in tallahassee, florida for the xt stop on the c-span bus 50 capitols tour. richard corcoran will be our guest during "washington journal" starting at 9:45 a.m. eastern. >> the senate passed the gop tax bill early this morning. the final vote was 51-49. senator bob corker was the only republican senator to vote against the bill. no democrats voted for it. here is a look at some of the debate leading up to the vote. we begin with richard durbin of illinois. senator durbin: mr. president what happens when you decide to write a tax bill that changes the economy of the united states of america? you don't have adequate hearings to gauge what's going to happen. you don't bring in the experts to try too tell you what the impact will be on individuals, families, and businesses, and you stick around until 5:00 on a

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

families and individuals. if they want to take that oath, and maybe some will, then i refer them to, ladies and gentlemen of the american jury, i refer them to exhibit a, page 257 of the 479. why do i pick this page? because i didn't have time -- they didn't have time to type it. they wrote it out in long hand. we're not even teaching cursive in a lot of schools anymore but someone on the staff knew it enough to try. the problem is, they wrote it in cursive along the margin here. it's about sub chapter s corporations and how much tax they pay and what they don't pay. i defy anybody to read it because the problem was when they copied it they chopped off lines. so there aren't full sentences here. just kind of like little phrases and words. this is your united states senate at work. this is what happens when you push through a bill late at night desperate to pass it

without really stopping to ask yourself, will this make us a stronger nation? will this help legitimate businesses that want to expand and create jobs? is this good for american families? well, the joint committee on taxation told us yesterday that's our score keeper. they're the ones we hired to be our score keeper. they're nonpartisan. they told us what they learned about this bill before we got the new version with the new amendments that our friends at k street were happy to tell us what the listings were. they told us that this starting bill will add a trillion dollars to the national debt, so our kids and grand kids can pay it off, to pay for the tax cuts. they also told us, that the predicted economic growth that is supposed to come out of these pages of 4% or 5% a year is 0.8%, is it not? >> correct. senator durbin: right? >> correct. senator durbin: they also told us the biggest beneficiaries

under this tax code, this joint committee on taxation, happened to be the wealthiest people in america. surprise, and the biggest corporations. they told us at least in the second 10 years, maybe before, regular, middle income families are going to pay higher taxes because of this. and they let us know, and we knew already, what's going to happen to programs like social security, medicare, and medicaid. you see, when you run up the national debt, and you want to try to balance the books, our republican friends have been very open about this, they want to cut the benefits under social security, medicare, and medicaid to try to balance the books. well, america, are you ready for this? are you ready for senior citizens who are counting on that social security check to cut benefits to pay for a tax cut, a tax giveaway to the wealthiest people in america? are you ready to see medicare cut? that's reimbursement for seniors

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

corporations instead of the big boys? that's what i think we should focus on. i don't know for sure that this bill doesn't do that. in fact, nobody does. nobody knows what's in here. 479 pages. if they tell you they do, then ask them to explain page 257. ask them to try to read this. i've tried. this is going to change the tax laws of america in ways we can't even explain. we've got to get this done because the united states senate has done little or nothing this year, and so they're desperate to get something done before the end of the year and, sadly, it's a tax bill which we've just been handed one hour and 15 minutes ago. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from illinois for a very insightful analysis and his skill as a handwriting expert may be necessary as the senate finance committee tries to divine what that particular page actually means. i thank my colleague for trying

to unpack a byzantine area of sub chapter f tax law. senator durbin: if the senator from oregon would yield a moment i'd like to ask that the infamous page 257 be made a part of the record after my speech, but i'm really sorry for the members of the staff who have to try to write this out and type it out. >> senator from florida? a massr of wealth under the guise of >> mr. president this is in effect a massive transfer of wealth under the guise of tax reform. senator nelson: under repeating the statement, "it will help the middle class. hat doesn't mean i. you have to look at what the facts are. and i think you've heard a number of the speeches here that will refute that this is not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

