senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. i take this time to talk about the pending business which is the tax proposal going into a conference committee between the house and senate. as i'm sure the american people now know at 2:00 a.m. in the morning on early saturday morning the senate passed its version of tax reform. the house had already done that. they were working on a house bill and now the motion before us is to take that bill and send it to a conference. we'd be better off sending it back to committee so we could have public hearings and understand what we're voting on rather than send it to a conference committee. i hope, though, that we will take advantage of the conference to deal with the three fundamental flaws that were included in both the house and senate bill. first was the process that was

used that did not allow us to really know what we are doing. as a result, it's my understanding there are numerous provisions in both the house and senate bill that will not work and will require changes. secondly, we profess to want to do this to help middle-income families but in reality this bill hurts middle-inincome families, both the house and senate bill. i hope that will be corrected in conference. and the third, and there is no dispute about this, the house bill and senate bill add anywhere between $2 trillion to the deficit of this country and we shouldn't be deficit financing a tax reform bill. let me first talk very briefly about process. let's not repeat the mistakes that we made. it was outrageous that late friday night we got a 500-page-plus amendment to the pending bill and tried to read it and couldn't even read the

handwritten changes that were put into the margins, and then we were asked to vote on that later that evening. that process just is not befitting the united states senate and is not befitting a democratic process which we have an opportunity to read, understand. the public has an opportunity for input before we attempt to modify and change dramatically the tax code of this country. so i hope the conference committee will have a very open process, that there will be opportunities for input and that we all will understand what is being done. secondly, it's critically important that this bill be corrected so that it really does help middle-income families. this bill doesn't do that. it provides massive tax cuts for the wealthy and significant cuts in businesses taxes which are made permanent, while the relief given to middle-income families is temporary, and many

middle-income families will end up paying more in taxes. that's either the house bill or the senate bill has that fatal flaw. one of the premises here is that if we give businesses big tax cuts, they're going to take those tax cuts and give workers higher wages. that just doesn't happen. there has been significant profits by american companies, but we've seen in too many of those cases those profits have gone to buy back their stock and to increase the value for their shareholders. that's their right to do that. but we shouldn't be pretending that we are going to be cutting taxes to help workers of these companies when in reality their first priority is going to be to shareholders and increasing the value of their stock. we need to make sure that this bill at the end of the day will help middle-income families, and that's our focus. not either the house bill or senate bill that focuses on our

most wealthy taxpayers and the business community rather than focusing on middle-income families. and then third, the deficit. and here i find this unconscionable. i just have to lay this out. i find it unconscionable that we work to say that the deficit is hurting our country and we need to work together to rein in the debt of america, and yet we find the republican party prepared to acknowledge a $1.5 trillion deficit in their budget instructions. in reality the deficit, if this bill were to become law as passed by the united states senate, would increase the deficit by $2 trillion if you extend all the tax provisions. and even if you accept dynamic scorekeeping, which is changing the rules, $1 trillion of deficit. so under any of the assumptions, we are adding to the debt. that's just plain wrong.

if our priority, we recognize that our debt is something that is wrong for our children and grandchildren, that we're wealthy enough today to pay our own expenses, then we must make sure that the bill that returns from our conference committee does not add one penny to the deficit. and that should be a commitment that we're all willing to make. but let me also bring up a couple other issues that i hope the conference committee will take a look at. the senate bill includes the elimination of the required coverage under the affordable care act. what does that mean? well, it means that when it's fully implemented, 13 million americans aren't going to have health coverage. that's what it means. it means that we're going to again see an increase for those who use the emergency rooms of our hospitals as their primary care centers because they have no health insurance. it means that people will be entering our health care system in a more costly way because

they're not going to get preventive health care because they don't have health insurance to cover preventive health care. it means that we're going to see a lot of people who can't afford their health care because they don't have health insurance. before the affordable care act, we know that bankruptcy health care was the number one reason for it. we're going to see personal bankruptcies increase and guess what? we're going to see uncompensated care goes up and when uncompensated care goes up, guess who pays the bill? all of us do through higher premiums. it's called cost shifting. why is that in this tax reform bill? if you want to know the reason, because it gets scored as a savings by the congressional budget office and the joint committee on tax. it's a savings because we're going to be spending less money in health subsidies, in medicaid programs, it cuts the medicaid program. this is a phony savings from the point of view of our tax code but guess what the senate did

with that savings. they used it to make permanent the tax cuts for businesses. in other words, they spent the savings in the tax code to help corporations with permanent tax changes whereas individuals didn't get that. well, i hope the conference will correct that by eliminating this health provision from the tax code. it shouldn't be in this bill. it's wrong on policy and it's wrong on process and it's wrong on fiscal responsibility. and i hope for all of those reasons that provision will be eliminated. then the bill passed by the senate includes another provision that shouldn't be in a tax reform bill, and that's opening up alaska to drilling. first of all, the policy is wrong. we should protect this pristine area of our nation. secondly, we don't need more sites for fossil fuels. we know that our future is in

