paycheck to paycheck having a tough time making ends meet. also as a result of this and the other tax relief, about three million americans who now pay income tax are going to fall off the tax rolls and no longer going to have income tax liability. that's really meaningful to people. it also doubles the child tax credit. we talked a little about that today. it increases the refundability a little. but importantly, it helps to ensure that families have the ability to help make ends meet when they're trying to raise kids, the most important thing you can do. and it lowers tax rates. and that combination means that you have the kind of tax relief we're talking about. for a family making $50,000 a year, two kids, 36% tax cut. a family making $85,000 a year, two kids, 20% tax cut. if you make $165,000 a year, two kids, you get an 8% tax cut. the benefit is focused more on

those who are at the lower end of the economic scale, and i think that's appropriate. so it's middle-class tax relief but here's how it works. the share of federal taxes paid in 2019, which is a year after this is implemented, it starts right away, by the way, so middle-class families are going to get that relief right away. currently is in the red and then our proposals in the blue. if you make, again, zero to $20,000, it's very unlikely that you have income tax liability. but some families do and the average is .1%. if you make $20,000 to $50,000 a year, your share of federal taxes goes down from 4.3% to 4.1%, in our bill. if you make $50,000 to $100,000, your share of the federal taxes goes from 6.9% to 6.7%. if you make $100,000 or above, your share goes not down. it goes up.

from 78.7% to 78.9%. the top percent of wage earners in this country, earners, top 10% pay approximately 70% of the income taxes right now. after our bill is passed and implemented, they will pay more than 70%. so it is a progressive tax cut in that sense that the benefit is focused more on middle-class families who really need the help. that's what the legislation does. in addition to that, in responding to my colleagues who were talking about, gosh, you know, is there any economic growth that comes from this, yes, there's a lot of economic growth because the current code is so bad, it's broken. and my colleague from oregon who is the ranking member agrees with that. he has a different solution as to how you get there. but he has been a leader on tax reform for that very reason. the current code is actually putting our workers at a

disadvantage, making our families have to go through a very complicated process even to file their taxes. more than half of taxpayers now if they use a tax preparer, that's terrible. so this legislation does also provide economic growth by taking that tax code which has this perverse effect of actually telling u.s. companies it's better that they have workers overseas and take their investment overseas or even become a foreign company. 4,700 companies that are foreign companies today became foreign companies over the last 13 years because we didn't have this tax code in place. that's based on an ernst & young study. i encourage folks to take a look at it. it basically makes the point that because of a broken tax code, it is advantageous for u.s. companies to take their jobs and investment overseas. that makes no sense. foreign companies can pay a premium for u.s. companies

because of our tax code. we have the highest business tax rate in the industrialized world and we have an international system that encourages people to go overseas and keep their money overseas. that's crazy. this proposal changes all that. it says let's get our rate down below the average of the other industrialized countries and then let's have an international system that encourages them to bring the money back and create more jobs here. in fact, mr. president, i will say something else. it also encourages for an investment in this country because if you are a foreign auto company and you've got a bunch in your state in tennessee and your decision is am i going to invest in japan where they might be headquartered, am i going to invest in china where they might have a factory or am i going to invest in the united states of america and maybe in tennessee, this bill will make it more advantageous for them to make their investment here and to create the jobs here because of the lower tax rate and because of the expensing when

they go out to buy new equipment and technology to make their workers more productive. this is going to help american companies a lot to be able to compete globally. it levels the playing field, which is very important and has been bipartisan up to now. very bipartisan. we had a working group on this, five working groups, bipartisan working groups that were established two years ago that studied this issue and we came up with a solution that you've got to get the rate below the average and you've got to go to the kind of system we're talking about. it was totally bipartisan. the democrats and republicans alike glead to it because it just makes so much sense for the american worker. they are the ones getting the short end of the stick right now. they are the ones who are told you go out there and compete but do it with one hand tied behind your back. we need to give them the tools to be able to concealed and that's what this legislation does. and, yes, that is going to result in middle-class families getting benefits well beyond, in my view, the direct tax cuts we talked about earlier because

it's going to enable them to be able to get the higher wages and the better jobs. and that's why some economists have said it's $4,000 a family. some have said it's more. many democrats think it's less. but there will be a benefit to these families. remember these companies we're talking about, the c corporations, they employ more than half of the american private workforce. they are competing every day in these global marketplaces. we want them to win. we want our workers to win because we want them to be able to have higher wages and better benefits. we spent two decades with relatively weak economic growth and therefore relatively flat wages. in fact, on an inflation adjusted basis over the last 15 years there hasn't been new wage growth. there have been higher expenses, especially health care, and those health care costs, tuition costs for those who want to send their kids to school, or other costs -- food, energy -- those have all gone up. wages have been flat. that's a middle-class squeeze.

and that's what this middle-class tax relief helps to address. and importantly, that's what this pro-growth part helps to address because you're going to see higher wages and you're going to see better benefits if you give this kind of tax relief to the american worker because you're going to see more investment. you're going to see more productivety that comes from that and you're going to see higher wages. i believe that but what i believe isn't as important as what others believe. 137 economists, many of these are nationally known economists, have looked at the pro-growth parts of this legislation, the parts i'm talking about that makes us competitive again, and they have said economic growth will accelerate if this legislation passes, leading to more jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living for the american people. they say there will be a million new jobs in this country just because of this. i think that's really important, as important as the tax cuts are for the middle class -- and they are important. and again, those tax cuts primarily go to folks who are in

the middle class, and that's appropriate. equally important to me is to get this economy moving in a way that people can have the opportunity to get those higher wages and better benefits. the congressional budget office did a study. it showed that 70% of the benefit of getting that corporate tax rate down is going to go to workers in terms of salaries and benefits. some say it's less than that. some say it's more than that. kevin hasset says it's more than that. the point is it's going to help these workers and it's about time that we help them. mr. president, there's been a lot of discussion about the process here tonight, and i understand the frustration. and as a member of the united states senate, you know, sometimes i feel that frustration as well. but i will say that this legislation, h.r. 1, which is the vast majority of the papers that were held up a moment ago. this is the legislation that came out of committee. it's the vast majority of the pages, has been on this website

called budget.senate.gov and been public since saturday, november 26. it's been out there awhile for members to look at. every single one of these amendments that are part of the managers amendment was talked about tonight has been publicly filed. and i think that's good. we require members, you have to file an amendment and make it public. people can go on rpc.senate.gov and see all those amendments and i think that's appropriate. i would hope that as we go through this process tonight and we talk about this legislation, we can express our differences, which we will, but we can also stick to the facts, which is this does provide middle-class tax cuts. again, those who said earlier there's no real tax cuts but then when it expires in ten years, these big tax cuts are gone. you can't have it both ways. there are tax cuts. maybe people think there should be different kinds of tax cuts

but they're there. second the economic growth element to this which to me is so important. we're not going to be able to have a growing economy and have opportunity and frankly be in a position as a country to be able to address some of our broader problems unless we have the growth and frankly the optimism that comes with that, and that's why i think the economic growth parts of this are equally important. that's been bipartisan in the past. i hope it can be bipartisan in the future. i hope we will be able as a senate tonight to pass this legislation and continue to work on these issues. not just in terms of tax reform but making our economy and our workers more competitive because that in the end is going to be the ability to give people the chance for themselves and their kids and grandkids to have a better life. mr. president, i see my colleague from pennsylvania is on the floor, and i know my colleague from oregon may have another speaker. i would yield back my time at this time. the presiding officer: who yields time?

mr. portman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: my colleague from oregon has some other speakers. i ask unanimous consent that there now be 30 minutes equally divided for debate and with the majority leader being recognized at the conclusion of that time. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i'm going to yield to my colleagues in a minute. i just think it's important to make sure that the public understands exactly what some of the facts are behind the republican proposals because my colleague from ohio just talked about how the republican proposal is going to create many

more jobs in the united states and certainly isn't going to keep the system which makes it attractive to do business overseas. yet my understanding is all the previous versions, and we are going through the 500-plus pages now, are based on territorial taxation. and i don't imagine too many folks in coffee shops are up on what territorial taxation is, but it is an express lane for shipping jobs overseas. and the fact is a number of the proposals earlier from the other side have made it more attractive to do business overseas than in the united states. now, a couple of other points -- points. my colleague said that 70% of the corporate tax reduction would go to the workers. that is not what tom bartohld

said. he said specifically he didn't see anything resembling that kind of benefit going directly to workers. he speaks a special language known as economics, but he made it clear he didn't envision anything like that. now, two other points, and then i have a question for my colleague from maryland. we still do not have an anap sis in two -- analysis in two years. one, the cost of the bill, and two, what is going to be the fate of middle-class families with respect to this new proposal? what is it going to mean for their taxes and by what amounts? so if i could engage my colleague from ohio on this.

