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.

ms. ca tooth owe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. ms. caputo: i wish sam and his next deployment well as his military liaison and i thank him as well for serving our country. ms. capito: i come to the floor to talk about tax reform and its benefits for middle-class families across this nation, but first i'd like to highlight a program that is critical to these families, especially the children, especially the children. that is the state children's health insurance program, or as we refer to it and it's referred across the nation, chip. mrs. capito: for more than 20 years, and really, this is the beginning when i first began serving in the west virginia house of delegates, chip was one of the first programs that i became a strong champion for. and that's because i understand

how critical it is that it was then for families in west virginia and what it is now. when i was in the legislature in the 1990's, i served on the committee charged with creating and implementing a state children's health insurance program, and my voting record on this issue has been very, very clear. as a member of the house of representatives and now in the united states senate, i have voted numerous times to fund and expand the chip program. in my state of west virginia, a smaller state, 22,000 children are in the west virginia chip program, and that includes over 10,000 families, and it is essential for these working families, and it's essential that we recognize that some working families are unable to get insurance. maybe they can get it for the person who is working or the spouse, but a lot of times it's prohibitive to get the insurance for the children at the same time. that's where chip comes in.

it's preventative. it's for sickness and illness. and it has really helped, i think, the -- increase the health of our young people in the state of west virginia. i was pleased that the bill passed out of the finance committee with strong bipartisan support, and i want to thank them for their efforts. i have also spoken with leader mcconnell, and he is very favorable about the need to reach a solution for this by year's end. thousands of west virginia families and children who rely on this program need to know that it's going to be there, and we know we're running up against a funding deadline and an expiration. we have already passed the expiration date. so i look forward to working together with members of the body, both sides of the aisle here to reauthorize chip and the chip program as soon as possible. that will be a good christmas present, i think, and another thing i'd like to talk about is a policy that i think will greatly benefit families in west virginia and across this nation,

and that is the tax cuts and jobs act that we passed last week. i was very proud to vote for that. proud because i understand what this legislation can mean to the working families and so many people in our state. and today i would like to explain exactly why i did vote for the bill. first, i'd like to talk about the 83% of west virginia families who file don't use itemization. they file the short term. for those families, 83% of those filers, that is double the standard deduction, double the child tax credit, which means significant tax savings. i voted for the bill because it cuts taxes for folks in all income brackets. these are the people who are tired of washington telling them how to spend their hardworking

dollars, or even yet washington spending their hardworking dollars for them. now we are telling these hardworking men and women that they can keep more of their own dollars to make those decisions. they can decide how to spend it. not a novel idea, but i think very welcome increase in our tax dollars coming home are going to be welcomed by every individual family. so whether they are spending it on something that helps them today or tomorrow or whether they are saving for the future, let's make that decision. the point of this is that decision should be theirs. i also voted for this bill because it helps american businesses of all sizes. it will empower our small businesses to grow and thrive. we had a small business that came to capitol hill last week from the eastern panhandle. many of them had different reasons why this was going to help their small business. yes, tax cuts and more money for them to invest in their own business is a big positive for many of them. but one particular small

business said you know what i really want? i want more time with my family to devote to my family, to devote to my church. so while i'm an owner of a small business and devoting all the time to my small business, give me the time back that it takes me to comply with the u.s. tax code. simplify this and give me that time to devote to my family and my church. i also feel that not just small businesses are going to grow, but it's also going to help family have more job opportunities and higher wages. when it comes to our larger businesses and corporations, it makes them more competitive. even in a small state like mine, we have 50% of our work force -- private work force works in a larger -- actually works for a small business. i think it's 30% work for a larger corporation. but is that -- as that corporation becomes more competitive globally and our products become more competitive, the result of that is going to be higher wages,

more sales, more jobs, more opportunities, more expansions into our state and not beyond our borders. and i voted for this bill last week because it gives our economy a big boost. i challenge anybody who is watching this closely or feels this in their family or their state budget or their personal budget that says that this country's economy is growing fast enough or is robust enough or everybody's benefiting. we know that's not the case. we see it in our towns. i live in a relatively small area. communities in my state of west virginia and across this country have been forced to deal with the consequences of a struggling economy. shuttered stores, closing schools, falling real estate prices. this is what happens when everything contracts or stays so stagnant. it has really affected many aspects of our lives.