renewables. our future is in a more carbon-friendly environment. from that point of view, it makes no sense. and then from process, putting it in this bill makes no sense at all. i hope my colleagues will correct that mistake that's in the senate bill. and then both the house and senate bills still have an assault on state and local government in so many different ways. we make it so much more difficult for state and lowell governments to -- and local governments to handle the problems in our community. i was speaking to the mayor of baltimore on the problems in public safety. i know the problems the maryland general assembly will incur in dealing with transportation infrastructure, in dealing with public education, in dealing with the challenges of our environment. all those issues are going to be more difficult for the state of maryland and all of our states and all of our local governments and municipalities to be able to handle if either the house or senate bill becomes law. but to add insult to injury, we

then take away the state and local tax deduction so that county taxpayers and state taxpayers who are the same people who are paying federal taxes, will have to pay a tax on a tax. you know, senator wyden brought to my attention something that's pretty fundamental. on the first income tax that was passed by the united states congress, the deduction that they allowed was for state and local taxes. of course the constitution had to be amended and the states had to consent to the amendment. and that's how we got the income tax. it was a fundamental decision made that under federalism and respect for the different levels of government that we wouldn't impose a tax on a tax. and now over 150 years later we're talking about removing that deduction. that's outrageous from the point of view of the constitution and

the principles in the constitution on federalism. there's also some consequences, i'm sure my colleagues haven't thought about as to what impact that's going to have on property values, what impact that's going to have on a lot of other issues. haven't thought that out. but it's just wrong from a policy point of view. there are many provisions in the house bill that are not in the senate bill, but now that we're going to conference we have to be concerned about. are we going to restrict what individuals can deduct for medical expenses? that's in the house bill. so if you're a family that happens to have a child that has severe medical needs, are we now going to say that we're not going to allow you to deduct those costs that you have to pay out of pocket for? the house bill contains restrictions on the deduction of education costs for those who have student loans. are we going to make it more expensive for families to be

able to afford higher education? it's already too expensive. are we going to increase that cost? we also have a restriction in the house bill that deals with mortgage interest deductions. i already talked about the impact that the senate bill and the house bill on salt, state and local tax deductions, have on the value of real estate. but we restrict the deductions on mortgage interest. it has even a more dramatic impact on property values. so there's a lot of work that's going to have to be done in conference. as i said, the best way to proceed here is to send this bill back to committee. let's have open public hearings. let's work together. i must tell you, i know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i've worked with my democratic and republican colleagues, and i know that bhe we work together -- when we work together we produce some really great results. rule of law -- really great

results. it's not hard for democrats and republicans to work together on the tax code because we share the same goal. we know our tax code needs to be reformed. we know that there are burdens in our tax code that need to be eefd. and i honestly believe, democrats and republicans believe we shouldn't be adding to the debt and we should be helping middle-income families. it seems to me this is not a heavy lift for democrats and republicans to come together in order to write the right tax bill for this country. so i hope we take advantage of this opportunity as we have a new look at the tax code, to deal with the fundamental flaws that are in both the house and senate bill. i'm not terribly optimistic because i know what the house and senate have already passed. but i would urge all my colleagues to let's find a way that we can really fix our tax code, help middle-income families and certainly not add to the deficit of this country. that should be our mutual desire of all members of the united

states senate. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. bennet: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you. mr. president, just this morning, a newspaper here on the hill had an article with the headline, quote, experts find tax plan riddled with glitches. that's because last week the majority rushed through a complete overhaul of america's tax code for the first time in 31 years without a single hearing on the legislation, and we never had the opportunity to have full consideration of the merits of the proposal. we now discovered that they've even screwed up the research and development tax credit, something that american businesses rely on every single day. this process, i am sad to say,

was no accident. had we had time to digest and debate this bill in the full light of day, it would never withstand public scrutiny, and my hope is that over the coming week or so when the american public can actually see what is in this bill, it will not withstand their scrutiny. instead of making an honest case, which the american people deserve, this legislation was sold on what was not in the bill, but on falsehood. first they claimed that it wouldn't benefit the wealthiest americans. last week in missouri, president trump said, quote, this is going to cost me a fortune. this is not good for me. that was entirely consistent with a conversation i was part of, which has also been reported

publicly, when the president called from asia to a room full of senators when he said that this tax bill was so bad for the rich that he had to throw in the estate tax on top of it in order to give wealthy americans something. he continues to perpetuate this myth. the reality is that under this plan the 572,000 taxpayers in america that are fortunate enough to make $1 million or more have an average tax cut of $59,000. by 2027, 62% of the benefit are the top 1%. those are people with an income over $2 million. as i said on the floor last week, we are borrowing from our

children $34 billion to give to the taxpayers in america that are lucky enough to earn more than $1 million. that's about 500,000 taxpayers. so the point i want to make today is that claim is false. they also said that this plan is focused on the middle class. last waco president trump said, quote, the beating heart of our plan is a tax cut for working families. under this plan in the first and best year -- and when i say best year, this means the year that the tables look best for the republican argument, for the sponsors of the bill, every year after it gets worse. the 90 million taxpayers in america that make $50,000 or less gept an average tax cut of