what can we be told at this point are we going to get, if anything, with respect to an analysis of this particular bill, the 500-plus pages? will we be getting anything tonight before we vote? mr. portman: to my friend from oregon -- the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i thank the president. i was referring specifically to a c.b.o. report earlier, and you talked about the joint commission on taxation that may have different views on that. that wasn't my belief i was expressing. it was me talking about a congressional budget office report. my understanding tonight there will be the entire bill online, one, and, second, the analysis that is necessary to assure that it fits into the reconciliation instructions. mr. wyden: what analysis would it be, for example, with respect to the bill, the bill we are

going to vote on means for middle-class families? we have millions of middle-class folks who are trying to sort out what this means for them. we have just gotten a brand-new bill. so we would like to know what the new bill means with respect to the taxes paid by middle-class folks. are they going to get ahead, or as we have seen in so much of the previous iterations, fall behind, particularly after 2027? so will we get a new analysis on this new proposal that will -- we'll actually vote on with respect to what it means for middle-class families? mr. portman: will the gentleman yield? mr. wyden: of course. mr. portman: the good news, you will be glad to hear, is that the middle-class cuts continue. you will see a 36% tax cut.

if you're making 165,000 a year with two kids, you will get an 8% tax cut. that's still in the legislation. big change that we talked about earlier is that there is a deduction for property taxes. it's a $10,000 cap on that deduction. as you know, if you look at the entire salt, which is the state and local taxes and property taxes, about 50% of that benefit goes to families making over $200,000. this one is much more targeted at the middle class. i think it is fair to say to my friend from oregon you will see more middle-class tax relief from that and that will be something that will help the middle-class families. but there's no change in terms of the tax cuts because those brackets, the reduction in the tax rates, the doubling of the standard deduction and the child credit are in it.

mr. wyden: what i will say to my friend is that we don't have any evidence of that. my friend has made claims about his bill, but we don't have any evidence of it. in fact, the comment made by my colleague highlights my concern. what we have seen thus far for middle-class families after 2027, upwards of half of them would pay more in taxes. so i think rather than continue this, i would just ask my colleague to see if his side could produce an actual document, even a summary, of what this new bill is actually going to mean for middle-class families who are concerned on the base of the earlier versions about seeing their taxes go up, particularly after 2027. now, one question for my colleague from maryland, because

he has been talking about the state and local deduction which is enormously important to folks in my state, like my colleague as well. and my question is, when the first income tax was enacted in 1861, it was to finance the cost of the civil war and it included only one deduction at that time for state and local taxes and that was really composed to respect the state's ability to make their own fiscal decisions. it was the first deduction more than a century ago. does that seem like a special interest tax break compared to this list of more than 30 breaks that we have managed to excavate from various corners of k street? mr. cardin: if my colleague

would yield. mr. wyden: i would. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you. if you go over history as to how the income tax came about, it really was part of federalism. they needed the consent much the states. they had to change the constitution. it was a partnership with our states, and that is why from its inception, there's been respect for state and local taxation as a deduction from the federal income tax. this is not a special interest. this is government finance, how we finance government, and we finance government at the federal level, state level, and the local level. and if this bill becomes law, we're violating it. mr. president, if i could ask my friend from oregon to let me just have a minute more for two or three more points on this that i think is important, and that is there are effects that will take place as a result of the limitation of state and local taxes. there will be effects on the

property values. that will affect the tax base of local government. it will affect, in this bill, charitable giving. why do i say charitable giving as part of this? because i was talking to the mayor of baltimore, mayor pew, she is depending upon private groups and their generosity to deal with the problems of baltimore. it will be much more difficult for private groups to be able to get charitable contributions if this bill becomes law. so there's an impact on this that will affect the state and local governments in addition to the elimination of state and local tax deduction. if there is one more point i could make. i respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the charge they show, but it does not include the effect of the increase in the estate tax. it does not take into

consideration 13 million people who no longer are going to have health insurance, that's not taken into consideration in the charge they are showing. it doesn't take into consideration the charge that the corporation's profits that they will make as a result of these tax cuts will likely go to stock buyouts rather than helping the workers. that's not reflected. so when you take a look at all of it, and we do have some analysis that has been done that is objective, middle-class taxpayers are at a disadvantage under this bim. i thank my friend -- bill. i thank my friend from oregon. mr. wyden: i thank the senator from west virginia and connecticut have been very patient. let's yield time to the senator from west virginia. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from oregon. i don't think there is a person

more bipartisan than i am. i don't think there is a senator here that i have voted on for republican bills as i have as a democrat. i am really so frustrated that i thought we could make this place work. that was my purpose for being here. i truly did everything i possibly could. i reach out. the white house was kind enough to reach out to me. i sat down. i talked to all of the people in charge of writing this legislation from the white house. i sat down with my colleagues. i gave them some suggestions and ideas. we brought people together thinking we could find a bipartisan way. mr. president, i will tell you, this, as i have seen it unfold tonight, it is not designed to have one democrat on the bill. i want to be part of the reform. i look back at ronald reagan. he was a hero to all of us. he had 97 votes.

97 senators voted for the legislation he crafted. there were adjustments, give and take, but every time i think, well, if you have some ideas, shouldn't you at least listen to me, listen to what we think. two days ago we did a press conference. i invited all of my colleagues. i think myself and senator heitkamp and senator donnelly, i knew the three of us would show up. i had four other colleagues who wanted to be involved. i saw my good friend senator corker from tennessee asking for a few more days to look at this, and that was denied. i don't know what it will take. maybe we hit the proverbial wall. but this is the first time i know that we have done this type of major reform without having a bipartisan objective for it. not one bipartisan vote on this piece of legislation.

i have been looking, trying to, to say that people have called me today from my home and asking, what have you seen. would you like something? i said, i haven't seen that much. i'm still trying to find the bill. i promised them, i will at least tell you i will seeing is before i vote on it. i won't be able to read it but i will see it. i want to seeing is. i would love for us to take the time to sit down and work on this. i think you would be surprised. i think not only could we get to 60, we could get above 60 votes on this. i thought my democratic colleagues in 2010 that voted for the affordable care act with not one republican on it was wrong. i thought that was wrong. i understand from the history -- i wasn't here. i was a governor at that time. they tried. they went through the mawrps, they went -- markups, they went through the hearings. i don't think any major legislation that affects every

american should go through without a bipartisan -- without bipartisan votes and support. if this was designed to be a political ploy to have one side and one side only without one democrat vote, this will fail, and it's a shame for our country and for my colleagues. i have made it a point what i thought was broken in this place, i have never ever campaigned against a sitting colleague. i have never campaigned against my fellow republican. i have never made a phone call against a fellow republican. i have never raised money to defeat a fellow republican, my friends, because i don't think i could face you if i am trying defeat you. i will never do that. all i ask is to give me a chance to work with you. that's all i want to do. i want to be a part of this. i ask that you slow this down to allow me to be involve. i appreciate that.

i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: before we go to senator blumenthal -- the presiding officer: you have 36 seconds left. mr. wyden: i believe we are going to propound another 30-minute unanimous consent request and perhaps -- the presiding officer: first they have 15 minutes. mr. wyden: mr. wyden: they have 15 minutes? we'll let senator toomey start the 15-minute time allotment for republicans, and then when our turn is next, we will go to senator blumenthal. mr. toomey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: two points i would like to address, and then we have other republican colleagues who would like to use our time as well. one, i'd like to address the comments made by the senator from west virginia. i have worked closely with senator manchin on a variety of

pieces of legislation. some relatively ordinary and noncontroversial. others quite controversial. we have been through some battles together, senator manchin and i, and i -- i enjoy working with him. i hope he's going to support this product in the end. i'm not sure that he will, but he might. i don't know. and he probably has some good ideas he could bring to this. but let me be very clear about the process that we have used here. first of all, this legislation has gone through the regular order. it has gone through the committee. it was extensively debated in the committee. it was marked up in the committee. there were many dozens of amendments debated and voted on in the committee. and the committee document, which is very, very similar to the final document that we're going to vote on tonight, has been available for weeks. but here is one of the problems that we faced from the onset in this, mr. president. very early on in this process,

the vast majority of our democratic colleagues announced that they wanted to leave the room with respect to a tax reform discussion. now, as it happens, senator manchin is not among them, but 45 of the 48 democratic senators sent a public letter, and they stipulated the terms under which they would be willing to work with us on tax reform. one of the terms was that we had to use a process that would allow them to kill it by a filibuster if they wanted to. that was one of their terms. so they were demanding if we were going to -- if they were going to participate in the process, they were demanding that we would have to empower them to kill the final product by filibuster if they wanted to. well, mr. president, i just think that tax reform, tax relief for low and middle-class families like we provide in this bill and the pro-growth policies through the reforms in this bill are too important to allow a minority to kill it by

