to see accomplished through all of this, the taxes made in the tax code will increase investment through lowering rates on businesses, allowing them to recover their cost of business faster, accelerating their cost recovery. those are changes -- those are reforms in our tax code that

will help unleash this economy and get us back closer to normal where we're creating those good-paying jobs and then we can start doing something at the same time about spending around here and we'll start seeing those deficits go down because the best thing that can happen for the american economy, the best thing that can happen for the american family, the best thing that can happen for the american worker is a growing, vibrant economy. and to my colleagues on the other side who consistently get up and say that there is no benefit to this delivered to middle-income families in this country, again, i will say what's already been said by my colleague from south carolina and from pennsylvania that, look at the typical family of four with a combined annual income of $73,000 who under this tax cut bill will receive a tax cut of $2,200, a 60% reduction over what they are paying today under current law. that is what that average family of four will see. now, maybe in colorado, the senator from colorado said he

doesn't think -- doesn't believe that colorado republicans are for this. i will tell you who is going to be for this -- the people, the families who get the $2, 200 tx cut. you heard my colleague talk about the family that lives paycheck to paycheck, or that single mom that wants a better future for her kids. and how do we help them? one of the ways we help them to reduce the burden, the take that their government takes from them every single year and allow them to keep more in their pocket. let's give them a big paycheck, let them decide how to spend the money. that's a fundamental difference we've had around here for a long time. we come here believing that the way you help families is to allow the american people to make decisions that nuclear their best interests -- that are in their best interests about how want to save for retirement, how they want to help their kids, how they want to improve their lives rather than spending the money to washington, d.c.

that's fundamentally the difference i think that we're talking about here. but as to the arguments that have been made by the other side, they just aren't based on facts. the data tells a different story. the senator from pennsylvania pointed out -- you look at the chart, look at the percentage of tax cuts. who benefits? we worked very, very hard in this bill to maintain progressivity in the task code so that -- in the tax code so we have relief delivered to those hardworking american taxpayers that need a break, that are living paycheck to paycheck and honestly i hope when this is all said and done, mr. president, that not only will we be able to pass this bill, but maybe we'll get a few democrats who might decide that this is in the best interest of their constituents to help their families and their states realize more income in their pockets, bigger paychecks, and hopefully an opportunity to

live out their version of the american dream for them and for their kids and for their grandkids. that's what the american experience and the american freedom is really all about. we make more and more here in washington, d.c. that means that that american family has less to help themselves and their families and to plan for their future. so time has expired -- mr. wyden: how much time remains on our side, mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority controls one minute. the democrats control a minute and a half. mr. wyden: thank you. i'll yield to senator casey for a unanimous consent request and then i'll take our minute and a half. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent that rachel mckinnon of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 115th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: we have just a minute and a half. the hour is late.

and i want to repeat once again, we still do not have this bill. we have seen apparently in the last few hours tax changes that involve billions and billions of dollars. the american people have a right to know what is in this proposal. and certainly we on this side of the aisle have a right to know about it. i'm struck by the comments of my colleagues on the other side. it's as if i'm learning the facts about what the joint committee on taxation had to say about the republican proposal, 0.8% growth, $1 trillion short in spending has had absolutely no effect on the discussion that we're having from the republican side. i see my friend, the distinguished majority leader, here. and i believe he'll propound a unanimous consent request.

as he knows, i'll have another reservation and we will discuss this some more. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent there now be 30 minutes equally divided for debate only with no amendments or motions in order and with the majority leader being recognized at the conclusion of that time. and --. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

is there objection to the majority leader's unanimous consent request? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object. mr. president, i understand that we are going to get from the majority their proposal shortly. i come back again to the fact that there are changes apparently worth billions and billions of dollars, like the pass-through provisions. we need to be able to see these. the american people have a right to know. so i believe the majority has indicated that we will get this shortly, and i withdraw my reservation and will point out that if we don't get it shortly i'm going to stay at my post and we're just going to keep objecting because the american people have a right to know that tax policy is being made in the dark. the presiding officer: without objection,so ordered. who yields time?