$160 a year. that's what they will get on average. millions of taxpayers that are middle class in this bill will actually see a tax increase in -- if this law passes and that number will grow over time. so it's not true that this is a middle-class plan. what this is is a tax cut for the wealthiest americans that's masquerading as a middle-class tax plan. they passed around a few crumbs to the middle class and said, you should be satisfied with this. we promise you that you will benefit from the trickle-down benefits of the massive tax cut we are borrowing -- we are paying for by borrowing from our children. so then the next thing they say is that we'll supercharge economic growth and that will lead to more jobs and higher wages, but today corporations are sitting on record amounts of

cash. the highest income americans are earning a larger share of income than at any point since 1928, right before this country fell into the great depression. i was in business for a long time and i -- i believe in our capitalist system and i believe that people that do well there and are successful are living the american dream. but the argument that these businesses and high-income howfds need -- households need a tax cut doesn't add up, and a million americans have not had a tax cut even though health care, child care, climb ever out of reach every year. helping these americans is not only the right thing to do, but if you wanted to jump start the economy, these are customers who shop at businesses. this bill does nothing to

address their needs. bank of america recently surveyed companies to ask what they would do with their tax cuts. a vast majority said they would use the money to pay down their debt and buy back shares. at least corporate america is being honest what they will do with this bill, unlike politicians in washington. and maybe that's way in the full glare of the tv lights -- and again, you can't make it up. it's not fake news -- when president trump's top c.e.o.'s to -- a room full much c.e.o.'s to raise their hands if they plan to reinvest the tax cuts, hardly any did. why aren't hands up, he asked? according to goldman sachs the effect of the economic growth

from 2020 and beyond looks minimal and could be slightly negative. fourth, and finally, and this is in some ways the most galling, they claim that the tax cuts will pay for themselves. they said that in 2010 when george bush first cut taxes. they said it would pay for itself. it's exactly the same rhetoric we're hearing today. there's no difference. some of the people are different and some of the people are the same. and guess what, in 2001, after those cuts, the deficit roseanne then they cut taxes again -- rose, and then when they cut taxes again in 2003, the deficit rose. bill clinton left behind a surplus and now those who have looked at this bill said these tax cuts will not pay for themselves. in the face of that history and

in the face of the experts, they continue to maintain that they'll pay for -- it will pay for itself. it seems to me if you think the best thing we can do with this money and the best thing we can do to open up this massive deficit is to cut taxes for the wealthiest people in america, you should pay for it -- pay for it. we can't get the child insurance program passed, which is a drop in the bucket compared to this because it's been hard to find a pay for. we can't get the disaster assistance that some of -- so many of our states need because it is so hard to pay for it. if you have conviction that this really is going to do what you say it's going to do, pay for it. don't borrow the money for this.

if we're actually going to borrow $1.4 trillion from our children, then it would seem to me that we should have the decency at least to invest in their future. since washington has the money to spend $83 billion to cut taxes on estates worth over $11 million, -- that's what they call the death tax. this applies to states worth over $1 million, but it can't lift a finger to do something about the fact that today in america that nine out of 100 kids born into poverty will complete college. we have the money apparently to give the wealthiest americans a 59 thousand dollar tax cut but not enough to expand high-speed broadband. that would costs dz

40 billion, -- $40 billion, less than 3% of the entire cost of the bill. apparently washington has the will to borrow $1.8 billion but we don't have it to pay for the children's health insurance program which covers kids and pregnant women who cannot afford private health insurance. we care enough, it seems, about special interest carveouts that we made in the dead of night as a way of passing this tax bill by getting this vote based on that tax break, and this vote based on that tax break. but we cannot lift a finger to tackle the opioid epidemic ripping across our country and claiming 50,000 lives a year. every year i come to washington and hear from my colleagues on the other side that we don't

have the money to prevent forest fires across the west, to keep rural schools open, or to find $400 million for the conduit to bring clean drinking water to some of the poorest counties in colorado and now they spend $1.4 trillion, not to invest in the health and opportunity of our communities but to fritter away tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. if republicans pass this flawed partisan budget-busting bill, do not ever, ever let them say to you that we don't have the money to tackle the challenges that are most meaningful to our communities. we should have passed a bipartisan bill to begin with. we could have crafted a bipartisan bill.

i believe the corporate rate is too high and isn't competitive. i believe that. and i know there are people on the other side who like senator marco rubio and senator lee who believe that we should increase the child tax credit for middle-class families and for families that are poor. we had an opportunity if we were faithful to the rhetoric i've heard around this place for years to actually remove special interest loopholes, focus on the middle class and not add to our debt. for years on the corporate side i have heard people say we're going to broaden the base and reduce the rate. for years. and instead we're lowering the rate without cleaning up the

code. a once-in-a-generation opportunity after 31 years, and we say, you know what? we're just going to leave those loopholes in place and we're going to lower the rate. forget about broadening the ba base. the same thing is true on the individual side. it's adding complexity to our code, all this stuff that they're doing on these pass pass-throughs is just going to add complexity and require more accountants and more lawyers for people to fill out their tax code. and this is all the result of the majority wanting to go it alone. you know, when you don't look for votes from the other side, it means you're going to be stuck with the most extreme wing of your party. when you don't have to make a compromise because you're reaching across the aisle, it

means the people that are the most absolutest on your side get their way. and that's what happened here. and furthermore, there are no hard decisions made in this bill. this is another example of washington unlike county commissioners and city council people and superintendents and mayors, governors who actually have to make hard choices year in and year out to make their budgets work, this place always finds the path of least resistance. forget about broadening the base and closing loopholes. we're just going to give you a tax cut because it's easier. i really hope that over the next