have a swamp in washington, d.c., are watching this happen right in front of their eyes tonight. we have a bunch of amendments that were dropped in by lobbyists here last night. we haven't seen except we got a list from them, and we have got ill legible amendments now at the desk that the american -- even if we could read them, we wouldn't be able to. it just doesn't make any sense. i tell you something else that doesn't make any sense. it doesn't make any sense that in our economy, 90% of our folks, the bottom 90% earn the same amount of income as the top 10%. the top 10% earn 50% of the income in this country. the bottom 90% earn the other 50%. and you can see the directions that these lines have headed over a number of years. that's the issue that we confront in our economy. that's what we all should be working on in a bipartisan way to try to address. unfortunately, instead of improving the circumstances for people in the bottom 90% of

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

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

and grandparents set for us and whether we are willing to make the kinds of investments in the next generation that they were willing to make in us. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president, just before we wrap up, i'd just like to make it clear, because i have heard republicans talk constantly about how the process is being conducted with regular order. i have never seen in my time in public service when we're talking about $10 trillion worth of tax policy changes and the biggest tax bill in three decades, something along the lines of the flimflam that we have been talking about with handwritten changes in the margins about something that conceivably will affect vast sums of taxpayer money, and i yield back. the presiding officer: who yields time?

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

to their income tax, many of whom don't have a high income tax liability but a payroll tax, they're not going to enjoy the full benefit. the result is kind of absurd if you do one without the other, and the result is that if you make $500,000 a year and you have enough kids, you can use the whole credit. but if you don't make that much money, if you make like $25,000 a year, you won't get nearly as much of the credit, even though you paid the taxes. it kind of doesn't make any sense, right? we're trying to help people with the cost of raising children by allowing them to keep more of their own money. it's the people who make less that need it the most. and when you only do half of it, which is the $2,000 increase, you only get it half right. and so it's good. there are people that are going to be helped by that, but we could have helped so much more. the little we have today that is before us here and will be before us in a few minutes when there is a substitute that's provided, it cuts the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%.

and a reduction of the corporate tax rate is something i strongly support because i think it makes america more competitive and in the process is going to help a lot of the same people that we're trying to help. i know that sounds countercyclical, but it does, because when these corporations are able to save money in taxes, many of them will use some of that job to create new jobs, hiring more people. that money, some of it will be reinvested and perhaps even flow towards workers in the form of higher wages over time. these are positive things. so i am not against a reduction of the corporate tax rate. in fact, i ran for president, for the senate and for reelection to the senate on the promise of reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%. 20% goes well beyond that. however, in order to be able to pass something and pay for it. people don't know this back at home, so to kind of explain it. this bill allows us roughly $1.5 trillion over the next ten years of spending over revenue. we think that the growth in the economy is going to more than offset that, but for purposes of

the rules of the senate, it's got to be within those parameters. in order for us to offer an amendment that provides an increase in the child tax credit at a rate that we want to do it, about $86.9 billion, we have to find $86.9 billion somewhere in order to be able to do it. and initially we had proposed, instead of cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%, we proposed cutting it from 35% to 22%. it's still a massive cut. it's still well below the international average of 23%. it still puts us in third place among the seven largest economies in the world. but that's met with some significant resistance. we have always said we have been open to a different way of doing it. so today when the substitute amendment is offered, we're going to offer an amendment, senator lee and i, that instead of the 22%, it's going to propose that we reduce the corporate tax from 35% to 20.94%.

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

about $260 billion to cut even more taxes for businesses. i have no problem with that. i want america to be supercompetitive. but somehow through some political jujitsu or some magical formula, $260 billion appeared to provide even further cuts, and that's fine. i just wish some of that jujitsu and political magic had been employed on behalf of the millions of americans making between $20,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year because they need our help. what has been the opposition to this? frankly, some of it is untrue. some of it is offensive. some of the opposition i have heard is the people who would benefit from this tax cut don't pay taxes. they don't pay income tax or a lot of income tax, but they pay taxes. if today at 5:00 you left your job as a construction worker and you got your paycheck, they took money out of your paycheck, and when they take $200 out of your paycheck, it doesn't matter if