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. i just want to talk about the importance of passing this tax reform legislation for the people of colorado. what we have is an opportunity to see real wage growth in this country, something we haven't seen for far too long. over the past decade i think people who are on both sides of the aisle have recognized that while there may be some economic job activity creation, job creation taking place, while we might see some low economic -- see some low unemployment numbers in states like colorado, what we haven't seen is the kind of wage growth that we know that we can create. under the analysis done by nonpartisan think tanks in colorado, they estimate wages would grow after-tax income by over $3,000. that's incredible wage growth for families that many people estimate, other economists have said could see a financial hardship if they were asked to come up with $400. in fact, we know that over a

third of the american society, people in america today, if they have to come up with $400 today, it would create a financial crisis in their household. and you heard numbers today from our colleagues from pennsylvania, our colleague from south dakota talking about the fact that a family earning the median income of $73,000 would see a 60% reduction in their taxes next year. a single parent with a child earning $41,000 a year seeing a 75% tax cut as a result. let me read you a headline from a story in colorado. the headline of this article says how tax reform could empower this drive-in theater owner to expand her business. what she's talking about is the fact that if she sees lower taxes at the 88 drive-in, an iconic drive in in commerce city, colorado, if you see this drive-in, iconic in the

landscape, she believes if she has lower taxes she's going to be able to move forward to buy the property next door which will allow her to expand her business. she talks about the fact that she has to turn people away because so many people are going to it, they don't have enough room. she wants to expand but she's held back by our uncompetitive tax code. if we cut taxes she's going to be able to buy land, expand the business, create more jobs, greater opportunity for her, her family, and the people of colorado. so this really is an opportunity to see the kind of economic growth and wage growth that we have not seen in this country for far too long. i've held several roundtables on taxes throughout the eastern plains of colorado where i live. people who are worried about the income they have because they haven't seen the kind of economic growth, the numbers in employment grow like they have in the front range in denver, held tax roundtables in the western slope of colorado, northern colorado, they are all worried about they see a country not as competitive as it used to be and they know with the competitive tax code they can

see those jobs come back, investment come back into this country once again. people in pueblo, colorado, know that they need jobs brought back into their community because while many areas of colorado see very low unemployment rates, they haven't seen the same kind of growth as other areas have. they know with a competitive tax code that brings jobs from overseas, brings back money from overseas, that will provide real relief to a single parent with a child at home, that family of four working hard to make ends meet, they're going to pay less taxes next year as a result and they are going to be able to spend the money the way they want to in pueblo, colorado. to put it into an investment that they want to in brighton, colorado. an investment somebody in tregg, colorado wants to have. they want the money they should invest it the way they want to, not the way people in washington, d.c. want. it is my colleagues who oppose this bill.

we talked about the opportunities for the american people to see real wage growth. this bill does it. we talked about the opportunity to bring jobs back from overseas. this bill does it. we talked about the opportunity to get businesses hiring again and expanding, nonpartisan estimates show this bill would create nearly a million jobs. new jobs created by this bill. it's a great opportunity for us. i want to thank the people who have worked so hard on this bill, my colleagues from south dakota, pennsylvania, and others. and, mr. president, i would yield back my time. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i rise to talk about a subject matter that this bill deals with that we're not hearing a lot about. i wanted to start, though, with the basics in terms of the overall debate. i've said many times in the last number of days and weeks when

we've viewferred the house proposal, when we reviewed the senate proposal that was voted on the senate finance committee before thanksgiving, i described the senate bill as a giveaway to the super rich and big multinational corporations. i still believe that. i hope when we see the new version of the bill, i hope i don't have to say that again. but i'm afraid i will. i'm afraid that when we look at the, some of the data on what the tax impact would be on certain income brackets in the united states, even starting in the first year where the analysis starts, 2019 -- i'm looking at page 3 of a report by the tax policy center dated november 20 based upon the senate bill. in that year, calendar year, tax year i should say, 2019,

the table, table number 1, focuses on three income categories. folks making between $50,000 and $87,000. folks making between about $310,000 and $750,000. and then others making above $750,000. so basically the top 1%. but here's what they find. the tax policy center tells us that the first group, the folks making, the families i should say making $50,000 to $87,000 would receive an average tax cut of about $900 or 1.4% of after-tax income. the next group, the $310,000 income to $750,000, they get a tax benefit which amounts to about $12,000, 3.5%. and the top 1%, $750,000 and

up, they're getting a tax break of $34,000, or 2.2%. probably the most significant numbers in there are by way of comparison, aren't necessarily the dollar amounts, although i would ask why does the top 1% need $34,000 in 2019. i don't think that's, that that should be part of our legislation. i'd like to see all of the tax benefits for the top 1% go to the middle, and those trying to get to the middle. but let's do the comparison. in the first year, in the first year in terms of these families families, $50,000, $87,000, they get 1.4%. the folks making between $310,000 and $750,000, they get 3.5, more than two full percentage points higher. why is that? why do people making $300,000 to $750,000 get a much bigger

percentage tax cut than people making $50,000 to $87,000? then the third category is the top 1%, they get 2.2%. so i have problems with this legislation just based upon that. why does the top 1% need one more penny? why do very wealthy people who may not be quite top 1% but they are the 95th to 99th% percentile why do they need a tax break? and guess what? it doesn't get any better down the road. i'm not talking about 2027 where it's cataclysmic for families in the middle. let's talk about before that. it's still bad. it's still 3% by comparison for the very wealthy, people making up to $750,000. the top 1% is still getting 2.1%. but the income category between