week the american people learn what's in this bill, because if they dorks i think we'll -- if they do, i think we'll have the chance to defeat it and pass a bipartisan bill which actually cleans up the code, lowers the corporate rate to make it more competitive, and enhances the child tax credit to give the american people who work for a living a tax cut. you know what else we could do while we're at that? we could invest in our infrastructure to create american jobs here and be able to help ensure that this generation of americans does what previous generations of americans have done, which is to invest in the next generation, to make sure that they have more opportunity, not less. this bill does the worst of all worse from the per expect itch of the high school -- perspective of the high school students i just met with before i came to this floor. because not only are we not investing in them, we are borrowing the money from them. this is no different than any

one of us living in a house and sticking our kids with the mortgage. that's what's happening as a result of this bill. and, mr. president, we should defeat it. with that i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move that the senate insis on its amendment, agree to the request of the house for conference and authorize the chair to appoint conferees on the part of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. the motion is pending. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the vote on the pending compound motion occur at 3:00 p.m. today. further, that if the motion is agreed to, senators king and stabenow each be recognized to offer a motion to instruct conferees and that the senate vote on the motions in the order listed with no intervening action or debate.

further, that there be two minutes of debate between each vote equally divided in the usual form. finally, i ask that following disposition of the stabenow motion, the senate stand in recess until 5:10 p.m. to accommodate an all-members briefing. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, about a year ago, the american people voted for fundamental change in this country. last week, republicans in the senate continued to deliver. we passed a plan to give americans substantial tax relief. this legislation is exactly what people were asking for last november, and it's exactly what this country needs now.

because of this republican plan, people will be able to keep a lot more of their hard-earned money. they're going to be able to find that their taxes are going to be simpler and fairer. they're going to see our economy getting stronger and healthier. that's good news for our country, and it's certainly good news for the american people. this legislation was an important promise that republicans made and it's a promise that republicans have kept. it's just the latest republican accomplishment that is helping americans. mr. president, another thing that's been going on has been the tremendous relief from washington regulations that republicans are providing. you know, i think a lot of people lost track of exactly how much damage democrats in the obama administration had been doing to the american economy. the obama administration added 285 major regulations during the course of the previous

administration. every one of them imposed a burden on americans. the total cost of these, $122 billion per year. now, that's both the direct cost in terms of the money and also counting the time, the time it needed to fill out paperwork created by these excessive rules. 21 of these rules were actually finalized after the 2016 presidential election. that's after the american people had spoken and said that they wanted change. president obama went straight on with piling more regulations onto the backs of the american people. so one of the first things that republicans in the congress did this year was to start striking down unnecessary, burdensome, costly regulations from the obama years. republicans wiped 15 of these major rules off the books.

a major rule is a rule that cost over $100 million in terms of the compliance costs, the actual costs, the time cost. that's going to save americans as much as $36 billion over time. one of these rules was the important part of president obama's war on coal. it was called the stream buffer rule. it was designed to shut down a lot of coal mining that's going on in this country. we have destroyed up to a third of coal mining jobs in america, so we passed a congressional resolution that protected coal mining jobs and protected american energy independence. we struck down 14 regulations like this one in the first few months of this year. in october, republicans blocked a 15th rule. that was the new regulation from the consumer financial protection bureau. the rule was written during the obama administration, and obama appointees at the agency finalized it last summer. now, this is the agency that's been in the news recently

because it's so out of control. republicans in congress had to step in and get rid of an unnecessary rule that really just was really, in my opinion, just a payoff by the democrats to trial lawyers, so republicans have saved americans $36 billion by getting rid of a rule and regulations. democrats, on the other hand, cost the american people $122 billion a year in costs due to rules and regulations. republicans in the senate also took a major step in this tax relief legislation by repealing the obamacare insurance mandate. this takes obamacare from being a mandatory program to a voluntary program. it's going to save a lot of americans a lot of money. in 2015, there were over 6.7 million americans who paid this tax. the average tax penalty by the american people this past year

has been $700. it's a big deal to give american families relief from that tax burden. it's also a big part of rolling back this idea that washington knows best what works all across the country. the obamacare insurance mandate is more than a tax and the damage it does is more than just the paper an the money people have to pay. it is an outrageous and unfair requirement that people have to buy something that isn't right for them and their family, but the government says they have to buy it t the republicans struck down this mandate and give people back the freedom to decide for themselves and to make their own choices. so republicans in congress have been very busy saving americans from the burdens and injustice of these obama regulations. i can tell you that we have a very strong ally in the form of the trump administration. president trump has been the deregulator in chief. since his very first day in

office, he's been rolling back the regulations that people have been straining under for the previous eight years. he froze action on nearly 2,000 obama administration rules that hadn't taken effect yet. he wrote a new rule for his administration -- one new rule in, two go out. this said that for every new significant regulation, his administration would offset it by getting rid of two other rules. that's how you make a difference in washington. that's how the president was able to remove 860 ineffective, you don't politic tsks obsolete regulations in just his first six months in office. it is a very big difference from what democrats in washington did and we've already started seeing the results. the moron economy has created -- the american economy has created 2 million jobs since president trump was elected a little over a year ago. our economy grew at a rate of 3.2% the last quarter.