it says fica or if it says income tax withholding. it's $200. it's the same money, and you have $200 less of it. that's a tax. any time the government takes your money, it is a tax. but i have had people tell me, including people in the administration, they don't pay taxes. i have had people say they don't generate economic growth, which is, in my mind, number one, not true, and number two, the wrong way to think about it. you see, our economy should be working for our people, not our people for our economy. and when you talk that way, you have got it wrong. i also disagree they don't generate growth because when you make $50,000, when you make $50,000, you spend every penny that you make. i know these people. i live in west miami, florida, where the average income -- and west miami is a small little city. three quarters of a square mile. i have lived there since 1985. the average income is $38,000 a

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

can't get unless you're working be antiwork? i'll tell you what's antiwork. a package of benefits from the government that you get worth more than this tax credit that you are eligible for if you don't work. i want you to tell the worker at a head start facility. think about this. you are a teacher at a headstart pre-k and you make too much money for your children to go to headstart but you don't make enough to be able to afford child care for your own kids. that's happening all over this country. and somehow there is a black hole where we can't find $96.9 billion -- $86.9 billion to help them a little more. the second thing we heard we can't cut the corporate tax rate because it's going to hurt growth. okay. you're telling me that if we have a corporate tax rate that

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

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

aren't willing to do another $86 billion of allowing people to keep their own money, we're not willing to do something as small as this, we're not willing to do anything for working people in this country. and that's a big problem. that's an enormous challenge for our nation. and these people have felt neglected and disrespected for a long time. and i want to be very careful but i want to be clear about what i'm saying. the political debate in america today is either all about helping the very poor and i support the safety net. i don't think free enterprise works without a safety net. it should be there to help people who cannot help themselves, to help people stand back up on their feet and try again. or the political debate is all about helping the business community. and i support that. because we need vibrant economic growth to create jobs and opportunity. but what about everybody else? what about the people that make $50,000 a year so they make too much money for chip, for pre-k

paid for them by the government for headstart, for obamacare subsidies. they make too much for government benefits but don't make nearly enough to afford the cost of living. what about them? what's in it for them? yes, there's going to be economic growth and we're going to see wage increases. but not for everyone. not in this new economy in which there has -- the haves and have notes are largely guided -- divided between those that have the right skills and the right degrees and those that do not and that has gone unaddressed for a long time. if we do not address it, we leave our nation vulnerable to too dangerous political streams. radical socialism on the left and ethnic nationalism on the right. neither one of them are true to the american principles that created the greatest nation on earth. again, i am not here to tell you the child tax credit solves that problem. i am here to tell you that if we

cannot endo that, it is evidence of our own willingness to do beyond it the things that need to be done. but we have a major challenge in this nation and all we ask for and all i implore my colleagues to vote for -- i know people on the other side of the aisle, this doesn't go far enough. i understand that. i do. i know you want to get it to a higher number. i know you want it to apply to more people. i promise you, too. i wanted it to be $2,500. i'm trying to figure out in this constitutional republic which cannot be a zero sum game how we make things better if we not make them perfect. on the other side of the aisle i improrp my colleagues to believe this is not a black hole or welfare. these are the teachers, the firefighters, your neighbors and friends who are struggling because everything costs so much more. why can't we help them keep a little bit more of their own money? and really is a 20.94% corporate tax rate going to hurt growth?

especially if it will help us provide a little bit more assistance for the people who today desperately need our help. so i hope i can earn the support of many of my colleagues as possible. it won't make this bill perfect. it doesn't go far enough for some but it will make it better. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that there now be 30 minutes equally divided for debate only with no amendments or motions in order and with the majority leader being recognized at the conclusion of that time. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: we're going to have several of our colleagues on our side take five minutes each and we're going to start with senator sanders. mr. sanders: mr. president, as i think about what's going on here today, i think this is in many ways a historic day, a day that

historians will look back on december 1, 2007. and they will conclude that today is a day of one of the great robberies act of criminal activities if you like in the modern history of this country because the federal treasury is being looted tonight. as we speak, there are lobbyists all over capitol hill writing down in handwriting amendments to this bill to give hundreds of millions if not billions of tax breaks, billions of dollars in tax breaks to large corporations. as we speak they're probably still writing those amendments. meanwhile, the senate-led -- this republican-led senate has been unable to reauthorize the