so i voted for this tax bill because you know what? i'm not just okay with that i'm not okay withstanding still. if you're standing still, you're losing. we need to move this economy forward. we need to make it work for everybody. and so basically i have had enough. the tax cut and jobs act represents a new direction for america, one that provides hope, prosperity, and a chance to really turn things around for a lot of people. of course, as with many legislative accomplishments of this magnitude, concerns have been raised from some of those who feel differently. that's what a conference committee is about. we hear concerns, we have heard them from our constituents. i'm sure the house has heard them from their constituents. that's what the conference committee is all about. and i have been raising the ones that i have heard in west virginia to my friends who are going to be part of the conference process. as i have said many times, this is a significant moment for our country. i believe we haven't done major

tax reform in 31 years. it's well past time. it will provide a significant opportunity and it requires big and bold action. we do a lot of little things around here that chesapeake people, and those are great, but it's rare that we can do something big and bold that's going to help so many people in this country. let me go back to my statistic. 83% of the people in west virginia file without itemization. they are going to be getting a doubling of the standard deduction, a doubling of the child tax credit, a tax cut, tax relief. keep the money, make the decision in your own family. and it's predicted because of the simplification factor that that number of 83% will actually rise in many states, and mine included. so i think this big and bold action we're about to embark on is something we can look at with great pride. i ask my colleagues on both

sides to sincerely look at this, and in our efforts to provide tax relief, tax reform, tax cuts, and an economic boost to our country that we so desperately need. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. hoeven: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i'm pleased to follow my esteemed colleague from west virginia and really want to join her in her comments and emphasize what she emphasized so well, and that this really is all about hardworking taxpayers across this country, and not just in terms of making sure they keep more of their hard-earned dollars after taxes, but making sure that their wages and income go up. over the last decade, you know, we have seen real stagnation in

terms of wages and income. and so as we work on this tax package, we want to make sure that across all income groups we see real tax relief. but the other aspect is that it's pro-growth. it's about stimulating investment across this country by entrepreneurs, by innovators, by small companies, and with big companies bringing money from overseas back home to america to create jobs in america. as we create those jobs, that competition for labor pushes wages and salaries higher. and so it really is a twofer. it is about real tax relief for hardworking americans, and it is about making sure that their wages and income go up. these are just some of the estimates that have been put forward so far as to the impact

that this tax relief package will have. according to the council of economic advisors, $4,000 in higher wages. so that's what i'm talking about. it's not just tax relief. it's about higher wages. for an average family of four, average, median income, median income, average family of four saving $2,200 in taxes. okay. that's from the nonpartisan tax foundation. so it's the combination of both those things. higher wages, lower taxes. it comes from creating more jobs. the estimate again from the council of economic advisors, almost a million more jobs. it's those jobs that not only create opportunity but that competition for workers is what pushes those wages higher. and 3.7% larger economy.

and that larger economy is a very important consideration as well because by growing the base, by growing the base and then even with lower taxes you generate more revenue, more revenue for the government to invest in our priorities and to reduce the debt and deficit over time. of course we have to find savings where we can, but at the same time you have got to have economic growth to address debt and deficit, and that is exactly what we create. through the combination, not just tax relief but the combination of tax relief and the regulatory relief that we have done through the course of this year. it's that regulatory relief and that tax relief that really empowers our small businesses across the country, which is really the backbone of our economy. we're talking farmers, we're talking ranchers, we're talking small businesses of all kinds. we're talking entrepreneurs. we're talking innovators. we're talking about the job creators in this country

creating more jobs and opportunity, and the wage earners and the workers benefiting through lower taxes and higher wages. this next chart shows that the tax relief really comes across all income groups. that's something that obviously has been discussed, and that's what we're doing here is we're making sure that across every single income group there is a tax cut. so the effort is to focus on lower income, middle income workers but to make sure that there is tax relief across all groups. and the way we focus on lower income workers is by increasing the standard deduction. we more than double the standard deduction from about $6,000 today to $12,000 for an individual. so for a married couple, that's $24,000. for a single individual who has dependents that he or she is taking care of, whether that's children or maybe a parent or a relative, it's $18,000 for an

individual. now, with that higher standard deduction, we'll find that nine out of ten people won't itemize. they -- that means that they can complete -- their tax return will be one page. it's simple, it's easy, and they can send it in. nine out of ten filers with this new higher standard deduction -- not dole we provide income relief to lower- and middle-income taxpayers, but it makes it much simpler to fill out that tax reform. and at the same time we keep our deductions and exemptions that are very important to people. for example, the child tax credit is doubled. the child tax credit goes from $1,000 to $2,000. so we're doubling the child tax credit. to help for college, we make sure that the people can open a

529 savings account so that they can save money for college and for education of their young people. and businesses will be encouraged to provide paid family and medical leave by receiving a tax credit to partially offset an employee's pay while caring for a child or a family member. other important deductions that we continue. the mortgage interest deduction -- very important. i mean, the deductibility of the mortgage on your home, you know, we continue that very important, very popular tax deduction. the deductibility of charitable contributions. so for charitable organizations that need those contributions to continue to fund their important activities, we continue that tax deductibility. the child and dependent tax care credit, the adoption tax credit, the earned income tax credit, again, to help families with