the unemployment rate has dropped. last friday "the washington post" had two items on one page of the paper. the first one said that consumer spending had increased in october and incomes grew. the article says, quote, the october rise indicates that consumer spending, which accounts fore70% of economic activity, began the fourth quarter with healthy momentum. the second article the same day, "washington post," friday, noted that week a applications for unemployment aid fell for the week. it said that when the number of unemployment applications are low like this, it's a sign that hiring is healthy. it's a sign that employers are confident enough to keep workers on the payroll. mr. president, during the obama years, washington democrats piled on all these regulatory impacts on the economy. because of them, economists said that they had expected future

growth to be around 1 .8%. 1.8%. president trump and republicans in congress are cutting the regulations and the economy is growing at 3%. that's the kind of change that's possible under republican pro-growth policies. that's why we're confident that we're on the right track. it's why we're confident that the economy is going to continue to accelerate under the tax relief that we passed this past week. it's why we're confident that america will continue to thrive when we give people relief from the washington regulations and start to unwind the red tape. that's what the american people voted for a little over a year ago. that's what republicans are delivering in congress and in the white house. thank you, madam president. mr. president. -- thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator for rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to join my colleagues in reminding all of

our members, but particularly my friends on the the other side of of the aisle and the administration, the very human cost each day that we delay taking corrective action on president trump's unnecessary decision to end the deferred action for childhood arrivals program, or daca. there was no need for the trump administration to create this crisis. there was no reason throw nearly 800,000 dreamers and their families into uncertainty. yet the president, despite the fact that americans of both political parties support a solution for dreamers, decided that he needed to overturn this initiative for little more reason than it was put in place by president barack obama. now, these young people who are american in every way but on paper maybe forced -- may be forced to be uprooted and moved to countries that that are wholly foreign to them. yes, their parents broke the rules to bring them here as children. but their departure now would be

our loss. these are the basic economic facts and common sense and moreover these young people have become our classmates and neighbors and coworkers and an undeniable part of our american economy. and i think many of my colleagues have spoken eloquently here to put names and faces to young people affected by this crisis. i would like to associate myself with their remarks. i've also had the opportunity to meet with dreamers in rhode island who were brave enough to share their stories with me and with my staff. i hope to meet more of them. but i can tell you now that these are exactly the kind of hardworking young people that we should be encouraging to put down roots in our communities. skeptics should know the facts. dreamers have been subject to deep scrutiny. they faced background checks by immigration officials. they have paid significant fees. and they have followed the rules. it is simply untenable to

continue to delay resolution of their status in our country any longer. indeed, too many of my colleagues seem to be in no hurry to reach a meaningful agreement on passing the bipartisan dream act. i want to underscore, this has been an effort that has been led by members on both size of the aisle -- both sides of the aisle because many, h. -- unfortunately, not enough yet on both sides of the aisle believe that these young people are american in their values a and in their commitment to this country and will contribute to this country. they already are. now, there seems to be this illusion that we've got until the official end date of daca to try to fix this problem. then there are others that seem to believe this crisis which was prompted by president trump's decision is an opportunity to

gain concessions in other areas. this approach to waiting and to try to game this is wrong. it's certainly wrong for the young people that are waiting nervously -- in fact, nervously is to mild a term -- to determine whether they can stay and contribute to this great country. -- as they are already doing. we have, i think, the opportunity, but we have to take it quickly, to ensure that these young men and women can find a way to stay in this country and contribute to this country. and it remains my sincere hope that my colleagues will come to the table in good faith to pass the bipartisan dream act. and, again, let me recognize that there are members on both sides who recognize that these young people are making great contributions to the country, that this is the only country

they've ever knew. many of them were infants when they were brought here. they are american in everything except the official paperwork to declare themselves. we need to make progress on this. we don't have until march. we have to do it as quickly as possible, and with that, i would yield the floor, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president and colleagues, the republican tax plan is now racing to completion in secrecy and shame. republicans are finishing it in secret because it is a shameful scheme the american people overwhelmingly oppose. today the senate is going to debate whether to go to conference, go to conference with the house to resolve the

differences between the two plans that the republicans have passed on a wholly partisan basis. not a single democrat in the house, not a single democrat in the senate is in support of this benefit and i think it's clear that the conference committee that will meet in the days ahead is nothing more than theater. it is not going to be an honest debate in the light of day. there won't be an honest debate that the american people can listen to on the prospect of $10 trillion worth of tax policy changes that will reach into corners of every part of this country and every household in america. the truth is, republicans from the other body and the senate

are hashing out differences right now -- right now -- behind closed doors. they're packing the bill with even more goodies, even more loopholes for the well-connected and the special interests. there is no telling what swamp creatures have crawled up to capitol hill to get their fingers on this bill at the 11th hour. the basic proposition on offer -- taking money and health care away from middle-class americans to pay for tax cuts for the multinational corporations and the powerful, the well-connected -- that proposition isn't going to change. and now apparently the trump administration is calling for even more speed, even more secrecy, just so that the president can claim a victory and republicans in congress can

appease megadonors who've made it clear they're frustrated by a sputtering agenda. what unfolded here last week is a black mark on this storied institution, the united states senate. it was a climax of a process marred by recklessness and partisanship, and this took place, mr. president, after 17 moderate senators -- moderate democratic senators -- tried again last week while the senate still had the opportunity to have a bipartisan plan. when i renewed my plan, my ideas, the only two bipartisan federal income reform bills in decades written by senior republicans, the moderate senators and bipartisan plans were discussed yet again last week before the senate took off

on its reckless course. senators did come to the floor last wednesday and thursday prepared for a debate, but it was cut short by the partisan reconciliation process. 20 hours evenly divided between the two sides. but wednesday turned into thursday, and there was no final republican bill. then thursday became friday, and still republicans had their plan hidden in the shadows. and then late friday -- late friday, well after dark, i was handed -- handed personally -- a new version of a 500-page bill by the key official in the republican caucus and said, here -- here's the bill. there was no opportunity for review or debate.

the majority leader -- the distinguished majority leader had said to me personally during the course of the afternoon when i was asking every 30 minutes, he said, there'll be plenty of time -- plenty of time -- to review the bill. not only, mr. president, was there not plenty of time, there was essentially no time, and it reached the point, as we heard from our colleagues last week, that notes on technical material were scribbled into the margins, we had to ask questions about education provisions that seemed to benefit one academic institution -- there are plenty of them that are deserving in oregon and pennsylvania; this would seem to benefit just one -- and special interest benefits were airdropped apparently up to

the last minute to hedge funds and the uninten eligible lines became a metaphor for what this whole debate was all about. haphazard work that not a schoolteacher in america, mr. president, would give a passing grade to. some kind of work product like that was submitted to them. of course, this is what the majority party here, the senate republicans, said was a full and honest debate, the technical term here is "regular order," but the fact is, those $10 trillion of tax changes -- $10 trillion of tax changes -- were made in secret when the bill that was brought to the floor finally appeared, and it was clear republicans had played "hide the ball" with their tax plan until the very last minute.

there was not a single hearing on the specifics of the legislation. i heard so many times in the debate, there were 70 hearings. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, i wish i had a nickel for every time i heard that there were 70 hearings. there was not one single hearing, not one on the specific provisions of that legislation. no bipartisan input. no member of this body can possibly claim to have read everything before they voted. and now the recklessness continues. republicans stick with the con job on the middle class as they work out the differences between their two plans again behind closed doors. whatever product comes out of these negotiations is still going to raise taxes on millions of middle-class americans and drive a dagger into the heart of

the affordable care act. and why? to pay for yet more handouts to faceless multinational corporations. there's still going to be a bigger tax cut to those multinational corporations that ship jobs overseas than there will be for those businesses that create red, white, and blue jobs here at home. what ought to cause even more alarm for americans over the coming weeks are the special interest goodies that are still being packed in to handouts nobody yet knows anything about. on k street they seem to be licking their chops as they read the bill the republicans wrote so quickly and carelessly. it looks to me like a whole flock of tax lawyers are scheming and planning their next moves. according to reports, the big

sticking point in the negotiations between republicans isn't about how you're going to help middle-class families or how you're going to protect health care. they're debating whether the corporate handouts ought to get bigger. they're already slashing the corporate rate down to 20%. now they're debating whether corporations should actually be required to pay it. mr. president, i note that in both of the tax plans i put together that were bipartisan, written with two conservative republican senators close to the majority leader during all of those talks we didn't hear about corporations saying that they had to have a tax rate of 20%. mr. president, the american people do not want this plan to become law. i heard that this past weekend. i had two town meetings in communities where hillary clinton had a lot of support and

in communities where donald trump had a lot of support. and i'm telling you, this tax bill is unpopular all over. it's hard to write a tax bill that's unpopular, but somehow senate republicans actually managed to do it. that's what i heard in town halls and when i met with folks last weekend in fred mires, our iconic store. we heard it all over. i can promise every member of this body the american people have a sense of what's coming now. the republican deficit hawks who flew away when the proposition of a $1.5 trillion budget-busting tax bill came up, they're going to come flying back. they'll be flying over the horizon, returning. there's already a whole lot of frightening republican talk about the fiscal crisis facing our country, exploding

deficits, spending run amok. in fact, republicans haven't even waited for this tax plan to become law to crack out the fiscal crisis talking points. and we hear all the talk of the president at rallies, talking on national television about entitlement reform. it's a whole lot of focus, testinged code for cutting the safety net, the lifeline programs for the vulnerable. medicaid, social security, medicare, the antihunger programs, that sure looks what's next on the slash and burn to do list. here in the congress the speaker said a few weeks ago we've got a lot of work to do in cutting spending. chairman brady talked about welfare reform and tackling the entitlements. the freedom caucus, the far right folks in the freaked -- in the freedom caucus using the

tax bill. nobody knows yet what secret guarantees they have been given. last week as republicans were getting ready to spend $1.5 trillion on handouts to corporations, just put your arms around that for a moment, mr. president. i heard for years in the finance committee, in the budget committee about how republicans want to be fiscally minded and tight with the dollar. right away out of the gate they said we'll spend $1.5 trillion, handouts to corporations. corporations already awash in money. what we heard is the leadership of the other side of the aisle saying we're already spending ourselves into bankruptcy, and they were blasting what they called liberal programs for the poor. the chairman of our committee, who i admire greatly, said when it comes to helping the vulnerable, we don't have the money any more. we don't have the money any more

for the vulnerable, but somehow we can borrow, borrow billions of dollars to have a $1.5 trillion handout to multinational corporations awash in money? sure indicates to me some out of whack priorities. and then we heard our employing from -- heard our colleague from pennsylvania, senator toomey, say on the floor there wasn't a secret plan to cut medicare, medicaid and social security. i give my colleague from pennsylvania credit for his honesty because he's right about one thing. they're not keeping this tax plan a secret. republicans are talking about the tax plan and the prospect of these entitlement cuts now in the open. the tax plan may be secret, but the plans for cutting entitlements is going to be right out in the open.