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

before, that after the republicans pass this huge tax giveaway to the wealthy and large corporations, they will be back on the floor of the senate. and when they come back, they'll say oh, my goodness, the deficit is too high. we have got to cut social security, medicare, medicaid, education, and nutritional programs. in other words, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires and to large profitable corporation, they're going to cut programs for the elderly, the children, the working families of this country, and the poor. this legislation will go down in history as one of the worst, most unfair pieces of legislation ever passed. but i say to my republican

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

not just the koch brothers, not just the billionaire class, not just wealthy campaign contributors. i yield. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i want to talk about one of the -- one of the really pro-growth features in this tax reform that is going to encourage investment in the united states, new business creation, start-up, expansion, and hiring that will be associated with that. that means new jobs, more demand for workers, and higher wages. what am i referring to?

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

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

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

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

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

doing business in england? anyone other thank the united states. and this has been the very reason that you have seen this crazy -- these inversions, these american companies getting acquired by other companies. in many cases it's not about the economics, it's not about synergies. it's because there is a tax advantage to having a multinational headquartered almost anywhere other than the united states. and, mr. president, there's a lot of good jobs at a corporate headquarters. there is. management and sales and finance and planning and all kinds of really good jobs, and we're losing these systematically because we have this system that nobody else in the world has -- almost nobody else has -- that punishes companies when they bring that money back home. so what are we going to do? we're going to change our system from one of the worst in the world to what i think is going to be one of the best. and what we're going to do is

we're going to say, well, a company operating overseas has to pay that local tax but we're not going to punish that company with another layer of tax when they bring this money back to america and i vest here. you know, most estimates of how much -- i should point out, you only hit hit of that tax penalty if you bring that money back and reinvest in america. that's how crazy that system is. it is called a deferral system. the common estimates are that there's somewhere between $2 trillion, $3 trillion, maybe even more than $3 trillion, where they've paid the tax overseas, as they must, but they refuse to brit money back home because they don't want to get hit with this huge tax. think about all of this money overseas somewhere else and not being invested in eric m i have had conversations with c.e.o.'s

overseas who have told me they want to invest in the united states. but the tax makes it prohibitively expensive to bring it home and therefore they're looking for opportunities overseas. mr. president, we have to end this and we're going to end this in this bill. and that is going to put an end to the tax incentive for these inversions, the movement overseas of corporate headquarters, it's going to make america a great place to invest and to headquarter a multinational company, and it's going to encourage the kind of growth. it's one of the central pillars of our business tax reform that is very constructive and very important. and i see my colleague from south dakota is with us and i will yield the floor now for him. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i would thank the senator from pennsylvania for outlining and highlighting what are -- i should say -- some of the many reforms that are included in this legislation. what he talked about is

critically important. if america is going to be competitive in the global marketplace, we have to change our tax code, because it is completely outdated, completely antiquated relative to any of the countries with whom we compete. so as the senator from pennsylvania pointed out, the reforms that we make in this bill allow american companies to compete and win against those other countries around the world. the chinas of the worked the russias of the world, those countries that america has to compete with on a daily basis have a huge advantage over american companies today simply because we have a tax code that doesn't recognize and reflect what's happening in the global economy. and that's why modernizing and updating our tax code was such a critical part of our tax reform efforts. mr. president, this is, i would say, contrary to -- i was listening to my colleague from vermont. i think this is a really great day in the united states senat. we're getting close to the finish line this tax bill. and over the past 24 hours i

think we've made a really great bill even better with more middle-class tax relief and more relief for small businesses and we've moved our bill closer to the house bill in key areas where i think will help us get this bill to the president's desk in the very near future. but i'm excited about what this tax bill is going to do for the american people. mr. president, america has always been about opportunity, a place where you could start from nothing and become anything. generations of people have come to this country to build a better life for themselves, and an even better town where forechildren. my grandparents were those people, came from norway in 1980, worked for a while on the -- came from norway in 1906 work for a while in a hardware store. it is an example of the millions

of americans -- or millions of people who came to this country, came to america in search of opportunity, mr. president. unfortunately, in recent years, those vast horizons that so many people came to this country for seem to have shrunk. the american dream has dimmed. the american dream has been replaced with getting biment we have watched idly as our jobs get shipped overseas, as other countries drop their tax rates. as emerging economies and nations grow faster thank the united states. american now spend more time worrying about their future than looking forward to it. mr. president, we're turning that around starting today with this tax bill. i'm reminded of ronald reagan's presidential ad noting that it was morning in america again. well, mr. president, it may not be morning yet, but the dawn is peeking over the horizon. the tax bill is going to provide immediate relief to hardworking

americans, it is going to immediately lower their tax bills. it is going to immediately mean more money in their pockets. but this bill is about much more than that. this bill isn't just about helping americans today, mr. president, although it is most certainly going to do that. this bill is about helping americans for the long term. it's about restoring the american dream. it's about giving americans access to the kinds of wages, jobs, and opportunities that will set them up for a more secure and prosperous future. and it is about sending a message to the world that america is finally serious about competing for 21st century jobs and innovation. for years our tax laws have kept american businesses at a disadvantage in the global economy. as other nations have changed their tax codes to strengthen their businesses, our tax code has kept american businesses struggling. but, mr. president, that ends now. this legislation makes a

tremendous investment in american businesses and american workers. under this bill, american businesses will no longer face the double taxation that is hadt has kept them hat a disadvantage next to their foreign counterparts. it will no longer face the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. they will no longer be playing catch-up with their foreign competitors. instead, american businesses will have money to invest in american workers. they will be able to expand their domestic operations and they will be able to compete with and beat their competitors around the globe. and what's the result of that? more growth here at home. more jobs. more opportunities. and higher wages. and an america that can lead the world in innovation, job creation, and economic growth.

mr. president, america may have been through a rough patch lately, but she is coming back stronger than ever. america led the world in the 20th century, and this tax bill makes it clear that she is going to do the same in the 21st century. mr. president, i hope that our colleagues, when i it comes time to vote on this tonight, will vote in favor of tax relief for middle-income families, of a stronger growing, vibrant economy that is creating better-paying jobs, raising wages for american workers and american families and a brighter and more prosperous future for future generations of americans. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i'd just like to set the record straight ton a couple of points. i have a response to my colleagues who continually say that this corporate tax cut is

going to raise workers' wages by $4,000. now, i asked the head of the joint committee on taxation whether that was the case. he essentially said no, he did not believe it was the case and referred us to tables that document it. perhaps even more egregious is tonight we heard our colleague from ohio say that a congressional budget office report claims that workers are going to get 70% of the benefit from a corporate tax cut. so it was raised even higher. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a report from the congressional budget office making it clear on the cover where it says the analyses and conclusions expressed there should not be interpreted. it directly contradicts the

comments made by the senator from ohio on wages and corporate tax cuts. i ask unanimous consent that be included. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. and if i could have the attention of my colleague from pennsylvania, i'd like to pose a question to him on a matter we have, as we've indicated, been digging through the amendments. and as far as i can tell, what we have is the earlier language, which imposes a new excise tax on the investment income of large university endowments. that has been in the bill. so be it. now there seems to be a new exception on page 289, the bill says that the new tax does not apply to a university otherwise subject to the tax if it is described in the first section, which is 511-a-2-b and which

does not receive federal funds. this is new. and i'm trying to figure out why there is this special exemption -- can't seem to find other people who are getting it or who it benefits. and i thought perhaps my colleague from pennsylvania could enlighten me on this. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: i'd be happy to enlighten the senator from oregon. what my provision does is it applies to any college that chooses not to receive federal funds under title 4. which is a very big category of funding for higher education. it's the provision that authorizes federal financial student loan programs, for instance. so the theory is, which you may or may not agree with, but my view is, if a college chooses to forego federal money and the students that attend have to find their own way to get in, it

is diminishing the burden that that college would otherwise impose on the taxpayers and so it's perfectly reasonable in my view, to exempt such a college from the tax on endowments that we're applying generally. that's the answer to your question. mr. wyden: but, if my colleague would yield further, what is your analysis of how many colleges would benefit from this? and the reason i ask is, it is my view, there are a lot of deserving oregon schools. and i seem to remember quite a few colleges in pennsylvania that also are very deserving. they would not benefit from this, and i would like my colleague's assessment of how many colleges would benefit from this particular provision. mr. toomey: i think there are very few probably who choose now to forego all of this taxpayer money, but any college in america that wanted to could do so. so any college that decided to

adopt the policy that i am allude being to here would choose to forego the taxpayer money subsidizing their students and if they choose to do that then they wouldn't are to pay tax on their endowment. it would apply to any college who made the choice. mr. wyden: so is this hills dale college? because that is what i have been led to believe. and i would just like my colleague's analysis of whether they would benefit. mr. toomey: i believe that hills dale college would qualify for this, as would any other college that chooses to forego title 4 funding. mr. wyden: i just am not aware of it. mr. toomey: there are other colleges that choose to forego the funding. i'm not sure how many of them also have an endowment large enough at the moment that it would have an impact on them, and i have no idea how long it

might take them to develop an endowment. but the point is anybody that is in this category would have this same treatment. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, would the senator answer a question about this provision? do you know who the biggest donor was to the hillsdale college endowment? would that be the deboss family? do you know who put this provision in here? mr. toomey: i advocated this provision? mrs. mccaskill: what does it have to do with taking title 4 money as to whether or not your endowment is going to be taxed? how is that apples and apples? it sounds like to me apples and oranges? what in the world do those two have in relation to each other? mr. toomey: are you finished with your question? mrs. mccaskill: yes. mr. toomey: i'll answer it again because i already answered this. you may choose to disagree and that's fine but my view is that a college that chooses to say we don't want to take any federal taxpayer dollars and therefore saves the taxpayer i don't know

how many millions all together, usually thousands per student, i think it's quite reasonable a college that chooses to not put that in position on -- put that imposition on federal taxpayers ought to be able to be exempt from this tax. it would be available to any college that made that choice. several colleges in america make this choice, and any others that choose to would be able to participate. mrs. mccaskill: so the rationale is if you choose not to take federal money, then your endowment is no longer subject to any tax? even though the endowment money doesn't come -- it comes from people that get a deduction for the tax, for the money they give; correct? the endowment comes from donors. it doesn't -- it is people that have in fact -- i thought the reason we were taxing the endowments is because the people who were giving the money were getting a tax deduction when they put it there. mr. toomey: the point is the college that is qualifying for this is choosing not to impose a

tax burden on the american taxpayer. they are not accepting, they are not allowing their students to take the federal taxpayer benefits that are available to them. they choose not to. this -- they save taxpayers a tremendous amount of money when they make that choice, and i think it's reasonable to allow them not to also have to pay this tax on their endowment. mrs. mccaskill: one more question. are the people who are giving to the endowment, are they still allowed to take the tax deduction? mr. toomey: i think people who give to the endowments are treated the same as people who give to any other endowment. mrs. mccaskill: so it doesn't matter in terms of the people giving to the endowments whether or not they get a tax deduction, just whether or not the school takes money from the federal government? mr. toomey: if the school chooses to save federal taxpayers very substantial amounts of money by foregoing the title 4 funds, then the school would not have to pay the tax. mrs. mccaskill: my point, senator, is that the people who are giving to the endowment get the exact same tax benefit as