filibuster. it would have been malpractice on our part to allow that possibility, and so we didn't. so all that means is one thing. all it means is that the final passage on this legislation is not 60 votes, but it's 51. that's all. any democrat can offer any amendment. any democrat can join us in supporting this legislation. that was also true in committee, and it will be true right through the end of this process. but our democratic colleagues also had other stipulations in their letter. they said there can be no savings in a tax reform package for the people who pay 40% of all the taxes. it's actually really hard to do pro-growth, meaningful tax reform if you say that the people who pay 40% of all the taxes must not be allowed to get any benefit whatsoever. another feature in their letter was that there could be no

savings for the very substantial category of american businesses organized as what we call pass-throughs. these are partnerships and subchapter s corporations, because under their stipulations in their public letter, there couldn't be any benefit at all to anyone whose income is in the top 1%. well, there is a lot of pass-throughs that have some ownership on the part of people who are in that income category. so my point is they were systemically taking themselves out of the discussion from the very beginning. despite that, we had an open process. we had unlimited amendment, and they participated in that process. now, mr. president, i'd like to address the issue that my colleague from maryland raised, which is the deductibility of state and local taxes. and i just want to say for me, disallowing the deductibility of state and local taxes and offsetting that with lower income tax rates for everyone, which is what we do in our bill,

among other things, it's a matter of fairness. just a simple matter of fairness. because under our current policy, which our democratic colleagues would prefer we keep, the current policy of allowing people to deduct their state and local taxes and requiring higher federal income taxes for all americans as a result, that amounts to a subsidy that is paid by people in low tax jurisdictions that get sent to people who live in high tax jurisdictions. for the life of me, i don't understand why my constituents in pennsylvania, my county, a relatively lower tax place, should have to pay higher income taxes so that a very wealthy guy who owns a penthouse on the upper west side of manhattan can deduct the very substantial taxes that he chooses to pay because he lives in a very high

tax jurisdictions. how is that fair, that a person much much more -- of much more modest means should have to subsidize a person of great means through the tax code? i don't think that's fair. but it's also unfair, not just from one state to another, but even within a state, this is really not fair. let me illustrate my point with an example. let's imagine you have two families that have the same financial circumstances. they're neighbors, but they happen to live on either side of a municipal boundary. one family lives on the side of a town that provides a lot of services and has high property taxes, which pays for the services. maybe they would pick up the trash. maybe the town picks up the leaves. maybe they have a nice community center. so that family has higher property taxes to pay for all of that. and then the other family on the other side in a different township right next door, they don't get their leaves picked up, they don't get the trash hauled away, they don't have a nice community center, but they have lower property taxes.

now, the family that doesn't have all those services, they have to privately contract for those services. they have to go out and hire a company to take away their trash barrels, they have to hire a company to take away their leaves. they have to pay to join a gym or a recreational facility, and they don't get to deduct any of those expenses. you don't get to deduct the cost of paying someone to take your trash away or leaf removal or your membership in a -- at a local gym or facility like that. so how is it fair that one person gets all of those services and gets to deduct the costs in the form of deducting the property taxes that pay for it, and the other person, otherwise identically situated, does not get to deduct it? because that just doesn't strike me as fair. all we're doing is saying let's be fair about this. let's just be fair. let's disallow that deduction. for the most part, we do preserve a portion of that. but the principle is to reduce

the ability to deduct these taxes because it's more fair. what we can do as a result is we can lower the income tax rates paid by everyone. i think that's a step in the direction of fairness, and it's one of the things that i think is a good feature in this bill. but i see my colleague, the senator from montana, is there, so i will yield the floor at this time. mr. daines: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: thank you, mr. president. i'm thankful for my colleague from pennsylvania, senator toomey, for his remarks and for his leadership in getting to this point tonight, this most historic moment in the united states senate. i spent 28 years in the private sector before i came back to washington, d.c. in fact, the last election i won before i won election to serve in congress was student body president of my high school. i spent many years working in businesses, growing businesses, creating jobs, sending a lot of

money back to washington, d.c., in taxes. you're not going to find a single republican here that says taxes are bad. what we're saying here is that we are an overtaxed nation. in fact, if i were to ask you where the most affluent counties in the united states, where are they, now, you might guess, well, beverly hills. perhaps silicon valley. new york city. the answer is the most affluent counties in america are suburbs of washington, d.c. the american people have watched this city increase in power, increase in wealth, and i think this city has forgotten something. that the dollars that are sent here by hardworking americans does not belong to the government. they belong to the american people. it is their money. and i'll tell you what. i don't think we realize how much taxes we pay.

we're focused right now on federal income tax, federal corporate taxes. however, imagine you wake up in the morning. if you're like me, my cell phone is now my alarm clock. you grab your cell phone, you reach for it. the first thing you do is you look at inbound e-mails, maybe look at the twitter feed. but you realize when you're grabbing that cell phone, on average, a u.s. wireless consumer pays about 17% of that bill you pay for your cell phone is federal, state, and local taxes for that cell phone. that's how the day starts. so then i go and i get dressed. i think about how much sales tax was paid, which most states have, for the clothes that you're wearing. well, then you might leave your home, walk across your driveway to get in an automobile, perhaps, and you realize you're paying significant property tax on that property that you own if

you're a homeowner, and you get in your automobile. oh, by the way, you have paid a significant tax on that car, too. you have paid a sales tax, most likely. you may be paying hundreds of dollars a year to put license plates on it. and then you want to drive on to work and you might want to stop at that coffee shop. you might want to get that nice cup of coffee to get you going for the day. what do you do? you pay a sales tax most likely as you get your cup of coffee. perhaps on your way to work, you need to fill up your gas tank. in montana, we drive pickups. when you fill up your president trump, it costs you a chunk of change. you are paying 18.4 cents per gallon new in federal taxes. and state taxes range from 12 cents a gallon in alaska to 58 cents a gallon in pennsylvania. and then you go to work. i was just seeking with one of my young staffers the other night. she told me when she got that

first paycheck, the first job out of college, she called her dad and said they have made a mistake. they screwed up my mistake. and she talked him through the difference between the gross pay and what you really put in the bank, the dollars of your federal, state, local taxes, social security, medicare. your day's finished, perhaps you want to go home and grab something to drink. whether it's a glass of wine, perhaps a beer, perhaps a soda. well, the government's there, too. you have paid an excise tax somewhere on those beverages. all i'm saying is it's time to give some of that back. it's time to give some of that back to that single mom in kalispell, give it back to that small business owner in helena, to give it back to the families, the businesses, working class montanans. you know what? they need a pay raise. how do we start that? how about right here with this bill tonight.

let's lower tax rates on middle-class americans. let's allow them to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. how about we increase the standard deduction. let's take it from $12,000 to $24,000. how about we eliminate the poverty tax? that's eliminating obamacare's poverty tax, as justice roberts says is a tax. it has cost the american people so far over $5 billion. 42% of those making less than $25,000 a year. 82% make less than $50,000 a year. that's a poverty tax. we are going to repeal that as part of this bill that we're going to pass tonight. families need a break. how about we double the child tax credit. we're parents of four. how about that single mom of two children? i think she needs a break. let's give working moms, working dads with a couple kids an extra thousand dollars to make ends meet. and reducing the tax burden on

small businesses. not corporations. we'll talk about that in a minute, and that's important to do, but the small businesses that are not corporations are paying as much as 40% of their income in federal income taxes. we're going to take that down to less than 30%. what's that do? creates jobs. it puts pressure on wages, higher wages, because we need to direct these tax cuts to those who provide jobs. by the way, those smaller businesses, 55% of the private sector jobs in this country are from smaller businesses. two-thirds of the new jobs created sips the recession of 2007-2008 are from these smaller businesses. we're targeting significant tax relief for those small businesses. who are these? these are farmers, these are ranchers. these are locally owned montana businesses. it could be our community bankers, it could be a baking company, a construction company. i grew up in a construction company. my mom and dad, that was the c.e.o. and c.o.o. of the family

business. and in montana, that's 68% of the jobs in my state. they are getting significant tax relief. working with my colleagues, we have had some great conversations. we provide even some additional tax relief for the smaller businesses. we have a historic once in a generation opportunity today. tr 30 -- comes every 20 or 30 years. it came the same year my wife and i were married. we need to put money back in the hands of american workers. let's cut their taxes. let's open the door for the creation of more high-paying jobs. we start that by transferring the wealth of this city back to the families and businesses who sent us here in the first place who keep our country moving forward. you've been hearing a lot of things about this bill. "the washington post" even has claimed opinion smoke company's -- claimed opinio pinocchio thas will raise taxes for most working class families. look at the facts.

that's not true. i'm going to quote a president. he says, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long term is to cut the rates now. the experience of a number of european countries and japan have borne this out. the purpose of cutting taxes is not to incur a budget deficit but to achieve a more prosperous economy. that was john f. kennedy december of 1962. let's not miss this opportunity that we have now. thank you. i ask unanimous consent that there now be 30 minutes equally divided for debate only with no amendments or motions in order with majority leader being recognized at conclusion of that time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: to start our portion of the 30 minutes, senator blumenthal has been very patient and i would like to let him go

first. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm honored to be here tonight, even in moments of sadness and anger, and i feel both here. i am honored to a member of this body. i'm particularly honored to a member of the united states senate with joe manchin whose bipartisanship and willingness to listen and to compromise and be reasonable is almost legendary. but all of us, including ranking member wyden of the finance committee, have been more than eager to be reasonable and compromise and seek bipartisan solutions. his leadership on this issue i truly want to salute and thank

him for his insight and his great commitment to the public interest. we had a hearing just earlier this week before the armed services committee about future threats to our nation and national security with a panel of experts who testified that more than a trillion dollars, maybe trillions would be necessary for us to invest in the future of our nation's defense. so many of us asked them whether they thought it would be possible to make that investment at the same time that our nation is about to go an additional $1.5 trillion in debt as a result of this misguided malign scam, this tax bill. and when we ask that question,

they shook their heads no. the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mike mullen, once said famously now, the greatest threat to our national security is our national debt. and the reason that our national debt is a threat to our national security very simply that it prevents us from the kind of commitment and investment on national defense that we on the armed services committee and we in this body and we as the people of america know we have to make to secure our national defense. and our national defense is about more than just hardware and even great troops that we deploy our service men and women serve and sacrifice with such incredible bravery and dedication, patriotism.

it is also about the quality of our society, whether we are equal, whether we give people the mobility to move and make of themselves what their aspirations are and make the american dream real in their lives and develop those skills through education and skill training that are so necessary to us as a nation. we can't produce the submarines and the f-35's and all of the extraordinary, complex hardware that we do without that skill training. we know in connecticut because we produce submarines and jet engines and helicopters. we're proud of it but we need more people with those skills. and yet this measure will enhance the divisions in our society. it will divide us from each other as americans. it will diminish the mobility, social and economic mobility in

our great nation. and it will increase economics in security. not make americans more sure about their society or more confident in its equality and justice. it will create more anxiety and anger because at its core, this measure is about benefits to a tiny minute fraction of america. most of the benefits of this measure go there. and it is about hitting the rest of americans, particularly middle-class families with initial benefits that may even look good initially but are a classic bait and switch because most of those middle-class families will be worse off over the next ten years. anybody earning between $50,000

and $75,000 will see taxes increase for them over those years. and for all the reasons that my colleagues have so powerfully and compellingly outlined in this chamber with statistics that i don't even have time to repeat here, this measure is essentially rotten at the core in its claim to fairness. tax reform should be about making our tax code simpler and fairer. this measure does just the opposite. my colleagues may say that there were hearings, but compared to the mid-1980's when the last major tax reform was passed, there's been no hearing. there's been no real markup. we are now considering an amendment that was deposited on the floor of this chamber just

minutes ago, barely an hour, and will receive no serious scrutiny or oversight. and it will harm our teachers and first responders, our police and our firefighters who will have less support for their vital services. it will harm the job creators who need more resources invested in infrastructure. it will harm our educators and the skill trainers. and it will harm middle-class america. it will hit connecticut as hard or harder than any other state because of the nondeductibility of state and local taxes and because of the nondeductibility of casualty losses. the homeowners whose foundations are crumbling will lose the ability to deduct the costs of

repairs that they must make. that is so fundamentally unfair that it belies the promises that have been made, even this day on this floor. we are adopting this measure literally in the dark of night, a friday night when few americans may be aware of ha is happening here -- of what is happening here, comparatively few. on the past-through provision that's been added to this bill, unquestionably some americans will be aware, including the president of the united states. he has more than 500 l.l.c.'s as part of his organization that will benefit from this pas pass-through provision. so the president may be celebrating but most americans

will rue this day. we will remember this day, all of us who are here, but we in this chamber will rue it as well. we will remember it because of the black mark on our democracy that resulted from a guilty plea from a former national security advisor, a guilty plea for lying to the f.b.i., a black mark on our democracy, a sad day for our nation. and a shattering moment for this administration, the trump presidency. but we will remember it also as a self-inflicted wound for our democracy when the actions of the united states senate drove deeper divisions within our society, created more insecuri

insecurity, enlarged the anger and angst and anxiety that people feel about themselves, and when we added $1.5 trillion to the national debt that our children and our grandchildren will pay and when thereby we diminished our national securi security. the national debt may not be the greatest threat to our national security, but it is one of the largest of the dangers to our national security. and we are doing nothing toll alleviate it. on the contrary we are adding to it and that is a shame and a disgrace. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: i thank my colleague. the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. thank you to my senior colleague from oregon and i'd invite him

to let me know when i've taken up five minutes because i want to make sure my colleagues can speak during this period. i'm rising now to ask the senior senator from texas to come and explain his amendment that's been incorporated in the package. this is, i believe, i remember amendment 1750 and we're hearing 1712 was included at well. and this is something that might be characterizeds a the wall street welfare amendment. now, we're not sure how exactly it works. we're not sure exactly how much it costs, but that's not the point, that if you're going to stick something into the underlying bill to benefit very powerful groups like apollo and carlisle and blackstone, that you don't just air drop it in at the last second. this provision for the most powerful. so come to the floor, lay out the details, defend your amendment and why it should be

included in this bill. our basic understanding that it enables publicly traded partnerships to be able to have their funds pass through so there's no corporate tax. so they benefit from also a lower rate for those pass-throughs. but we've only had a few seconds to look at it. what does it really do? what does it really cost? well, to the senator from texas, i ask you to come to the floor and explain all the details. the american people have the right to know what you're sticking in this bill. explain your wall street welfare amendment and why we should support it or not. now, we have $4 trillion going to the richest americans right here. $4 trillion? we keep hearing about $1.5 trillion deficit. oh, yeah, but there's a lot more here. let's see what it is. well, through the reduction in the corporate tax rate, virtually all of which goes to the richest americans who hold all the stocks, that's $1.3 trillion.

we've got repeal the alternative minimum tax. that's $776 million. we have the pass-through for high-end l.l.c.'s, $362 billion. we've got three provisions for multinationals, the deduction for foreign dividends, and the deduction for foreign intang iblgs -- intangibles and transfers of intellectual property totaling $313 billion. we have elimination of the estate tax to benefit the richest .2%, two out of the total of thousand people in america, the richest two. that's the equivalent. that's the share, .2% would get $83 billion. then we have the change of the tax brackets which add in another over trillion dollars there. and probably most of that we've been trying to get a breakout. we can't even get a breakout of where those go because it's been rushed through like this. you take those provisions, add them up, $4 trillion.

and i'm just making -- taking the big ones off the list of all the details. little public exposure. why is this being done in a few hours here just after the thanksgiving holiday, before christmas? because my republican colleagues are sticking it to the american people and they don't want you to know. so again, an example, of this list of 30 amendments that are being stuffed in at the last second that no one has had the ability to analyze, 30 amendments, let's have the senior senator from texas come to the floor and defend your wall street welfare amendment that you're sticking in here for the most powerful publicly traded partnerships. that's just one of the 30. so i'm calling for transparency, i'm calling for this process for what it is, and that is using the argument that you're doing something for the middle class in order to cover up these trillions of dollars going to the very richest.

i want to see how much misplaced this. okay, let's see here. well, in the next year you'd have 90 million taxpayers together at the bottom would get about 50 cent a day in tax relief, two quarters. that's what you do for the 90 million taxpayers who are most in need in america, two quarters a day. but what does this bill do for those who earn more than $1 million? well, it gives them over $is,000 a week. -- 1,000 a week. $1,000 a week for the rich and mighty. two thin quarters -- two thin quarters a week -- or a day, two thin quarters a day for the folks at the bottom. and it even gets worse than th that. by the end of the tax period, those people earning less than $50,000, what are they doing? they are paying into the federal treasury $23 billion. but what are those that are

earning more than $1 million doing? they're taking outside 5 billion. so the poor are paying in while the rich are taking o call this middle-class tax relief? i call this a tax scam. it is outrage house and unacceptable. thank you. -- it is outrageous and unacceptable. thank you. mr. cassidy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator louisiana. mr. cassidy: mr. president, i'd like to comment on the positive aspects of the bill that we are about to vote on and the most positive thing i can say about this is that working families and middle-income families across the nation will

be better off. families who over the last eight years have not done well will begin to do better. now, we've already discussed some of the folks -- some of the things that others have discussed. let me just briefly -- we've doubled the standard deduction to make filing of income taxes simpler. for most americans, that will be a tax cut by doubling that standard deduction. we have provisions in there to stimulate the economy, to create competition for workers so that workers will now have a choice of one job or the other and when that happens, of course, their wages rise and their benefits get better. we incentivize companies that are right now moving overseas because the taxes are so much lower elsewhere to stay in the united states and to create american jobs and to pay more american taxes. those are all good things that my colleagues have discussed. let me discuss some other ways