colleagues, i want to close with this. i heard this weekend, i hear every stop i make that the people of this country do not want this partisan tax plan to become law. they understand what's happening now. the working people and the middle class that are being forced to pay for handouts to multinational corporations, that the plan, the republican plan puts the interests of the politically connected above the interests of hardworking american families. and i believe the american people are going to stand up and fight against any fearmongering attack launched by the so-called deficit hawks who as they come flying back are clearly looking at cutting medicare, medicaid, antihunger and antipoverty programs. it's not too late. it's not too late while this

process continues between the house and senate to change course. instead of going to a sham conference, a sham conference that is little more than diversionary theater, there could be a real and bipartisan debate on a tax plan that would give every american a chance to get ahead. mr. president, i've been particularly struck by my conversations with our former colleague, senator bill bradley of new jersey. he calls almost every few days because he, along with president reagan, were the authors of a last bipartisan plan. and i'm particularly struck by how he describes when democrats and republicans came together bill bradley, former neck, celebrity -- former knick,

celebrity all over the country, he would fly all over the united states to meet with colleagues like the distinguished president of the senate from north carolina. he'd fly all over. now we can't get republicans to walk down the corridor of the dirksen building to have a conversation about how we ought to have a chance to get everybody a good tax plan, so that everybody in america can get ahead. that's what i thought to do with republican colleagues. former senators gregg and coats plenty conservative. it is not too late for my republican colleagues to do an about-face and say that we can do better than this. i don't for the life of me understand why we can't have republicans and democrats on the basis of the overwhelming unpopularity of this bill now

say we can do better than this and change course. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the military fellow in my office, captain sam burke be given floor privileges for the duration of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: mr. president, last week i came to the floor to talk about why we needed to pass the tax cuts and jobs act.

i'm proud to say the senate has passed that bill. i expect the senate to move to conference with the house this week. i'm confident that the final bill will be an even better bill than the bill passed by either the house or senate, but i'm more -- more importantly, i'm confident that it will get us on track for real tax relief for working families and we'll have this bill on the president's desk by the end of this year. last week when the bill passed, i said it wasn't just about changing the trajectory of our economy. it's about changing the future we hand to our kids and our grandkids. i really think, mr. president, that's what this bill will do. lots of talk in washington about things that, frankly, will never turn out to be the facts that we're hearing. maybe they're the alternative facts. but one thing i think will happen is working families will see in one of their first

paychecks next year that this tax bill, these tax cuts really affect them. whatever your paycheck is that reflects what you start getting paid on january 1 in virtually every case working families are going to have more take-home pay and those numbers are pretty big. a few weeks ago i was at patriot machine in st. charles, missouri, and spoke to the employees who work there. and one thing they were concerned about is what does this mean to me, what does it mean to my family, what are my tax -- what is my take-home pay going to look like next year. and, mr. president, you and i have said many times during this debate the two things here that we're committed to do is more take-home pay immediately by taking less out of it and even more take-home pay in the future by doing things that make our economy more competitive and

have that paycheck bigger to start with. working class families in this country have lost a lot of ground with the slow growth we've had and the no growth in almost some years we've had in the past ten years. need better jobs. we need higher wages. and we need the government to let people take home more of what they earn. this bill will allow them to do that. it will double the standard deduction. and that's the deduction now is about $6,000. suddenly it's $12,000 for a couple. it's $24,000. and you start the tax process on something the size of a postcard. you start that process by deducting that $12,000 or that $24,000 off what your w2 forms say. senate bill doubles the child tax credit so we go from $1,000 to another $1,000. you take that credit off your

tax obligation. 90% of people are going to fill out their taxes just that way. a form that you may not even have to turn over to sign the bottom and say here's what you need to send me back or here's what my tax obligation was. helping families has been and continues to be at the heart of what this whole debate should be about. at one end more take-home pay. at another end more competition that allows us to have better jobs to start with. i'm absolutely convinced that the united states of america with more money on the sidelines right now than ever before in the history of the country and more money overseas because of our barriers to bringing money back because our tax code didn't really anticipate international competition in the way that has developed, more money that wants to come back than ever before,

those things are going to make a difference. the security that our country has, the access to the world marketplace that is -- we couldn't be better located to compete all over the world than we are. and those things along with what's happened in the effort to stop the regulatory overreach, the effort to put people on judicial benches that are going to rule based on what the law says. now this tax bill on top of that with capital coming in to our economy, it's going to make a big difference. it will help main street businesses that want to reinvest, that want to innovate, that want to expand, that want to create jobs. that's going to happen in this bill. this bill came through the regular order process. it came through a committee that knew how to defend it. every senator had the opportunity to offer any amendment they wanted to offer to improve the final product.