children, working families with children. we continue the 401(k) retirement deduction. that was one that had been discussed and there was concern expressed that that might be reduced. we don't. we continue to keep it in place. we continue the deductibility of medical expenses. so, for example, for seniors who may have a lot -- or others -- who may have a lot of medical expense, they can continue to deduct the cost of those medical expenses. so in all these cases, we've worked very hard to make it simpler and to make sure that for low- and middle-income workers that we're providing to tax relief. now, this next chart goes to what we call pass-throughs, because, as i mentioned earlier, really, you know, the heart and soul of our economy is small business. and so we want to make sure that we're providing tax relief for

small businesses across this country so that they can invest, create more jobs, hire more workers. now, for larger businesses or businesses that do -- that are multinational, what we're doing is making our tax code competitive. and what that does is that creates an incentive for the larger companies to bring capital back home that's currently overseas and invest it in america and create jobs in america. that's called repatriation. estimates are, you know, leading economists estimate that there's more than $2.5 trillion that u.s. corporations have overseas that they would bring back home, bring back to america with this tax reverse and invest -- with this tax relief, and invest in america. so that's all about them creating jobs here at home, rather than investing somewhere else in the world.

that only creates jobs -- okay, that push for higher wages and income -- but that also brings back revenue that helps pay for this tax cut for the individuals and for smaller companies as well, because when they come back and invest here, that generates tax revenue in america rather than somewhere else in some other country. so we want -- those larger multinationals to bring back and invest in america. and for our smaller companies, that's pass-throughs, we apartment to make sure that they have the ability to expand and grow their businesses. that's what you see here with the work we've done for small businesses across every income group. small businesses are getting a tax break. and the reason you do it across income groups is of course with a pass-through, they're taxed at the individual level. so whether it is a limited liability partnership who are a limited liability corporation,

the income earned by those small businesses is passed through to the owners and the investors, and then it's taxed at that individual level. so what we show is across the board those small businesses are getting -- keeping more of their money so that they can put it in plant and equipment rather than sending it in to the federal government. and some of the things that we've kept that are -- i'm just going to go some of the things that we've either kept or added for small businesses, particularly some -- for example, in the ag area very important to my state. but again things that we've kept that really help all small businesses, include first lowering the rate, right? we start by lowering the rate. so across every income group we lower that tax rate. unlike the house -- the house plan that is three different tax rates. we have seven different tax rates, which compares to the seven that we have right now,

okay? but we drop them all. we reduce each one of those rates. that's important to understand because that's the objective is we want to make sure that tax relief is provided across the board. there's been some discussion about, well, does that create more complexity in terms of having seven different tax rates like we do today? really it doesn't. the complexity in determining what you have to pay in taxes comes from calculating your taxable income. that's what we've greatly simplified, as i described earlier. we make sure that we provide an income break across every different income group, every different business group, because again this is about providing tax relief. so it starts with lowering obviously those rates for businesses. but we also provide other very important incentives for investment. remember, this is about pro-growth investment to grow the economy and increase wages.

one of those is expensing. and that's very important because if -- when a business puts out cash to invest in plant and equipment, they're out those dollars. if they can't deduct that expense up front, it's a lot harder for them to make that expenditure. so for the first five years we provide full expensing, and that's incredibly important, whether it's a farm in my state of north dakota or a small business in my colleague's state of north carolina. if they can write off that expense in that plant in that capital, in that equipment, whether it is farm machinery or any other equipment, then they're able to make that investment and grow their business. we not only provide that full expensing for the first five years with a step-down over the next four, on a permanent basis we kept section 179 expensing, which is a very popular investment incentive for small business.

that ensures that small businesses can expense up to $2 million a year in plant and equipment, and is it doesn't start phasing out until they get over $3 million in expenditures. on a permanent ongoing basis, that provides incredible certainty for the millions of small businesses across this country to keep investing, buying new plant, new equipment, growing their business, and that is the absolute backbone our economy and job reforms so those are the -- and job creation. the so those are the kinds of provisions that we've included in this tax relief package. well, where are we in a process? you know, we've moved our bill through the senate. the house has moved their bill through the house. now we're headed for conference. we need to complete that conference. we need to continue to work to get the best possible product and pass it across the floor, and our objective is to get that done before the end of the year.

but this process is important. this process is important. i'm just going to mention a couple of things in closing here that show the importance of this process. moving it through the senate, moving it through the house. working in conference committee to get the very best product we can for the american people because, for example, as we've -- as we've moved this package through the senate, one of the things we added that i think is incredibly important is that you can deduct up to $10,000 in property tax. so on your homestead, if you have property taxes of up to $10,000, we've now included that in the senate package. that's a very popular deduction that's important to many people. we added it in the senate. the house has it, so now this is going to come out of conference and include that property tax deduction. very important, very helpful, i think, to getting a good tax relief package. another one that i worked on directly is making sure that for car dealers and for implement dealers -- and these are small