people who give to any endowment in the country. mr. toomey: and it's a completely irrelevant point. the fact is the school is choosing to save the taxpayers a lot of money by foregoing money that would be available to its students. so it's very reasonable to have this modest savings that is available to the school that makes that choice and saves the taxpayers this money. mrs. mccaskill: it doesn't feel that way to us. it feels like this is a very limited provision written for a very special person. mr. toomey: universal provision available to any school that chooses to take it. mr. merkley: would my colleague from pennsylvania yield for a question? mr. toomey: sure. mr. merkley: is this hillsdale college the same one sued for discrimination in the 1980's? mr. toomey: i don't know the history of the litigation. mr. merkley: i know you introduced this provision so i assume you probably researched it some. isn't the reason that this college has not taken federal

funds is because they were sued for discrimination? mr. toomey: so, mr. president, this is not my understanding. i do understand that my colleagues on the far left do not have a fond opinion of hillsdale, but i do. i actually think it's a wonderful institution. and i commend them for their choice, as other colleges, of foregoing taxpayer money that they could be taking. the burden they could be imposing on taxpayers. but they choose not to. and i think any college in that category, whether it's hillsdale or any other college, ought not to have to pay the tax on the endowment. mr. merkley: your colleagues on the left don't have a fond opinion of this particular college, but my point is we don't have a fond opinion of discrimination and of giving a tax provision for just one college that happens to be funded by one of the wealthiest families in america because they happen to be a republican donor. why would that be a good

provision in terms of the united states of america to subsidize a college that quit taking federal funds because of discrimination? mr. toomey: why would you choose to mischaracterize this provision the way you just did? you said it's for one college and you know that's not true. there is a criteria that is available to any college in america, and any college that takes it will get that benefit. mr. merkley: provide a list of all the colleges that qualify. our understanding is this is written for one to qualify. that's why it shouldn't be done at the last minute just stuffed into the tax code. mr. toomey: the college does not like that -- if he does not like that provision he can strike it. this is a wide open process. mr. wyden: i'd ask unanimous consent for three additional minutes to complete this with one question. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. i was concerned at the beginning because there are so many deserving schools in oregon, in

pennsylvania, and elsewhere who don't get this special treatment. and obviously you've heard my colleagues express their concern, and i think it transcends somebody's politics. so my question now would be the perfecting amendment has not yet been filed. would my colleague be willing to take his provision out of the perfecting amendment and offer it as a separate amendment so he can actually have an up-or-down vote and perhaps by that time we'll know how many colleges, if any, other than mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, in just a short time, we'll proceed to a final vote on the republican tax bill. we understand they have the votes to pass their bill, detain

spite a process -- despite a process and a product that no one can be proud of and everyone should be ashamed of. historians will mark today as one of the darkest black-letter days in the long history of this senate. once hailed as the world's greatest deliberative body, as a beacon of american democracy and the envy of representative governments around the world, the senate seems to have abandoned those qualities in a rush to pass a bill that no one is proud of. substantively, the republicans have managed to take a bad bill and make it worse. it was chock full of special-interest giveaways before tonight, but founder the cover of darkness and with the aid of haste, a flurry of

last-minute changes will stuff even more money into the pockets of the wealthy and the biggest corporations while raising taxes on millions in the middle class. one provision may be a metaphor for the whole bill. one college -- hillsdale college -- has been exempted from taxes on colleges with large endowments. the specific provision just like an earmark was slipped into the bill added by a senator who fought to remove earmarks from congress several years ago. a single wealthy college, the pet project of a billionaire campaign crib tor to the -- contributor to the republican party exempted by a tax who

fought to get rid of earmarks. this unfortunately is the metaphor for this bill and how high the stench is rising in this chamber as we debate the bill tonight. in my long career in politics, i have not seen a more regressive piece of legislation so devoid of rationale, so ill-suited for the conditions of the country, so removed from the reality of what the american people need. working people in this country are struggling. corporations and the very wealthy are doing great. there is no reason for rushing through a tax break for millionaires and billionaires paid for by pilfering the pockets and the health care of middle-class americans. millions of middle-class families will get a tax hike next year and millions more thereafter because of this bill.