perhaps that this bill benefits working families and middle-income families. one thing i like -- i'm from an energy state, mr. president. louisiana produces so much oil and gas, and the thing about energy jobs, it creates jobs for good families. they may not have a college education, but they're good people. they care about their children, a understand these jobs, they can -- and these jobs, they can earn over $100,000 a year in certain aspects of it, and they employ americans in the way americans we've kind of forgotten can be that way. it makes it meaningful to me. my family moved to louisiana because someone called my father -- we were in illinois when i was born -- and he said, you know, jim, if you move to louisiana, you can sell to the people working at esso and you can make a good living. so even though my father didn't work in the energy industry, he was one of those who benefited

and made a living that allowed me to go to medical school. i was the first generation in our family to go to college, and to go to medical school and now i'm a u.s. senator, what an incredible privilege. all created by energy jobs. now, one thing this bill does is it oles opens up a little bit more of alaska for energy development. 2,000 acres. one of my colleagues has said smaller than the airport in fargo, north dakota. i've never been there. 2,000 acres is not a whole lot of land. but on those 2,000 acres there's a lot of oil beneath. why is that important? well, we as a country can make a decision to be energy-secure or not. and if we're going to be energy-secure, it means we're going to produce our energy. this is not to rule out renewables, but for the moment we are going to continue it is a a country to consume natural gas and oil. we can buy it from countries such as in the middle east whose

environmental standards are not as strict as ours. but if you will, when we do that, not only are we sending our jobs, our revenue overseas, but we're also, in effect, endorsing their lower environmental standards and that overall pollutes the environment. on the other hand, if we buy from ourselves, using american workers, creating american jobs, using american environmental standards, not only do we get the benefits of the family, the benefits for the environment, but we have the national security benefit of being able to be energy-secure. now, this is powerful. i first became aware of it -- i think i was in middle school or maybe even elementary school. and i went to st. luke's episcopal church. there was a guy there named thor. what a great name, thor. thor told me this his father was a pipefitter and was at that moment in alaska working on the

alaska pipeline. that's been 40 years ago so maybe my memory is a little bit fuzzy on everything but thor's in my judgment but the point is that a fellow in louisiana was goinmaking money for his folks k home. that's a good thing as we develop our energy resources often the energy slope in alaska using environmental standards, creating american jobs, we are changing the lives of families like i -- my family was, and perhaps for the family of the man who i remember going to middle school with long ago. now, it's not just, though, by the way, when i mentioned thor's farther was a pipefitter, it is not just those 2,000 acres. in south louisiana we make boats and boats that actually work off

rigs and can create jobs both in the boat yard but then in the maritime industry. thor's industry was a pipefitter, so you pipe out your oil. you create jobs in that way. that comes to mind because p when i was first elected to the senate, i was going to a committee hearing and some union fellows from ohio came up to me to ask that i would endorse the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline. they made the point, we're union laborers. we work on the job. and when we say there's $40,000 created in the building of a pipeline, sure, we may only be on the job for six weeks, but then we go to a another job for six more weeks and another job for six more weeks and i was struck that these working families benefit not from the actual production of america's natural resources but from the transportation of america's natural resources. so the economic benefit to

working families and middle-income families doesn't just stop with those who are perhaps doing the drilling, but it continues downstream. as i mentioned earlier, it even extends to a family like mine. now, met me mention another aspect of this that brings benefits to our country, to our working families and to our middle-income families. one thing i was helpful with was the restoration of the historic tax credit. the historic tax credit is a federal tax credit first made permanent by president ronald reagan that allows somebody to go to an older building in a community and to restore it, returning it to commerce, so instead of a portion of our architectural heritage being destroyed, instead it is refurbished and it is there for future generations to enjoy. now, it is more than the kind of

as thettics of seeing an ordinarily building become beautiful once more. it creates jobs. let's go back to this legislation creating better jobs for working families and middle-income families. first, it affects everybody. more than 40% of the projects under the historic tax credit program in the last 15 years have been in towns of less than 25,000 people. in my state, since 2002, the historic tax credit has contributed to 782 projects being built, bringing $2.2 billion worth of investment into these cities and towns across my state. now, when you have that much money, you create lots of jobs. it is thought nationwide, according to the study by the national park service, that the historic tax credit has encouraged more than the $131

until private investment, rehabbing 42,000 buildings, creating more thank 2.4 million trade jocks, returning a net positive to the u.s. treasury. since fiscal year 2002 in louisiana alone, has fostered more than $2.5 billion in private investment creating more than 38,000 jobs. these are construction jobs, rehabilitation jobs that allow a family to live with a good living wage. that is part of this legislation. the next thing i want to mention that benefits working families and middle-income families -- oh, by the way i should mention one thing in particular that's very topical on the historic it atax credit. the world trade center in new orleans is currently being refurbished, built in the 1960's, being transformedder formed into a world-class

condominium complex. it brings infrastructure spending, 1,600 jobs in construction trades, as well as more than 450 permanent full-time jobs. instead of a crumbling eyesore, you have a jewel. but more than jewel, you have 1,600 jobs created and 450 permanent jobs. let me mention the last thing that benefits the working middle-income families. my friends talked about supposedly negative effects on social security and medicare. i am a doctor. i've been working in the public hospital system of louisiana for 25 years. i understand the importance of safety net programs, if you will, like medicare, that allow our senior citizens to have the health care that they need. the dirty little secret is that according to the people that run medicare and social security, those trust funds are going bust. yeah, bust bankrupt.

under the obama administration, they tried to address it by raising taxes. under obamacare there was different things to try to save money within the system, delivery system reforms and some were frankly good ideas. although i oppose obamacare in general, on some of these it was good ideas and i had continue to endorse them. the and the trust fund funds fue still going bankrupt. we raise taxes, we're trying to save money and the trust funds are still going bankrupt. what can we do to try to rescue these programs that are so significant, so important to senior citizens, to all of us in this country -- social security and medicare in particular? well, what about economic growth? i did an analysis once with another man. it shows that if we just return to the economic growth that is common in our country, about 3.5% g.d.p. growth per year, that we would fully fund our trust funds for medicare and social security.

because, keep in mind, although we're cutting rates for corporations, the rates for funding medicare and social security are staying where they are. so if our economy is doing better year over year, there will be more money going into these trust funds -- not because the rates are higher; the rates remain the same -- but because there's more money to apply rates to. is it reasonable to have that kind of growth? absolutely. from 1946 to the beginning of president obama's administration, through ten and a half recessions including one half of the great recession, we averaged over 3% growth as a k under president obama's presidency, it was about 2% growth. 2% versus 3.5% is all the difference in the world because it compounds. it goes like this if it's 2%. it goes like this if pitt.5%. and at the end of the 10, 15, and 20 years those differences are remarkable. i will say under president obama

-- excuse me, under president trump for the last two quarters, we've had over 3% g.d.p. growth. republicans take over, the economy begins to do better. the next quarter it's estimated it will be over 3 wealth%. with this legislation increasing the amount of money families have in their pockets, building out resources as we are in alaska, creating jobs for americans across the way, using things like the historic tax credit, returning money to the treasury but also creating american jobs will create that prosperity, that economic growth that instead of this 2% growth we've had for the last eight years, the 3.5% growth we historically have had, that is a promise of this legislation. that will restore funding for social security and medicare. that is the answer that eluded the other side. mr. president, i thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.

now before i yield back, i ask unanimous consent that 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. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cassidy: i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: for this tranche i believe we will have senator durbin lead off for us and then senator nelson and senator bennet. each are going to try to take around five minutes. senator durbin. mr. durbin: mr. president. mr. president, what happens when you decide to write a tax bill that changes the economy of the united states of america, you don't have adequate hearings to gauge what's going to happen, you don't bring in the experts to try to tell you what the impact will be on individuals, families, and

businesses, and you stick around until 5:00 on a friday night, and you hand out the work product for all the members of the senate to take a look at before they vote on changes in the tax code that will affect the people they represent. this is what happens. 479 pages were handed to us. they tell us that some of this has been around for awhile. some of it's new. they don't tell us which part is new and which part is old. but lucky for us, on k street -- and there's nothing wrong with lobbyists. but on k street where the federal lobbyists live, they are following this really closely and they have given us basically a cheat sheet, a score card so we can figure out at least generally speaking how many changes have been made in the 479 pages since the last time we saw this proposed bill. now i defy any member of the senate to stand here, take an oath that they have read this and understand what in the world

it means for businesses and families and individuals. and if they want to take that oath -- and maybe some will -- then i refer them to, ladies and gentlemen of the american jury, i refer them to exhibit a, page 257 out of the 479. why do i pick this page? because they didn't have time to type it. they wrote it out in longhand. we're not even teaching cursive in a lot of schools anyone -- any more but someone on the staff knew it to try. the problem is they wrote it on the margin here about subchapter s corporations and what they don't pay and how much they pay. i defy anybody to read it because the problem is when they copied it they chopped off-line so there aren't sentences. there are just little phrases and words. this is your united states senate at work.