businesses across the country -- that they can continue to deduct the interest on their floor plan. so for their cars on the lot, their inventory that you go and look at when you go and buy a car, or if you are an ag business, those tractors, they can deduct those. that's been added as we've advanced this package. another provision, it's i.c. disk. it is an incentive for companies that will export. well, big companies do a pretty good job of exporting. but for small companies when they are making product here and trying to send it to australia or somewhere else, that's a tough proposition. so we give them some help through that i.c. disk program. another example of how we've targeted some of these tax deductions to small businesses or kept some of these programs that really help small business and again make this package as

pro-growth as we possibly can. because at the end of the day, it is about keeping more of your hard-earned dollars after taxes. but it's about growing this economy. growing this economy -- that's the rising tide that lifts all boats. that's what we're b that's what we're about. so, you know, we can sit here and not do something like that and say, you know, okay, business as usual. but that's not what the american people want. that is not what the american people want. the american people sent us here to make changes, real changes, that are going to help us grow our economy, create more jobs, create more opportunity, that are going to do more for border security, that are going to strengthen our military, going to strengthen law enforcement, the rule of law in this country, that are going to improve our health care. so these are the kinds of things that we have to get done. these are the kinds of things that the american people are sent us here and said, hey, we need to get going on these

things and that's just exactly what we're doing. and i certainly call on all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join together and get this done, get this tax relief done for the american people and get it done before the year end. and with that, i will defer to my esteemed colleague from north carolina and yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the tax cuts that we passed a l wee -- we passed t week, whether you're from north carolina or elsewhere, the american people are going to benefit from t you're going to hear all kinds of interesting claims made here on this senate floor. i was just presiding, mr. president, before you relieved me from the chair. i heard one of the such speeches you're going to hear several times. we passed this tax bill so that we can actually now go cut support for people who need the

government safety net. that sounds absurd. it sounds absurd on several levels. the number one, it is not a very kind thing to do. and, number two, it is not a very wise thing to. why on earth would anybody think -- they're saying, we're passing a tax increase on working families and americans. what they forget is the ... maybe seven or eight years ago if we decide to raise taxes. highly unlikely. but in the here and now, and next year after this tax bill gets passed, working families are going to get a tax cut. how on earth can you look at a standard deduction doubling -- okay, we're going from $6,000 to $12 pe,000 per individual and $24,000 per family. what does it mean? that standard deduction means that that money isn't going to get taxed. so we're increasing the number of people who will not pay taxes. one of the brackets we haven't talked about that i think we should are the number of people

who go to a zero tax bracket under the senate noon and to a large -- under the senate plan and to a large extend under the house plan. now let's talk about a single mother with a child. the first $12,000 isn't going to be taxed and another $2,000 per child will not be taxed before you had aide even be subject to tax -- but you'd even be subject to tax. it is not an increase in taxes. those who oppose this plan are trying to talk about a hypothetical possibility seven or eight years from now that i don't believe is going to a one of the reasons why i believe it is highly unlikely to happen is because we're going to have economic growth from this tax plan. now, the way you get economic growth is you is also to recognize that in the united states we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. when people trying to set up shop today, it's not -- you don't have to necessarily set up shop in the united states to do business in the united states. you go to the lowest-cost

jurisdiction. and i don't fault a business for doing that. when i am confronted with maybe the desire to set up a business in, say, north carolina or somewhere else in the united states, but it's going to cost me substantially more, of course i'm going to make the business decision to go where i have the most resources necessary to produce the product or service that i want to provide. by cutting corporate taxes and cutting what we call the pass-through which is really, it's handling all businesses, whether they are a sea corporation or a pass-through entity, i won't get into the details but there are two different ways businesses set up to lower taxes, by lowering that burden on businesses we are going to see economic growth. after the tax cuts are put into place we're immediately going to see a reduction in your tax burden for working families. that's going to be just the reality of the lowering of the tax, the increases in the deductions, i should say, and the lowering of the tax burden. over time you're going to see

additional money going into the pockets of working families because i firmly believe that through economic activity we're going to see an upward increase in wages, we're going to see median incomes go up. we're going to see people lifted out of poverty. and the reason i believe that is because we've done it in north carolina. we were roundly criticized the same way people did on this floor back when i was serving in the state legislature and we delivered on a promise we made if we got a majority in the state of north carolina. we went on to decreasing the tax burden on businesses, decreasing the tax burden on individuals. and we've seen our income to the state go up. more money, more resources in the state, good things for people in north carolina. one of the good things we continue to do is to continue to lower the tax burden because our economy is growing like we haven't seen in decades in north carolina. it also provides us with resources to help those who truly need help.