that's why this bill is such a monstrosity, such a danger to the country, and the american people know it. that's why they oppose the bill in large majorities. my republican friends will ultimately pay consequences for this bill in 2018 and beyond. the republican party will never again be the party of tax cuts for middle-class people. with the passage of this tax bill, today will be the first day of the new republican party, one that raises taxes on the middle class, abandoning its principles for its political paymasters. now with respect to the process, the bill my republican friends hope to pass so soon was received by members of this body only a few hours ago. not a single member of this chamber has read the bill. it would be impossible.

some of the pages were completely crossed off and text has been replaced by handwritten notes. when we got the bill, this is what it looked like. this is what it looked like. when asked before by senator durbin, the senator clerk said she couldn't even read it, and this section is one of the most complicated sections of the bill dealing with pass-throughs. lawyers are paid thousands of dollars an hour to find a way for their wealthy patrons to avoid sections just like this. and my republican friends don't have the decency, the honor to let us debate it. senator mccaskill was the first to discover a list of proposed amendments was circulating among lobbyists.

my republican friends allowed lobbyists to see amendments and likely the text of this bill before their fellow u.s. senators. mr. president, there is no score of this bill by the joint committee on taxation. there will be no analysis of how american businesses and taxpayers fare under this bill, how high taxes go up or go down. if the economy pros or shrinks, if it creates jobs or loses them. who knows? certainly no one here. no one could know because it hasn't even been read, let alone thoughtfully considered. i remember a few years back when my republican colleagues gleefully scolded us to read the bill because the affordable care act was a lengthy piece of legislation. and that bill was available for days before anyone had to vote

on it. with this stunning deception, with this reckless ramrodding of a bill, republicans heretofore unreached -- republicans are reaching heretofore, unreached heights of hypocrisy and the senate is descending to a new low of chicanery. read the bill? they're still writing it by hand mere hours before voting on it. is this really how republicans are going to rewrite the tax code? scrawled like something on the back of a napkin behind closed doors with the help of k street lobbyists? if that's not a recipe for swindling the middle class and loosening loopholes for the wealthy, i don't know what is. i don't know if it's possible for a senate majority leader to

depart further from responsible legislating than the process we witnessed with this tax bill. tonight, mr. president, i feel mostly regret at what could have been. what a grave shame it is that we weren't able to work together on this bill. tax reform is an issue that is ripe for bipartisan compromise. democrats have spent many long hours with our republican colleagues talking about our tax reform ideas. there is a sincere desire on this side of the aisle to work with our colleagues, particularly on tax reform. but we have been rebuffed time and time again. even under these difficult circumstances, senators coons and warner and bennet, man chin, height camp, donnelly, mccaskill tried in good faith

to convince our republican colleagues to sit down and talk to us. we tried to convince you that we want to join you in tax reform, to have a real debate befitting this august body. it's an expression of the brokenness of our politics that the influence of moneyed interests and the political right was so great that it overcame even the best of intentions of my republican colleagues, so many of whom i admire. so many of whom i know because they've said it to me, they lament the steady erosion of bipartisanship in the one institution, in our government, designed by nature to foster it. i salute my friend, the senator from tennessee, for standing fast by his principles and having the courage of his convictions. i only regret that there were

not more who followed his admirable example. after a divisive and draining battle over the future of health care, we could have moved the senate back towards sanity, bipartisanship, compromise. we could have accomplished something great for the country and for this body at the same time. though time is running short, there is still time. and i would make one final plea. because this bill is so slanted toward the wealthy and powerful and rains tax increases upon millions of middle-class citizens, because the bill is laden with special interest provisions, some recently found and many not yet seen, because the bill was given to lobbyists to read and change before senators saw it, and because the bill as given to us on a few

hours' notice and has not been read fully or considered fully by a single senator, i move we adjourn until monday so we can first read and then clean up this awful piece of legislation. mr. president, i move to adjourn until monday, december 4,