this is what happens when you push through a bill late at night desperate to pass it without really stopping to ask yourself will this make us a stronger nation? will this help legitimate businesses that happened to expand and create jobs? is this good for american families? well, the joint committee on taxation told us yesterday -- that's our scorekeeper. they are the ones we hired to be our scorekeeper. they're nonpartisan. they told us what they learned about this bill before we got the new version with the new amendments that our friends at k street were happy to tell us what the listings were. they told us that this starting bill will add $1 trillion to the national debt so our kids and grandkids can pay it off, to pay for the tax cuts. they also told us that the predicted economic growth that's supposed to come out of these pages of 4% or 5% a year is .8%, is it not? is that right? they also told us that the biggest beneficiaries under this

tax code, this joint committee on taxation happen to be the wealthiest people in america. surprise. and the biggest corporations. they told us at least in the second ten years, maybe before, reagan middle-class -- middle-income families are going to pay higher taxes because of this. and they let us know and we knew already what's going to happen to programs like social security, medicare and medicaid. when you run up the national debt and want to try to balance the books, our republican friends have been very open about this, they want to cut benefits under social security, medicare and medicaid to try to balance the books. well, america, are you ready for this? are you ready for senior citizens who are counting on that social security check to get a cut in benefits to pay for a tax cut, a tax giveaway to the wealthiest people in america? are you ready to see medicare cut?

that's reimbursement for seniors for medical expenses in order to make sure the biggest corporations in america get a tax break. are you ready to see medicaid, taking care of seniors in nursing homes, are you ready to see those benefits cut in order to give an incentive for businesses to move jobs overseas? that's what this is all about. here is the reality. as a percentage of gross domestic product, american corporations have never been more profitable. never. and as a percentage of gross domestic product, american corporations have never paid less in federal taxes. so what is the republican response to that? cut corporate taxes. why? shouldn't we be focused on doing what's necessary so that middle-income families have a fighting chance to pay their bills, put money away for their kids and their future? shouldn't we be working on

helping small and medium sized corporations instead of the big boys? that's what i think we should focus on. i don't know for sure that this bill doesn't do that. in fact, nobody does. nobody knows what's in here. 479 pages. and if they tell you they do, then ask them to explain page 257. ask them to try to read this. i've tried. and this is going to change the tax law of america in ways that we can't even explain. we've got to get this done because the united states senate has done little or nothing this year. and so they're desperate to get something done before the end of the year. and sadly, it's the tax bill which we've just been handed one hour and some minutes ago. mr. wyden: i want to thank my colleague from illinois for his insightive analysis and his

skills with handwriting may be used to find what that means. i thank him for trying to define a byzantine area of subchapter tax law. mr. durbin: i'd like to ask consent that this infamous page 257 be made a part of the record after my speech, but i'm really sorry for the members of the staff to have to try to write this out, type it out. mr. wyden: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, this is in effect a massive transfer of wealth under the guise of tax reform and under repeating the statement it will help the middle class. now you can repeat a statement but that doesn't mean it's true. you have to look at what the facts are. and i think you've heard a number of the speeches here that

will refute that this is not middle class tax relief. it certainly isn't when a lot of those so-called tax cuts for the middle class will evaporate. they'll cease to exist after seven or eight years. but let's take another part of this tax bill, the child tax credit. we're going to have a couple of amendments out of here on the floor tonight about it. we're going to have one that is going to increase the tax credit substantially like $3,000 per child. when you compare that to the current bill, the current existing republican bill, they have a tax credit that in fact if you have more than three children, if you have a large family, you are going to be

penalized. that's just what the facts are. so let's see how the votes come later this evening on two amendments. one, a democratic amendment. and one a republican amendment. and the child tax credit, let's see what the majority of our friends that are trying to ram this through in the dead of night, let's see what happens. because clearly their tax bill does not do enough. now this senator has long supported increasing the child tax credit, including cosponsoring senator brown's amendment to increase the credit and make it easier for those who are in a low-income situation to claim that credit. i'm going to continue to support increases for this tax credit for the middle class as long as

it's done in a fiscally and thoughtful, responsible way. it doesn't make any difference who's proposing it. let's see how the votes come out here on these two amendments. unfortunately the bill that's before us does it backwards because it actually increases those who have a number of children. we should be doing the opposite. so i hope that we'll find a way to drastically change this bill instead of limiting the child tax credit, let's go in and make the corporate income tax not at 20%, but at 22% or 25% in order to fund the child tax credit to help those on the bottom rung of the economic

ladder. we should be coming together in a bipartisan manner to flip the priorities in this bill and to significantly increase the child tax credit. obviously that's what the american people want, but that's not the bill of goods that you are getting sold here tonight. by saying something is something, that doesn't make it so. it's what the facts are. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president, my colleague has a parliamentary inquiry and then we'll go to senator bennet. durbin i submitted this page -- mr. durbin: i submitted page 257 of the record and you gave unanimous consent for that to happen. i've now been instructed the personnel cannot read this page the way it is currently written. could i have this entered in the record just at written with the handwritten notations on the

side? could i enter it as a graphic or art work or something like that? i ask the president, does that mean if the amendment has this page in it that the amendment cannot be filed? the presiding officer: the amendment can be filed with handwritten changes, but the staff will have to change those later. or correct them. mr. durbin: i'd like to ask a

parliamentary inquiry further. why didn't they accept page 257 after i received consent to put it in the record? the presiding officer: the amendment has not been filed yet. it was accidentally -- mr. durbin: parliamentary inquiry. this page which is part of the tax bill, 257, as written cannot be filed in the senate because no one can read it? is that correct? the presiding officer: the amendment has not yet been filed. it can be filed in that form. mr. durbin: parliamentary inquiry. why can't this page be filed in that form?

the presiding officer: the amendment as shown in the handwritten text cannot be printed in that graphic form. mr. wyden: parliamentary inquiry. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: when this is filed, we want the american people to know what has actually been written on the side. will it be possible as part of senator durbin's statement to add this written on the side portion as part of his statement so that the american people actually know how outrageous this process is and it at least states as part of his speech what is written in the margin? can that be stated as part of his statement?

mr. wyden: would the chair answer the question? mr. wyden: my question is when the amendment is filed, i would like to ensure that the important point my colleague has made about what is written in the margin could be included as part of his written statement that will be entered into the record so that the american people can get some sense of what kind of flimflam is

actually taking place here. the presiding officer: when the amendment is filed. mr. wyden: i thank you. the presiding officer: the text will appear in linear format with any errors that may be in it. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me just say, i -- i have the greatest respect for the senate staff, and i am not trying to say anything negative about them. i was hoping that this could be entered into the record, and i ask for unanimous consent to enter it, believing that the handwritten portion would show up in the record. i have since been advised that there will have to be translators and interpreters who will later decide exactly what this says before it's part of the congressional record. i think i have made my point about where we stand in preparation of a tax reform for america. thank you.

mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. talk about the swamp. all the folks out there that voted in this election do not have a swamp in washington, d.c., are watching this happen right in front of their eyes tonight. we have a bunch of amendments that were dropped in by lobbyists here last night. we haven't seen except we got a list from them, and we have got ill legible amendments now at the desk that the american -- even if we could read them, we wouldn't be able to. it just doesn't make any sense. i tell you something else that doesn't make any sense. it doesn't make any sense that in our economy, 90% of our folks, the bottom 90% earn the same amount of income as the top 10%. the top 10% earn 50% of the income in this country. the bottom 90% earn the other 50%. and you can see the directions that these lines have headed over a number of years. that's the issue that we confront in our economy. that's what we all should be

working on in a bipartisan way to try to address. unfortunately, instead of improving the circumstances for people in the bottom 90% of earners, the decision has been made because of an economic philosophy that has to do with trickle-down economics to give the benefit to the people who are doing pretty well. not just pretty well, but better than they have done since 1928. it was stated earlier today on this floor what a miracle the tax policies were in the early 1920's. the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. mr. bennet: may i have two additional minutes? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. bennet: i thank my colleague from pennsylvania. in addition, we can't afford to do this. right now, we are collecting in revenue today before this tax cut goes into effect 18% of our gross domestic product in taxes and revenue. we are spending 21% of what -- of our gross domestic product.

that leaves us with a deficit. and because this place lacks the courage to deal with the issues that we confront, unlike our parents and grandparents, we have hollowed out discretionary spending. we are spending 35% less than we were in 1980 as a percentage of our g.d.p., and yesterday we had testimony in the armed services committee that we need a trillion additional dollars to modernize our defense. and we know how dangerous this world is with what's happening on the korean peninsula and what's happening in the middle east. why was it okay for our parents and grandparents to invest in us, but we're unwilling to invest in the next generation of americans? not only are we unwilling to invest in them, but we are saddling them with the debt that has arisen from our inability to make proper decisions, and we are doing it now in plain sight of budget projections that show

the money just isn't here. i think we have a decision to make whether we want to live up to the example that our parents and grandparents set for us and whether we are willing to make the kinds of investments in the next generation that they were willing to make in us. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president, just before we wrap up, i'd just like to make it clear, because i have heard republicans talk constantly about how the process is being conducted with regular order. i have never seen in my time in public service when we're talking about $10 trillion worth of tax policy changes and the biggest tax bill in three decades, something along the lines of the flimflam that we have been talking about with handwritten changes in the margins about something that conceivably will affect vast sums of taxpayer money, and i

yield back. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. rubio: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. as most of my colleagues know by now, we have been working for i believe about a year and a half certainly throughout this tax reform process to address the issue of the child tax credit in an effort to increase it. i am grateful that in this process, we have been able to increase the child tax credit to $2,000. that will help a lot of people. i have been asked by some people why isn't that enough? why aren't you happy with that? and the answer is that the people we most wanted to help are not going to be able to fully use it, and here's why. for them, for people that are making $20,000 or $40,000 or $50,000, you're a construction worker, you're a teacher, firefighter, welder, you're a bus driver, the backbone of

america's workers, their main tax liability is their payroll tax. and unless you allow the tax credit to apply fully not just to their income tax, many of whom don't have a high income tax liability but a payroll tax, they're not going to enjoy the full benefit. the result is kind of absurd if you do one without the other, and the result is that if you make $500,000 a year and you have enough kids, you can use the whole credit. but if you don't make that much money, if you make like $25,000 a year, you won't get nearly as much of the credit, even though you paid the taxes. it kind of doesn't make any sense, right? we're trying to help people with the cost of raising children by allowing them to keep more of their own money. it's the people who make less that need it the most. and when you only do half of it, which is the $2,000 increase, you only get it half right. and so it's good. there are people that are going to be helped by that, but we could have helped so much more. the little we have today that is

before us here and will be before us in a few minutes when there is a substitute that's provided, it cuts the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%. and a reduction of the corporate tax rate is something i strongly support because i think it makes america more competitive and in the process is going to help a lot of the same people that we're trying to help. i know that sounds countercyclical, but it does, because when these corporations are able to save money in taxes, many of them will use some of that job to create new jobs, hiring more people. that money, some of it will be reinvested and perhaps even flow towards workers in the form of higher wages over time. these are positive things. so i am not against a reduction of the corporate tax rate. in fact, i ran for president, for the senate and for reelection to the senate on the promise of reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%. 20% goes well beyond that. however, in order to be able to pass something and pay for it. people don't know this back at home, so to kind of explain it.

this bill allows us roughly $1.5 trillion over the next ten years of spending over revenue. we think that the growth in the economy is going to more than offset that, but for purposes of the rules of the senate, it's got to be within those parameters. in order for us to offer an amendment that provides an increase in the child tax credit at a rate that we want to do it, about $86.9 billion, we have to find $86.9 billion somewhere in order to be able to do it. and initially we had proposed, instead of cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%, we proposed cutting it from 35% to 22%. it's still a massive cut. it's still well below the international average of 23%. it still puts us in third place among the seven largest economies in the world. but that's met with some significant resistance. we have always said we have been open to a different way of doing it. so today when the substitute amendment is offered, we're going to offer an amendment, senator lee and i, that instead of the 22%, it's going to

propose that we reduce the corporate tax from 35% to 20.94%. 20.94%. basically, instead of a 15% reduction, a 14.06% reduction. okay. the difference between what is in the bill and what we are proposing is less than one percentage point of reduction in the corporate tax rate, .94%. but with less than that 1% difference, we can make a huge difference in the lives of millions of americans making between $20,000 and $50,000 as an example, because that would generate about $87.4 billion, and we could use $86.9 billion of it to allow working families with children to keep more of their own money to pay for the costs of raising their children. and i remind you who these people are. these are teachers, firefighters, welders, construction workers, truck drivers, the working class. we didn't even have to do that,

to be frank. from last night to today, the leadership and those working on this -- and they have worked very hard -- found an additional about $260 billion to cut even more taxes for businesses. i have no problem with that. i want america to be supercompetitive. but somehow through some political jujitsu or some magical formula, $260 billion appeared to provide even further cuts, and that's fine. i just wish some of that jujitsu and political magic had been employed on behalf of the millions of americans making between $20,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year because they need our help. what has been the opposition to this? frankly, some of it is untrue. some of it is offensive. some of the opposition i have heard is the people who would benefit from this tax cut don't pay taxes. they don't pay income tax or a lot of income tax, but they pay taxes. if today at 5:00 you left your job as a construction worker and

you got your paycheck, they took money out of your paycheck, and when they take $200 out of your paycheck, it doesn't matter if it says fica or if it says income tax withholding. it's $200. it's the same money, and you have $200 less of it. that's a tax. any time the government takes your money, it is a tax. but i have had people tell me, including people in the administration, they don't pay taxes. i have had people say they don't generate economic growth, which is, in my mind, number one, not true, and number two, the wrong way to think about it. you see, our economy should be working for our people, not our people for our economy. and when you talk that way, you have got it wrong. i also disagree they don't generate growth because when you make $50,000, when you make $50,000, you spend every penny that you make. i know these people. i live in west miami, florida, where the average income -- and west miami is a small little

city. three quarters of a square mile. i have lived there since 1985. the average income is $38,000 a year. if you make $38,000 a year, you spend every penny, every penny especially if you're raising children. i don't care how much people tell you put some money aside and save it for the future, you can't because everything costs more. and there are unexpected costs. you bought brand-new shoes in september for school, and by november, they either have a hole or they no longer fit. you bought them a backpack in august for back to school, and by november or december, it's got a hole in it or something broke, and you have got to pay for it. constantly costs come up that you don't anticipate. and where do they spend this money ?oo into our economy. so yeah, maybe they don't generate as much growth as a fortune 500 company, but they have to spend every penny of it, so they do generate growth. i have even had them -- i have heard terms used like it's a black hole. it's welfare.

it's not welfare. it's their money. i had one newspaper editorial say it's antiwork. how could a tax credit that you can't get unless you're working be antiwork? i'll tell you what's antiwork. a package of benefits from the government that you get worth more than this tax credit that you are eligible for if you don't work. i want you to tell the worker at a head start facility. think about this. you are a teacher at a headstart pre-k and you make too much money for your children to go to headstart but you don't make enough to be able to afford child care for your own kids. that's happening all over this country. and somehow there is a black hole where we can't find $96.9 billion -- $86.9 billion to help them a little more.

the second thing we heard we can't cut the corporate tax rate because it's going to hurt growth. okay. you're telling me that if we have a corporate tax rate that goes from 35% to 20.94%, that's going to hurt growth? 20% is the most phenomenal thing we've ever done for growth but if you add .94% to that, it's a catastrophe? we're going to lose thousands of jobs? come on. especially when you add that to the fact that they're going to be able to immediately expense their investments. when you add that to the fact they're going to be able to repatriate money made abroad to the united states at a lower tax rate. when you add into it all the other things we've done, argue all you want but please don't tell me that .94% is going to sumhow lead to -- somehow lead to less economic growth because it's just not true. we'll have a vote later today. i don't know how many votes they're going to make us have in order to pass it. it's all kinds of procedural things that happen here.

but i can tell you that this is a lot more than just about tax reform. we got a big problem that perhaps this tax reform debate has revealed. and that is, that the only way forward for this country is an agenda that is pro worker and pro growth and you cannot have one without the other. i can tell you that in this country today, there are millions and millions of people that have been hurt by the new economy. the new economy is great and there is nothing we can do to turn it back. the future is here and you cannot go back to the past. and we should embrace the new economy and it's created extraordinary wealth for people that are innovators or have the right careers or the right jobs. i don't begrudge it. i'm glad that that's happening. but when you have a new economy, just like when the industrial revolution occurred, there are some people that are going to be hurt and we've got to help them in that transition because if you don't help them, you're going to break the social compact that holds our nation together.