the argument that suddenly we're going to pay for this tax cut by harming people on medicare and medicaid is just absurd. all of us here have mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, maybe brothers and sisters who rely on medicare, medicaid and social security as their primary source of income. how anybody could come to this floor and say i'm going to tell my 85-year-old mother -- mom, i'm sorry if you're watching it because she hates when i mention her age -- who relies on medicare and relies on social security, that we're going to come to this chamber and betray that trust and break that promise we made to them is absurd. are we talking about things we can do so i can make the promise to these pages when they get old someday -- i know it's hard for you to imagine that you're going to get old someday, but you will -- that what we're talking about is making sure we can fulfill that promise for the generations who have not yet relied on medicare and medicaid -- or medicare and social security. and if we don't act we're going

to harm the very people that other people in this chamber profess to be helping. but we've got a fiscal crisis out there we have to deal with, but it has no connection to what we're trying to do with tax reform. people say we passed the tax reform bill so we can harm other people and pay for the tax, the tax cuts through cuts for our entitlement programs, safety net programs. not happening. we've justified this tax package based on what we believe to be economic growth. this tax bill will be funded through economic growth. this tax bill will be funded by more people making higher wages, more businesses being successful and hiring other people. the united states being more competitive on the global stage. that's how we pay for this tax package. again, i speak from somewhat a bit of experience because we did tax reform over the last five years in north carolina. it wasn't perfect. that's why we came back and made changes after we realized there were unintended consequences

which is the last thing i'll talk about. we're now going into what we call conference. today what you're observing is a period of time we have to pass through in the chamber before we can vote to go to conference. and when we go to conference, it means that the house and senate will get together and we'll try to work out our differences. one of the things we'll have to do there is work out some things identified as maybe unidentified consequences of the bill to make sure we minimize any negative impact until we work through some of the models. en that's going to happen. i think the conferencing process will produce a better bill. but more than anything it's time to deliver on a promise we made to the american people. we need to be the congress that for the first time in over 30 years actually delivers on the promise of reducing the tax burden and getting the economy back on track, the way it hasn't been for quite some time. that's why i'm proud to have voted for the tax plan. that's why i'll be proud to vote for the plan that goes to the

president's desk. and that's why i'll be proud to stand in this chamber just a couple of years from now and demonstrate that the courage that we're displaying by moving forward with this bill is going to produce a result for the american people that benefits every single person all across the socioeconomic spectrum. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to again tell the american people don't, don't necessarily believe everything that's going to be said in this chamber over the next couple of days or couple of weeks. don't, american people, be afraid when you hear that one or other party is working hard so that we can harm people who rely on our safety net. don't believe it. it's not true. don't believe that we've decided that it's a great political strategy to raise taxes seven years from now. don't believe that it's an immediate tax increase because that's empirically untrue. believe that we're doing everything we can to fulfill our promise, and believe that if we do this, everybody in the united states is going to

benefit. we're going to be a stronger nation. we're going to be a more competitive nation. and we're going to have a point in time in congress where we actually came here and did what we said we were going to do. thank you, mr. president, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, 16 years ago i introduced the dream act. the idea behind the legislation was that if you were brought here to america as a child by your parents, and you're

undocumented, you grew up in this country and you don't have a serious criminal record, you do have a completion of school, you deserve a chance to earn your way into legal status into america. you have nothing to say about the decision of your family to come here. you've grown up in this country. and if you want to be part of our future, you should be given a chance. ives -- it's a pretty basic idea. it's been debated for a long time. president barack obama stepped up and said since we haven't passed that law, i'll create something called daca, deferredy childhood arrivals. and under that executive order the people i just described can be protected from being deported for two years at a time. they have to go through a criminal background check, they have to pay a $500 fee, and they get a temporary ability to live in the united states without fear of being deported

and to work in this country. 780,000 young people came forward and signed up. and went on with their lives of going to school and getting jobs, becoming part of america. daca-eligible people joined our military. they weren't american citizens, but they joined our military willing to sacrifice their lives in defense of a country that doesn't legally recognize them as lawful immigrants. 900 of them did that, signed up for america's military. 20,000 of them became teachers in schools all across the united states. most of them are students working because they can't qualify for federal assistance to go to school, and there are some amazing stories. so there they were kind of in limbo, half here, half not here, uncertain about their future but the protection of that executive order. president trump came in and said it's over. as of september 5, he ended this daca protection, saying

prospectively the final day for it is march 5 of 2018. 780,000. and the president then said to congress, now do something. pass a law. take care of these people. well, three months have passed, and we have done nothing. nothing. in fact, we've done little or nothing on the floor of the senate for the last several months, but we haven't done this. and it's still unresolved as to whether or not they're going to have a chance to be part of america's future. young people like them have a similar chance. unresolved. we've got to do something about that and we have to do it soon. because you see, every day 120 of these young people lose their protection under daca. that's almost 1,000 a week. so far 10,000 of them have fallen out of protection under daca. what does it mean in practical terms? first, the fear of being

deported. you're no longer protected. you're undocumented in america. you could be deported. a knock on the door, and you are gone. do these young people know that? of course they do. and i see them every weekend. i sit down with them. they're emotionally distraught over the possibility of their lives ending as they know it. being deported to countries they've never been to before, facing languages they don't know. think about that possibility. you're 18 or 19 years old, and now you're being deported back to bolivia, where you've never been. you may not speak spanish very well but now you're going to be tossed back into bolivia, where you came from. and so now the question is what will we do about this? well will congress act or wait? some voices on the floor of the senate have said well, let's try to get around to this next year. you certainly can't look at the floor of the senate today or virtually any day and say we are so swamped with work, we just can't take this up.