$50,000 and $87,000 gets 1.2% of the tax cut. they're getting worse in 2025. why is that? as my colleague from, the senior senator from colorado shows on that chart, why do people making more than $1 million need $34 billion in one year? i don't understand it. but let me focus in particular on part of the debate we really haven't had much discussion about. the impact of this tax bill, maybe the only substantial effort that will be made on tax reform for years if not decades. we know that the last time any kind of major tax reform was done was 1986. so three decades have passed since the last tax reform effort. so this is a critically important moment not just for

taxpayers, not just for the economy, not just for families generally, but especially for children. and a bill of this significance, a bill of this impact, one major question should be asked among many. what will be the impact on children? what is the child impact statement if we were to draft one, if we had to articulate that? what's the child impact, or the impact on children of this legislation? well, there are a lot of, a lot of organizations around the country that pay attention to public policy as it relates to children. i'm looking at a letter here dated november 28, signed by a long list of child organizations that advocate on behalf of children, and i'll just read some of the headlines from this letter. the first headline says the senate tax plan threatens

child-care programs in funding for the future. the second major headline says the senate tax bill's proposal to cut the affordable care act will harm children's health and well-being. the next headline says the child tax credit proposals in the senate tax bill would not help families who struggle to pay for child care. the the next headline says that the senate tax bill also takes away other tax benefits that ordinary families rely upon. mr. president, i would ask consent to enter this letter into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: so that's just one brief assessment of the impact of this legislation on children, but i think that should be a question that we ask of every major piece of legislation. mr. wyden: would my friend from pennsylvania yield? mr. casey: yes. mr. wyden: i don't remember any

discussion in our committee about how this specific legislation affects children. now, my colleague is really the expert on the subject, and maybe he can tell me if he recalls such a thing with respect to this specific legislation and what it means for children. i don't remember such a discussion. mr. casey: i want to say to the senior senator from oregon, that as the ranking member of the committee, he will remember, as i do, that in the course of the so-called markup, which is a fancy washington word for having some debates and offering amendments, there was no hearing -- no hearing for days on -- and there's still been no hearing, on the senate bill passed by the finance committee and the new version that we will see right now. so in the course of that discussion there were no hearings. it would have been helpful to us and to the american people if we had the major organizations come in before the finance committee

and give us testimony about the impact on children, organizations that have spent decades advocating on behalf of children, doing public policy research as it concerns children, but we didn't do that because there was no hearing. not a single hearing on the bill. there was some discussion as to tax policy experts, but nothing in the way of hearings that could probe very deeply as to what would happen to kids. i think the american people would like to know more about what would happen to the child tax credit, for example. there's been a lot of talk on the republican side about the child tax credit and that they are allegedly making it better. welshing the sean republican -- the senate republican plan does increase the maximum tax credit for children from $1,000 to $2,000 for each child. but because the bill limits refundability, a mom working

full time at minimum wage will only see an additional $75 in the tax credit while a married couple earning 5$00,000 would become newly -- $500,000 would become fully eligible. a cup making $500,000 would become newly eligible for the maximum $2,000 per child credit. according to the center on budget priority policies, ten million children live in families that would gets dz 6.25 -- $6.25 less per month in the additional chimed tax credit -- child tax credit in this bill. not much improvement in the child tax credit on maybe the only tax reform bill that this body will consider for the next 30 years. let's say it's only ten years,

wouldn't it be nice to have some testimony from experts across this country who live and breathe the work of being advocates for children, who study every bill to determine whether it impacts on children. wouldn't it be nice to have their testimony, maybe just on the child tax credit, maybe just on the child and dependent care tax credit, which is the only provision in law right now -- the only tax proiftion in law that -- provision that helps people pay for child care. ask any family what's your number one concern other than making ends meet and paying for higher education, but other than a few priorities like that, their number one concern is how to pay for child care, but there's no testimony on that issue that relates to the bill -- no testimony at all