and i'm not claiming today that the child tax credit will solve that problem by itself. i am telling you that if we aren't willing to do another $86 billion of allowing people to keep their own money, we're not willing to do something as small as this, we're not willing to do anything for working people in this country. and that's a big problem. that's an enormous challenge for our nation. and these people have felt neglected and disrespected for a long time. and i want to be very careful but i want to be clear about what i'm saying. the political debate in america today is either all about helping the very poor and i support the safety net. i don't think free enterprise works without a safety net. it should be there to help people who cannot help themselves, to help people stand back up on their feet and try again. or the political debate is all about helping the business community. and i support that. because we need vibrant economic growth to create jobs and

opportunity. but what about everybody else? what about the people that make $50,000 a year so they make too much money for chip, for pre-k paid for them by the government for headstart, for obamacare subsidies. they make too much for government benefits but don't make nearly enough to afford the cost of living. what about them? what's in it for them? yes, there's going to be economic growth and we're going to see wage increases. but not for everyone. not in this new economy in which there has -- the haves and have notes are largely guided -- divided between those that have the right skills and the right degrees and those that do not and that has gone unaddressed for a long time. if we do not address it, we leave our nation vulnerable to too dangerous political streams. radical socialism on the left and ethnic nationalism on the right. neither one of them are true to the american principles that created the greatest nation on

earth. again, i am not here to tell you the child tax credit solves that problem. i am here to tell you that if we cannot endo that, it is evidence of our own willingness to do beyond it the things that need to be done. but we have a major challenge in this nation and all we ask for and all i implore my colleagues to vote for -- i know people on the other side of the aisle, this doesn't go far enough. i understand that. i do. i know you want to get it to a higher number. i know you want it to apply to more people. i promise you, too. i wanted it to be $2,500. i'm trying to figure out in this constitutional republic which cannot be a zero sum game how we make things better if we not make them perfect. on the other side of the aisle i improrp my colleagues to believe this is not a black hole or welfare. these are the teachers, the firefighters, your neighbors and friends who are struggling because everything costs so much more. why can't we help them keep a little bit more of their own

money? and really is a 20.94% corporate tax rate going to hurt growth? especially if it will help us provide a little bit more assistance for the people who today desperately need our help. so i hope i can earn the support of many of my colleagues as possible. it won't make this bill perfect. it doesn't go far enough for some but it will make it better. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that 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. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: we're going to have several of our colleagues on our side take five minutes each and we're going to start with senator sanders.

mr. sanders: mr. president, as i think about what's going on here today, i think this is in many ways a historic day, a day that historians will look back on december 1, 2007. and they will conclude that today is a day of one of the great robberies act of criminal activities if you like in the modern history of this country because the federal treasury is being looted tonight. as we speak, there are lobbyists all over capitol hill writing down in handwriting amendments to this bill to give hundreds of millions if not billions of tax breaks, billions of dollars in tax breaks to large corporations. as we speak they're probably still writing those amendments. meanwhile, the senate-led --

this republican-led senate has been unable to reauthorize the chip program, the health insurance program for low-income children. didn't have enough time to do that. we have been unable to reauthorize the community health center program providing 27 million people with health insurance. we don't have the time to do that. but tonight we are presumably going to pass legislation when at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, 62% of the tax benefits go to the top 1%. and ten years from now, ten years from now, millions and millions of middle-class americans will be paying more in taxes.

mr. president, i have not the slightest doubt as i have said before, that after the republicans pass this huge tax giveaway to the wealthy and large corporations, they will be back on the floor of the senate. and when they come back, they'll say oh, my goodness, the deficit is too high. we have got to cut social security, medicare, medicaid, education, and nutritional programs. in other words, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires and to large profitable corporation, they're going to cut programs for the elderly, the children, the working families of this country, and the poor. this legislation will go down in history as one of the worst,

most unfair pieces of legislation ever passed. but i say to my republican colleagues as you saw on november 7, the american people are catching on. they are demanding a government which does not simply work for corporate lobbyists but works for the middle class. they are demanding a tax system which says to the wealthy and large corporations, you are going to start paying your fair share of taxes and that no, we're not going to cut social security. we're going to expand social security. we're not going to cut medicare. we are going to move to a medicare for all health care system. the american people are catching on. and while the republicans may get away with this act of looting tonight, history is not on their side. the day will come and it will

come sooner than later when we are going to have a government here that represents all of us, not just the koch brothers, not just the billionaire class, not just wealthy campaign contributors. i yield. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i want to talk about one of the -- one of the really pro-growth features in this tax reform that is going to encourage investment in the united states, new business creation, start-up,

expansion, and hiring that will be associated with that. that means new jobs, more demand for workers, and higher wages. what am i referring to? i'm referring to one of the things we do on the business side of this tax reform. the way i think about it, there's several big features that are going to drive economic growth on the business side of the tax code. one is certainly lowering the top rate from the 35% that makes us uncompetitive in the global economy to 20% which puts us pretty close to dead even among our competitors. that's one. that's an important part. a second one that i think is even more powerful is simply allowing businesses to recognize for tax purposes expenses when they actually occur. allow business when they go out and buy new equipment and put that equipment to work in their factory or buy a new earth moving equipment or new

machinery, by allowing them to recognize that cost when it occurs, they can afford to purchase more of that equipment. why is that important? that's important because that is the source of enhanced worker productivity. workers are more productive when they have machinery, equipment to work with. this is why capital drives productivity growth. it's the investment in that new equipment that creates demand for workers but also makes the worker more productive. an example i like to use and i think illustrates it reasonably well is if you go to a construction site and you've got two guys working on that site and one of them is operating a backhoe and the other is operating a shovel, they're both digging a hole. they're both moving dirt. which one do you think gets paid more? it's not a close call. the guy who's operating the

backhoe is getting paid more on every such job site in america and not because there's a law that requires it but it's because he's a more productive worker. he's got a skillset and he's using major equipment that allows him to be much, much more productive than any human being can with a simple hand tool. so that's an illustration of how it is that when a company is able to put that equipment to work, the worker benefits. now, that worker operating is not the only one who benefits because somebody had to make the backhoe. someone had to work at the factory that builds the backhoe that got bought. so what we're doing when we allow this expensing to occur, when we allow businesses for tax purposes to recognize the expense when it occurs rather than gradually over time, we simply make it more affordable for business to put capital to work, to buy the kind of equipment that helps them grow and help them -- help their

workers become more productive. that's why this is a very, very constructive pro-growth feature in our tax reform that's going to be very, very helpful to workers. but there's a third feature in our business tax reform that is also going to be great for america. and that is going to be our change from the current global tax system that we apply on the subsidiaries and affiliates of multinational companies, the change away from a global system to a territorial system. a global system is the system we have today. and america is unfortunately, almost unique in the world in having this very counterproductive system. and here's how it works. if a subsidiary of an american company goes overseas -- say they go to england -- and they open a business there because they want to serve the english population, they want to sell a product in england. so they go to england, they open

their business, and they make a profit, they have to pay a tax to the english government. that's normal. that's what any company operating there has to do. but what america does, what we do in our tax code that almost no one else does is we say after you've paid that tax to the english government, if you'd like to dividend that money back to your parent company so it can be invested back home in america, we're going to charge you another layer of tax. we're going to make sure that the combination of what you pay there and what you bring back home hits 35%, which is our current rate, completely uncompetitive. so if you think about it, the rest of the world has a different system. they have the system which we know as a territorial system. ed idea there is the -- the idea there is the subsidiary in england pays its tax to the english government and then whatever after-tax profit they choose to send home to their company -- if it is a french

company, a german company -- there is no additional tax. so which company do you think has a competitive advantage doing business in england? anyone other thank the united states. and this has been the very reason that you have seen this crazy -- these inversions, these american companies getting acquired by other companies. in many cases it's not about the economics, it's not about synergies. it's because there is a tax advantage to having a multinational headquartered almost anywhere other than the united states. and, mr. president, there's a lot of good jobs at a corporate headquarters. there is. management and sales and finance and planning and all kinds of really good jobs, and we're losing these systematically because we have this system that nobody else in the world has -- almost nobody else has -- that punishes companies when they bring that money back home.

so what are we going to do? we're going to change our system from one of the worst in the world to what i think is going to be one of the best. and what we're going to do is we're going to say, well, a company operating overseas has to pay that local tax but we're not going to punish that company with another layer of tax when they bring this money back to america and i vest here. you know, most estimates of how much -- i should point out, you only hit hit of that tax penalty if you bring that money back and reinvest in america. that's how crazy that system is. it is called a deferral system. the common estimates are that there's somewhere between $2 trillion, $3 trillion, maybe even more than $3 trillion, where they've paid the tax overseas, as they must, but they refuse to brit money back home because they don't want to get hit with this huge tax. think about all of this money

overseas somewhere else and not being invested in eric m i have had conversations with c.e.o.'s overseas who have told me they want to invest in the united states. but the tax makes it prohibitively expensive to bring it home and therefore they're looking for opportunities overseas. mr. president, we have to end this and we're going to end this in this bill. and that is going to put an end to the tax incentive for these inversions, the movement overseas of corporate headquarters, it's going to make america a great place to invest and to headquarter a multinational company, and it's going to encourage the kind of growth. it's one of the central pillars of our business tax reform that is very constructive and very important. and i see my colleague from south dakota is with us and i will yield the floor now for him. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i would thank the senator from pennsylvania for outlining