of course we can. and we should. and i want to salute my republican colleagues, a number of whom have stepped up and said let's sit down and work this out once and for all. these young people deserve a chance. let's give them that chance. their stories are nothing short of inspiring. this is yuriana aguilar. she was five years old when her family brought her here from mexico. she grew up near fresno, california, and quite a good student. top 1% of her high school class, graduated as valedictorian. she was involved in a lot of activities, member of the high school's junior rotc program, volunteered at retirement homes and with a group called tree fresno, planting trees in her community. she first learned about her immigration status when she was a senior in high school. she thought she was okay. she learned she was wrong.

she tried to apply for financial aid and they said you're not documented. you're not legally in america. came here at the age of five, and she learned about it much later in life. she didn't give up. she just said this can't be the end of my story. she was accepted at the university of california merced, majored in biological science, made the dean's list every semester and the chancellor's honor list, conducted research in marine biology as well as arthereo sclerosis, a question of the build-up of fat, cholesterol and other substances in arteries. she continued community service volunteering for the boys and girls club for a local hospital, with the church's sunday school program. after she graduated, she couldn't pursue her dream of becoming a scientist because she was undocumented. but she didn't give up. she said this can't be it.

so she volunteered at a research lab where she wasn't going to get paid but where she was able to continue studying and learning. then president obama created daca, the executive order i referred to in 2012. because of that she was allowed to apply to the university of merced's ph.d. program in quantative and systems biology. her research focused on sudden cardiac death, the leading cause of natural death in the united states. last year yuriana became the first undocumented person at the university of merced to receive a ph.d. listen to what the dean of the school of natural sciences said. yuriana's work is stunning. it will have significant impact on our knowledge of the workings of the heart at the cellular level. the potential benefit of her research in cardiac care is enormous. she's now a post doctoral fellow

and instructor at russ university medical center in chicago, the city i'm honored to represent. i was just with her last week. this is a picture of her in her lab. she continues research on heart health, thanks to daca. but it's coming to an end. president trump has ended the program which allows yuriana to stay and study in the united states of america. she's not going to give up, she says. she wants to bring her medical knowledge and expertise back to the central valley in california where she grew up. during her childhood she saw how people's financial situations often determined their health care. she wants to establish a research-based hospital to make sure that the same top-quality health care is available even for lower-income families. she sent me a letter. she told me about the day that daca was announced. she was in a research lab doing what she loves to do. she had a human heart in her

hand, beating with an artificial valve outside the body. and when she saw the news, she cried, and i quote, i'm finally out of the shadows. so, mr. president, can she wait? should she leave? that's the basic question we face. should we do something now, democrats, and -- democrats and republicans, and solve the problem. don't we want someone like yuriana to stay in this country? of course we do. she made it through american schools. she beat the odds when it came to college and graduate degrees without the help of government loans. she's a the pretty determined young woman, and her

determination does not only mean she has an opportunity for a great life, it's the opportunity to make the lives of so many of us better. this is a simple issue of justice and fairness. that's what's at the heart of it. people come to the floor and want to make this about so many other issues in the immigration system. can i tell you, our immigration system is a mess. it is broken down and has so many problems. i sat for six months drawing up a confirmation immigration bill with my republican and democratic colleagues. we passed it in the senate, but the house wouldn't consider it. our immigration system is broken. do not put on the shoulders of yuriana the immigration program. give her the justice that she deserves through her hard work and determination. that's what this comes down to. if we make the dream act the law of the land, young people like

urania can prove to work their way into legal status, work their way into citizenship and become a valuable part of america's future. let's roll up our sleeves and do what we were sent to do, solve problems, pass laws, make sure that we set the stage for america to be a better nation in years to come. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, i am going to be offering a little bit later this afternoon, a motion to instruct conferees for the tax bill that might be one of the most straightforward amendments. we move that the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the bill, h.r. 1, be instructed to insist that the final conference report not increase the federal budget deficit for the period of fiscal

years 2018 through 2027. it couldn't be more straightforward. don't increase the budget deficit. why? well, this chart basically tells the story. we are headed into literally unchartered territory with regard to our national debt. it is a threat to this country, it's a threat to our national security, it's a threat to every man, woman, and especially child, because they are the people who are going to have to pay this debt. this is a history of our debt in constant dollars going all the way back to the revolutionary war and it tells a very powerful story. at the very beginning of our country, 1790, a big piece of debt to pay for the revolutionary war. they paid it off. another mountain of debt to pay for the civil war. it was paid off.