american families have been stuck now with a broken tax code for the last couple decades. and that's going to end when the president signs this bill into law. we shouldn't have to wait any longer. we need to get this done this year. and we can. i want to talk a little bit about another bill, mr. president, that we've passed for the 56th consecutive time. a lot of things that congress doesn't manage to get to every year but the number one priority of the federal government is to defend the country. and we show that in how we prioritize that authorization bill that gives those who serve in uniform the very best possible opportunity to serve us and serve us safely. senator mccain would be the first to say that we've fallen behind in the last eight years, and what we need to be doing to maintain the advantage that we

always want our troops to have and of course he's right. and he and senator reed have brought a bill to the floor and that bill has passed into law that will make a big difference in our obligation to provide for the common defense. when we send men and women in uniform into harm's way, we never want that to be a fair fight. we want to give every possible advantage, training advantage and equipment advantage and intelligence advantage to the people we've asked to defend us. and in the next few weeks as we appropriate the money to do what the authorization bill calls for, we're going to see a step up in a way that has not happened in eight years now and will happen, i.m.f.' convinced -- i'm convinced, this year. this bill meets that responsibility. i want to talk about a provision in that bill that i think particularly is reflective of the families that serve. the strength of our military is in the families of our military.

somebody said to me not too long ago we generally in the military reabsolute sifng gal, -- single, young adults, and we retire men and women with families. and those families that have become part of this process, for most sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines, as they serve, during the time they serve provide the real backbone of military strength. they have a million responsibilities when somebody in that family deploys. they look at the holidays we're in the middle of now differently than most other families look at the holidays. the person who's there keeping the family together when somebody deploys ha has more ofn now have their own career.

they're paying the billings. they're keeping the kids in school. they're acting for most purposes with the challenge that so many single parents face today, but these are single parents based on one of the two partners in that team being deployed somewhere else. they have to do these things while they're worried about the person they care so much about in harm's way and then when the active serving family, when that part of their life is over, they become a family supporting a veteran and whatever challenges that veteran has from their service. so this bill, the bill we passed this year, demonstrates our appreciation for our military families by including the military family stability act. this is a bill that i introduced with senator gillibrand. that act really provides for more flexibility for military

families. it allows military families for the first time to meet one of the challenges they have when they every two or three years get a new assignment. if you're trying to stay because your spouse needs to finish a job or your kids need to finish a school year or the opposite, that's really not part of the process anymore but it can be now. we have a provision in law now that allows families to meet those challenges of a child finishing or starting a school year. when their family thinks they should, a spouse who gets to complete a job or start a job based on their schedule rather than the military schedule. this will help people stay in the military. it rewards the support that families give to the military. it allows the family to either move early or to remain at their current duty station for up to six months while their spouse

begins a new assignment or while their spouse stays a little longer behind to complete that assignment. a spouse has to assume the responsibility for how they take care of thome selves in that -- of themselves in that interim but the money follows the family or stays with the family. right now we've asked a family over and over again that wants to deal with that timing in a different way, you can move early but you've got to pay to move early or you can stay later but you have to pay to stay later. i've talked to so many people in the military who have had a career in the military who have stories to tell of reasons they left often or reasons that they almost left because we just didn't have this reasonable ability for a spouse or a work purpose or education purpose for kids or spouses, either one -- one we had in as a witness on

this was finishing her ph.d., and she needed to go a little earlier to get the semester started teaching as a graduate assistant. needed to be there a little earlier to get the semester started. i think she was told at the time, well, if you get a divorce from your husband, we'll see that you relocate. but as long as you're married, you're going to have to go when he goes. he didn't go at the time they were told he was going to go. all those things can be much easier dealt with now and fortunately that's now part of our law. i want to once again thank chairman mccain particularly and samantha clark on his staff who worked so hard to finalize this provision. i also want to recognize an individual who's been absolutely vital to my work on the national defense authorization act, my work on the defense

appropriations committee, and really the overall national security issues we deal with. captain sam burke has been with us for the last year. our military detailee. i think this has been a benefit for him, but i know it's been a benefit for us. sam is a proud missourian. i have had a number of military detailees. this is the first missourian we've had. by the way, one of those military detailees was absolutely instrumental in the military family stability act and brought his experience to our office with that. sam was instrumental in helping us finish that act. he's been with us a year. his parents still live in charleston, missouri. his father, jim burke, is a fourth generation farmer in mississippi county. his mother, jeannie, is a special education teacher that retired recently. sam's brother evan is carrying on the farming tradition and works with his father as a fifth

generation farmer. and as you would imagine, sam was raised the right way with strong missouri values, but those missouri values were, i'm sure, delicately enhanced by the effect of the united states naval academy where sam went to school and graduated in 2010. he's deployed to okinawa, japan, been in support of multiple exercises throughout eas east a, including cambodia and thailand. he's been a real resource for us. he's really provided an important perspective on a number of foreign policy issues, ranging from columbia to australia to russia to the balkans. he's been a great help on veterans issues and really a tremendous asset to our office from day one. i wish captainburg all the best in -- captain burke all the best in the next chapter of his career. i think his fiance sarah and all

his family and friends who supported him for the sacrifices he's made serving the country and will continue to make. he's a first class marine, a consummate professional and exceptional individual. we're going to miss him but the country is going to continue to benefit from his service. so for sam burke and all those who serve, mr. president, we're grateful, and for the hardworking families of america, i think we're taking the right step with the tax act just as we took the right step for military families with the military family stability act, and i am prepared to yield the floor.