the debt goes up again to pay for world war i, and it was paid off. and then it goes up for the depression and then to a peak in world war ii. but what happened after world war ii? as we all know world war ii was fought, our country was defended, victory was achieved by something that has been called the greatest generation. and the greatest generation paid their bills. they paid off the debt from world war ii. it went down in the 1970's and then back up again in the 1980's, and here's where we are today. the bill that was passed in the dead of night, early saturday morning, adds $1.5 trillion to that debt. $1.5 trillion. we're adding to the debt at a time of low unemployment,

enormous growth in the stock market and a relatively strong economy. it's not perfect by any means, but compared to where we were five or six years ago, we're in positive territory on the economy. that's when you should pay down debt, not add to it unnecessarily. if we were in a crisis, if we were in a recession, if we were in a conflict that required an immediate mobilization, that's when you want to add to the debt. that's what you borrow for. we're borrowing to pay park rangers' salaries. we're borrowing to do the ordinary operation of government and now we're borrowing to give major tax cuts in a time of rel ittively -- relatively positive economic growth. i know it's not as high as it should be or as high as we want it to be, but this bill that we passed that is going to be added to the debt isn't going to do much of anything to assist us

with growth. the analysis of the joint taxation committee is that it will add .8% of 1% to g.d.p. growth in ten years. that's almost immeasurable -- .8% of 1% in one year. it doesn't come close, by the way, to paying for itself. doesn't come close, maybe 15% or 20%. that's an interesting number. because all the numbers i have seen about tax cuts and economic growth is they do about 20% of their costs, the other 80% is eaten by our kids. it's unethical what we're doing. if 5-year-olds knew what we were doing and could vote, we would all be out of a job because they are the ones that are going to have to pay this bill. and to see this mountain climbing, and it doesn't take a lot of immagination and to see

that it is going to be higher than it was for world war ii, it's unconscionable, it's unnecessary. if indeed, we were going to expand the economy 3% or 4% a year and everybody said that's what we're going for, maybe, okay. but 3% a year times ten, that's 30% growth. we're talking about .8% of 1% over ten years -- not one year, over ten years. so my motion is very, very simple. don't come back with a bill that adds to the deficit. and there are lots of ways we can do tax reform. there are lots of ways to cut corporate taxes, make ourselves more competitive. we can do offshore tax cuts. there are lots of way -- ways to do this without changing --

hammering the deficit. we have a mistake in the bill of 289,000. a mistake in the bill that we passed because we did it so fast that nobody knew what was in it. i have a new rule, the faster a bill goes through the united states congress, the worse it is, and i think that's what with we've seen in this case. we can deal with tax reform, we can increase our competitiveness, we can get our taxes aligned, particularly our business taxes with the rest of the world, without loading this debt on to our children. a tax cut, when all you're doing is borrowing to fill the hole, is not a cut. it's a shift of the tax from you to your kids. you're on your deathbed, you're lying there, and you say to your children, come on over, i'll give you my last words.

they come over, they are listening, they want wisdom. what they say is, here's the credit card, we had a great trip to alg polko -- we had a great trip, you can pay for it. that's what we're doing in this bill. it's wrong and it's not necessary. it's not necessary. and i think one of the questions that we're going to have to ask and answer and we're going to see it, it's going to play out is, what are companies going to do with this new-found income when the taxes are cut dramatically from 25% to 30%, is that money going to go into wages? is it going to incan crease people's wages, productivity or will it go back to stock buyback? that's great for the owners, but it doesn't do a thing for the workers and it doesn't do much for the united states economy. so, again, my motion couldn't be

more straightforward and simple. work on the tax bill in conference. i think you're going to have a hard time making a good bill out of it, but whatever you do, come back with something that's deficit neutral. by the way, that's where this discussion started. last january, the leadership in both houses and both parties were talking about deficit neutral tax reform, and somewhere along the way it became, let's break the bank, let's create a situation where we're not going to have any slack when we need it. no business would run this way and it's wrong for us to try to run the country this way. so, mr. president, i'm going to make this motion. i hope that my colleagues, many of whom on the other side of the aisle have been talking to me and the country for years about the dangers of the deficit, and they are suddenly, i predict, if this bill becomes law about the

time the ink is dry, they are going to say, oh, my lord, we have a deficit. look at that. i didn't know that, and we're going to have to cut spending, cut medicare, medicaid, social security because we have this huge deficit. well, we don't have to add to it and make it worse in this tax bill. and that's what's really bothering me. because the very people who have been talking to me and i have been listening to for 20 years about how serious the deficit is, i was fool enough to believe them. i think it is a serious problem and i think we need to address it. this is the opposite of addressing it. we're making it worse at the very time we should be talking about paying down the debt, not adding to it. we can do better. the american people expect more of us. we can do better, and i believe and deeply hope that we will come to our senses and do better in connection with this bill.

mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first, i want to express strong support for senator king's motion and for the argument that he is making about the debt. i the couldn't agree more, and i also rise today to speak on a motion to instruct that i also will be offering in just a few moments to direct the conference committee for this bill to add a provision that would return the corporate tax rate to its current level if wages do not increase by at least $4,000. that's the promise that has been made over and over again to working men and women, that these cuts being made and changes being made will result in $4,000 in increased wages in people's pockets. i think they have the right to know that the majority means it

when they say it and to make sure that is written into the final bill. the reason for this motion is very clear. as i indicated, republicans have promised american families that an increase in income from $4,000, $7,000, even $9,000 increases in wages. i think that is great. i would strongly support that. there is no evidence that this approach would do that and so far have not put language in that will happen for middle-class working families. president trump has called this a great big, beautiful christmas present for the american people. i would argue in reality, it is a great big christmas cent for the wealthiest -- present for the wealthiest 1%. for the rest, it is a lump of

coal. it allows corporations to ship jobs overseas, but if you move from one end of the country to another for a great job, you the can't deduct your expenses. middle-class families, you can only deduct a small portion of your state and local taxes. and when they talk about making it simpler and closing loopholes, none of that is in this bill. in fact, oil companies will enjoy a brand-new $4 billion offshore tax loophole. meanwhile 87 million american households who earn less than 2$00,000 a year will get a tax increase. say that again, 87 million american households who earn less than $200,000 would get a tax increase, and health insurance premiums would go up 10% and keep going while 13 million fewer people would

have health insurance coverage. if that's what's considered a great, big, beautiful christmas present, i imagine michigan families will say, i no, i am keeping the gift reaccept and -- receipt and taking it back to the store. steve mnuchin said on the personal side american families are getting cuts, rich people are getting little cuts. when you add it all up, he was tricky, he said on the personal tax side, but when you at it all up together, all of these proposals together mean that folks like secretary mnuchin and others in the cabinet and their income bracket will be the real winners. mick mulvaney is making promises, too. he said the president is not going to sign a bill that raises taxes on the middle class, period. i assume that would mean he would not sign this bill. the white house -- mr.

president, if i could ask for a minute more. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. stabenow: the white house also promised this average american people would get a $4,000 raise in the president's tax plan, and that's why i'm here, mr. president, because what i'm saying to folks in michigan, the proof is in your paycheck. the proof is in your paycheck. and that's what this motion is all about. if my republican colleagues are serious about putting more money in the pockets of the middle class which i want to do, i urge them to support this motion. we need to make sure that if folks are going to be promised at least $4,000 more in their wages, that they get it. and this would say this bill only goes forward, these new tax cuts, if people get their $4,000. the proof is in their paychecks. that's what this motion is about. and if my colleagues really believe what they are saying and

what the president has said, they will support this motion to make sure that guarantee is there for middle-class families. mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question is on the compound motion. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there notice senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the yeas are 51. the nays are 47. the compound motion is agreed to. the senate will be in order.

the senate will come to order. a senator: mr. president, i have a motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk, the senator from maine, mr. king, moves that the managers on the part of the senate of the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the bill h.r. 1 be instructed to insist that the final conference report not increase the federal budget deficit for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 2027. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the motion. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: this could not be a more simple resolution. it simply is hes to the conferees bring us back a bill that's deficit neutral. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from maine. mr. king: this motion simply instructs the conferees to bring us back a tax bill that is deficit neutral. it can be done. it should be done.

we're in a period now where we have no business adding to the federal deficit as we know this bill will add at least a trillion dollars to the deficit, probably more. if the middle-class tax cuts are extended, as everyone expects there will be. this is a burden that we're placing on our children and our grandchildren. we are giving ourselves a tax cut and letting them pay for it. and i believe that's wrong. it's bad policy. we're also utilizing whatever slack we have as far as debt goes. now when we're in relatively good times and we won't have it available when we have a problem such as a recession or some kind of heaven for bid attack -- forbid attack on our country. we should be paying down debt now, not adding to it. so the motion is very simple. this can be done. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, this is a time when we should be paying down debt and not adding to it. if our -- if our children, if

our five-year-olds knew what we were doing in this bill and could vote, we would be out of a job. the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would ask our colleagues to vote no on the motion and instruct unless you happen to believe that 2% and below growth is the new normal for the american economy. and we have nowhere to go but down as a country. and that people don't react to incentives to keep more of what they earn and businesses invest more in jobs and pay that people can take home and spend and enhance their standard of living. unless you're satisfied with the fact that companies are incentivized to keep earnings abroad and not bring them back home and invest in pay and jobs here in america. if you believe that -- if you believe that there is no better, brighter future for the american people, yes, vote for the king motion to instruct but if you believe we can and will do better under this bill, vote no.

the presiding officer: is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the motion. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: