[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 193 (Tuesday, November 28, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7351-S7355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018--MOTION TO
PROCEED
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to S. 1519.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 165, S. 1519, a bill to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such
fiscal year, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Tax Reform
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the tax relief bill,
which the Senate is working very hard to try to pass. I brought some
charts with me to show the impact this bill will have in terms of
reducing the tax burden for hard-working American taxpayers and also
helping to grow our economy.
It is important to understand this is not just about making sure
American taxpayers can keep more of their hard-earned wages and income
but also this is about making sure we have a growing economy, that we
have more jobs, and that we have rising wages and rising income for
American workers. Here are just some of the statistics that show that.
These statistics are according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation and
also the Council of Economic Advisers. What you see from this first
chart is, this tax relief package is about real economic growth, not
just making sure our taxpayers get a tax cut but about growing our
economy. This top number, which comes from the Council of Economic
Advisers, is $4,000 that workers, on average, would receive from the
economic growth created by the combination of reducing the regulatory
burden, which is something we have been working on all year with the
administration--reducing that regulatory burden--and combining that
then with tax relief to generate more
[[Page S7352]]
economic growth. As I said, according to the Council of Economic
Advisers and the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, it also generates almost 4
percent in terms of a larger economy.
So this is about reducing the tax rates but growing the base and
making sure, as I said, there are not only more jobs but also rising
wages and income from that demand for labor that comes with a growing
economy, that comes with investment, and that comes with job creation.
For an average family of four, the tax cut is about $2,200 under the
Senate bill. It generates about 925,000 new jobs over the scoring
period and, as I said, almost a 4-percent larger economy.
This next chart shows that across all income groups, across every
income group, you see tax relief, and that is because we start by
reducing the tax rates. So across the board, we work to make sure you
are applying a lower tax rate to whatever income cohort you are talking
about. So new rates are 10 percent, 12 percent, 22 percent, 24 percent,
23, 35, and a 38.5-percent top rate, but when you combine the lower
rates along with an increased standard deduction--we increase the
standard deduction. We about double it, from around $6,000 to about
$12,000 and $24,000 for married filers, $18,000 for a single filer with
a dependent. The result is, across every income group, we reduce the
amount of tax they have to pay.
At the same time, we preserve and expand many of the current tax
provisions that are important to our American families. For example,
the child tax credit, which is something the Presiding Officer has
worked on very diligently, would be doubled. We double the child tax
credit from $1,000 to $2,000. More family-owned small businesses and
family farms will be protected from the death tax because we double the
exemption amount. Right now, the unified credit is about $5.5 million,
and we double that to more than $11 million so that if you have a small
business or a farm, you are able to pass that from one generation to
the next without being forced to sell it. To help save for college,
expecting parents will be able to open a 529 savings account, again,
helping families with children. Businesses will be encouraged to
provide paid family and medical leave by giving them a tax credit to
partially offset an employee's pay while caring for their child or for
a family member.
We do all of this while maintaining tax deductions that are important
to many Americans. These include continuing the mortgage interest
deduction--very important for homeowners--continuing the deductibility
of charitable contributions to ensure that charities continue to
receive contributions that are so important to them, continuing the
child and dependent care tax credits, the adoption tax credit, the
earned income tax credit, and the deferred treatment for 401(k)s and
individual retirement accounts. That was something that came up
earlier. There was some concern about reducing the limits on what could
be contributed to retirement accounts on a tax-deferred basis, and we
continue those levels so individuals can continue to save for
retirement. We also continue the medical expense deduction, which is
important to seniors who have significant medical expenses.
The resulting increase in aftertax income will allow families more
financial freedom and empower them to save for their retirement or
perhaps for their children's education. Considering 50 percent of
Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and over one-third of all
families are just $400 away from serious financial difficulty, this is
much needed relief, and it is certainly overdue.
This tax relief is also very important for small businesses, so our
third chart really goes to small business, which of course is the
backbone of our economy. In my State, farming and ranching is
incredibly important, but across the country, the backbone of our
economy is small businesses. Ninety percent of the businesses in
America are small businesses, and what this chart shows is that for
passthroughs, which typically small businesses are passthroughs, that
there is income relief again at all income levels. Remember how these
passthrough small businesses work. Whether you have a sub S
corporation, a limited liability corporation, a limited liability
partnership, or a regular partnership, all these different types of
small businesses are passthroughs, meaning the income flows through the
business entity and is taxed at the individual level. That is why it is
very important that we show that across the board, at all different
income levels, small businesses benefit from this tax reduction.
By reducing the maximum tax rate for sole proprietorships,
partnerships, S corporations, and all the other passthrough entities I
just mentioned, we are creating greater economic growth and
opportunities as small businesses reinvest in their companies, reinvest
in their employees, and reinvest in their communities. For many small
businesses, equipment, business supplies, and other capital
expenditures are very costly, and it cuts into their profit margin. So
this is about helping them make those investments that enable them to
grow their businesses, increase wages, and hire more employees.
Our tax bill also allows businesses to immediately expense or write
off the cost of new investments, effectively reinvesting in our small
businesses and driving economic growth, job creation, and higher wages
for American workers.
We increase the amount allowed under section 179, something very
important to small businesses, which essentially allows them to expense
or write off their investments. This is a hugely important expensing
provision for farmers, for ranchers, and really for small businesses
across the board, and we enhance that section 179 expensing.
All the while, we work to make sure we have stable government
revenues through a broader tax base, a growing economy, and a more
efficient tax system. That means we encourage investment, and it means
the revenues that come to government come from a larger tax base and
lower rates. So, individually, the hard-working citizens pay less of
their earnings and businesses pay less as a percentage of their
revenues, but because you have that economic growth--you have that
rising tide that lifts all boats--government actually has more and
stable revenues from economic growth not from higher taxes. That is
some of what I showed in that first slide; that this is about growing
our economy and driving that economic growth.
The bill ensures that we are competitive in the global economy. In
fact, as a result of the tax relief and tax reform we are undertaking,
there is something like $2.5 trillion that is currently overseas that
now has an incentive to come home and is invested here at home in our
businesses, creating jobs in America and expansion of America's economy
rather than having that money parked overseas or invested overseas.
So, for all these reasons, I urge our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to work to pass this tax relief, this tax reform. This really is
about making sure hard-working American taxpayers decide what to do
with their hard-earned dollars. Again, I ask that all of us work
together, pass this bill through the Senate, get it into conference
with the House, and get the very best tax relief product we can for the
American people and that we get it done before the end of the year.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, in this season of Thanksgiving, let me
say that I am thankful, as I rise for my 187th ``Time to Wake Up''
address, for the spirit of commitment and innovation that this great
Nation devotes to tackling the challenge of climate change, even with
this President.
The United States now is alone in the world as the only Nation not
committed to the historic Paris Agreement, but at the U.N. Climate
Change Conference in Germany, I saw firsthand that Americans are still
committed to climate action. Corporate leaders like Mars, Microsoft,
Facebook, and Walmart were there to discuss the role American
corporations can take on climate change. American Governors, mayors,
universities, and many other corporations all brought the same message
to Bonn; that notwithstanding the corrupted Trump administration,
America is still in.
Senators Cardin, Markey, Schatz, Merkley, and I sent the message that
most of our constituents and the majority of the American people
believe
[[Page S7353]]
that climate change is a serious threat to our country and the planet
and that American action and leadership is necessary.
An entire day was dedicated to the changes we are seeing in the
world's oceans. This is where the industry liars and climate deniers
get stumped. The oceans bear the brunt of our carbon pollution. Sea
levels are rising, waters are warming, and seas are acidifying. These
undeniable measurements have no answer from the climate denial
apparatus, so the denial apparatus just chooses to ignore the oceans,
but we can't ignore the oceans, certainly not in coastal States.
The reality of ocean climate change hits home along our coasts:
Warming waters move our fisheries around, sea level rise erodes our
shores, and we must prepare for more frequent and intense hurricanes
and storms.
The Trump administration is more or less completely crooked on this
subject, but even they had to throw in the towel and release without
amendment the recent U.S. ``Climate Science Special Report.'' They had
no scientific rebuttal--none--to the dozen Federal Agencies and
Departments that assembled the latest and best understanding of the
effects of climate change on the United States. They couldn't rebut it.
They chose to ignore it.
Will that report affect this administration's industry-paid climate
policies? Of course not. Those policies are bought and paid for. But it
is worth looking at the ``Climate Science Special Report.'' This report
gave special attention to storms. The report says:
For Atlantic--
That is, the ocean off my home State of Rhode Island--
and eastern North Pacific--
That is, the ocean off our western coast--
and eastern North Pacific typhoons, increases are projected
in precipitation rates and intensity. The frequency of the
most intense of these storms is projected to increase.
The report continues:
Assuming storm characteristics do not change, sea level
rise will increase the frequency and extent of extreme
flooding associated with coastal storms, such as hurricanes
and nor'easters.
Extreme flooding matters quite a lot in Rhode Island.
The report continues:
A projected increase in the intensity of hurricanes in the
North Atlantic could increase the probability of extreme
flooding along most of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coast
states beyond what would be projected based solely on
relative sea level rise.
It is going to happen just from projected sea level rise. This means
that extreme flooding could exceed those predictions because of storm
activity.
Humans are driving these changes, the report says, not the
alternative explanation for these changes offered by the climate
deniers. Oh, wait; that is right. They have no alternative explanation.
They have nothing. They have nothing but industry-funded denial. There
is no alternative explanation to what the scientists say, which is
actually consistent with the finding of the ``Climate Science Special
Report'' that there is ``no convincing alternative explanation.''
That is not the only report. Last year, the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office released a report titled ``Effects of Climate Change and
Coastal Development on U.S. Hurricane Damage: Implications for the
Federal Budget.'' That report projected that by 2075, annual damage
from hurricanes will increase by $120 billion as coastal populations
increase, sea levels rise, and U.S. landfalls of strong hurricanes
become more frequent. That is the prediction. Of that increase, around
45 percent can already be clearly attributed to climate change.
In a presentation from early November, CBO summarized:
Expected damage from hurricanes will grow more quickly than
GDP.
The share of the population facing substantial damage will
grow fivefold by 2075.
On the basis of past patterns, Federal spending on
hurricanes will also grow more quickly than GDP.
The World Meteorological Organization has also released a report
connecting ``extraordinary weather'' to man-made climate change. Warmer
temperatures spur increased precipitation, the report says, and higher
sea levels amplify storm surge as driven by hurricanes and other
coastal storms. This is not new. It is just being frequently and
constantly reported with no convincing alternative explanation.
During the typical Atlantic hurricane season, storms develop in the
warm, tropical waters off the western coast of Africa. These storms
gather heat and energy as they pass over this band of warm seawater
across the Atlantic known as the hurricane highway. This is the west
coast of Africa. Here is South America. Here is the United States.
There is Florida. And here is the hurricane highway leading to the
Caribbean. Whether these storms become devastating category 4 and 5
hurricanes or weaken and disperse along the way depends on atmospheric
conditions and on this ocean heat that powers up those hurricanes.
A typical Atlantic hurricane season used to generate roughly six
hurricanes, three of which reached category 3 or higher. That was then.
Typical is no longer typical. During August of 2017, this hurricane
highway that I showed you reached 9 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the
30-year average. This exceptional warming supercharged storms into
hurricanes bearing catastrophic damage.
The superheated 2017 hurricane highway fueled not 6 but 10 named
hurricanes, and 6--not 3--reached category 3 strength or higher,
including Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Jose, and Maria. What is more, all
10 of the season's hurricanes occurred in a row--the greatest number of
consecutive hurricanes in the satellite era.
Typically, what happens is that a storm will churn up cooler water in
its wake. So during typical years, a following storm will weaken over
the cooler waters left in a preceding storm's wake. That is the way it
ordinarily works. This should have been the case for Hurricane Irma as
it charged northwest through the Caribbean just days after Harvey. But
as I said, hurricanes are powered up by sea surface temperatures,
particularly sea surface temperatures above 82 degrees Fahrenheit. And
by September 7, as Irma moved over the coast of Cuba and up into the
Bahamas and Florida, the hurricane highway surface temperature Harvey
had left behind measured up to 87 degrees Fahrenheit. The result of
that onslaught was that the entire island of Puerto Rico is still
recovering. The Virgin Islands were also slammed. Houston saw epic,
widespread flooding. Welcome to the new typical, thanks to ocean
warming, which comes to us thanks to climate change, which comes to us
thanks to carbon pollution, which still comes to us in such a polluting
flood, thanks to a generation of industry lying that has not stopped to
this day.
At the Southern New England Weather Conference earlier this month,
University of Rhode Island Professor Isaac Ginis presented his worst-
case scenario models for a ``Hurricane Rhody,'' which would bring
levels of destruction to Rhode Island not seen since we were hit by the
Great Hurricane of 1938, the destruction of which is seen here in
downtown Providence, or Hurricane Carol, which brought similar
destruction in 1954. That is Providence City Hall. This is the roof of
a streetcar. Another streetcar is half-flooded. And this is water in a
river pouring in downtown Providence through the streets. Essentially,
this is white water in downtown Providence.
The flooding that Providence endured in Hurricane Carol caused us to
build a hurricane barrier across what is called Fox Point to protect
downtown. However, even with the hurricane barrier in place, Professor
Ginis's simulations show 3 feet of flooding in downtown Providence if a
category 3 hurricane were to hit us at high tide. And, he proposed, if
our ``Hurricane Rhody'' were to swing back around and make a second
landfall, as Esther did in 1961--he modeled it based on the previous
experience of Hurricane Esther--then if it came back, even in a
weakened category 2 state, Providence could see up to 14 feet of
flooding.
But wait, there is more. Fast forward a few decades and several feet
of projected sea level rise, and then Providence doesn't stand a
chance. The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration put 9 to 12 projected
vertical feet of sea level rise riding up Rhode Island's shores by the
end of the century. According to CRMC--our Coastal Resources Management
Council--at 10
[[Page S7354]]
feet of sea level rise, Rhode Island would lose 36 square miles of
total land area. Good-bye to much of Newport, Warwick, Barrington,
Block Island, Point Judith, and other coastal communities Rhode
Islanders hold dear. This is the present projection by our State
agencies, our State University, and NOAA.
As the Senate prepares a third disaster relief funding package, we
can't just fund immediate hurricane recovery. We must also help coastal
communities look ahead to the next storm. We need better coastal flood
mapping and risk modeling. We need to prepare for damage to natural and
engineered coastal infrastructure. We need research and modeling to
understand what coastal populations face from the new typical: stronger
hurricanes, sea level rise, heavy precipitation, disrupted fisheries,
and increased storms and storm surges.
We have to prepare for this. It would be stupid not to put a small
percentage of what we are spending in cleanup and recovery into
prevention, protection, and preparation. It is just common sense.
The Trump administration does not represent American views on climate
change. It has been captured by an industry that has been dishonest
about this issue for a generation, and it now represents the falsehoods
of that industry. For that reason, it also no longer represents
American determination to tackle this challenge. That determination is
now found in State Houses, in corporations, in our great universities,
and with the American people. Americans know that we can pull together
to avoid some of these worst-case scenarios. Coastal communities, in
particular, are keenly aware of the special risks they face.
In the Senate, I remain eager to work with my colleagues on all of
the above. You know where to find me.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Republican Tax Plan
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about the tax
bill, which will come to the floor very soon. We have started debate,
and we will be debating it the next couple of days. There is a lot to
talk about, a lot of numbers, and a lot of data. I will try to limit
the numbers as best I can, but it is important to review some of the
numbers.
For tonight's purposes, I start with just two numbers. The first
number is 59,456, and the second number is 7. What do I mean when I say
59,456? It is in dollars. The average annual tax cut for those making
over $1 million a year in 2019 is $59,456. As many people know who have
been following the debate, the Senate bill delayed a corporate tax cut
by 1 year so most of the analysis starts in the year 2019 not 2018. So
there is $59,456 of a tax cut for those making over $1 million in the
first year of the bill, 2019.
What does 7 mean? Seven is also a dollar number. Seven dollars is the
average monthly tax cut for Americans making between $20,000 and
$30,000 a year in that same year, 2019.
If you wanted to compare the annual number of $59,456 to the annual
average tax cut for that income category for the same year, it would be
about $84. No matter which way you look at it, there is a basic
unfairness there. Even when you apply percentages, it is very clear
that folks in those lower income brackets don't get the benefit the
richest among us--the superrich people making more than $1 million--
get. Even if you drop down the number to over one-half million dollars
and up, those folks are getting sometimes double, even triple, the tax
cuts for people in the broad middle.
The one I just cited might be the most egregious example, people
making $20,000 to $30,000 a year getting just $7 a month in a tax cut.
One of the reasons the bill is so stingy and so unfair when it comes
to folks in the lower income brackets or even the middle-income
brackets is because so much has been given in the bill to big
corporations. Right? There is only a certain amount of revenue you can
move around in a bill like this.
Because the corporate--and I should say the permanent corporate tax
cut. The tax cuts for families is not permanent, but the permanent
corporate tax cut is $1.5 trillion, and by one estimate it is $1.414
trillion over 10 years. When you allocate that much to big corporations
and make it permanent, obviously, it limits your ability to help the
middle class in a robust or substantial way.
I think most Americans will ask: Why don't we limit any kind of
corporate tax break and apply, potentially, hundreds of billions--with
a ``b''--of dollars to a bigger middle-class tax cut? But the majority
so far, starting with the Finance Committee, has decided not to do
that.
I just leave that for people to consider. Is it fair, when you are
doing a tax bill, so-called tax reform, for the first time in three
decades, that people making over $1 million who don't need $59,456--
does it make sense to give them that and give the store away to
corporations in a permanent fashion and give folks making $20,000 to
$30,000 just 7 bucks a month or 84 bucks over the course of a year, on
average?
It gets worse. The numbers get even more egregious, even more
insulting. That same year, in 2019, 572,000 of our country's richest
households would get $34 billion worth of tax cuts. You heard that
right. In 1 year, a rather small group of Americans--572,000 of the
richest households--get $34 billion of a tax cut in just that 1 year.
That $34 billion in that 1 year for the richest among us gets even
higher if you add in other provisions, other tax cuts, but I will be
conservative and just limit it to the $34 billion.
Some people might ask: Well, what about the rest of the country or
most of the country? What is left? Well, if you compare that $34
billion for a relatively small group of the wealthiest, if you compare
that to 90 million--my arms don't stretch out far enough to compare 572
taxpayers with 90 million. What happens to 90 million taxpayers who
happen to make under $50,000? A couple of minutes ago I talked about
$20,000 to $30,000. Now we are talking about everyone below $50,000 in
a year. That is about 90 million people. What happens to them? Well,
they get a grand total of $14 billion, and some even see a tax
increase. So let's leave the tax increase for people making less than
$50,000 off the table for now because some will get a tax increase, and
some will get a benefit. So it is hard to comprehend that 90 million
people divvy up $14 billion, but a tiny fraction of that--572,000
people--get $34 billion just in 2019. Then you have 2020 and 2021, and
they keep getting those dollar amounts.
Some people might say: Well, you know, everyone should get a tax cut
in a bill like this, and even if the wealthy get a tax cut, that is the
way Washington works. I have described this bill this way over and over
again, and I will keep describing it this way. It is a giveaway. It is
a giveaway to the superrich. It is certainly a giveaway to big
corporations. They get $1.5 trillion, and it is permanent.
There have been a lot of analyses done of this bill, and there are
lots of stories to point to. I just point to one that came out just
yesterday. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities came out with a
report that is a little more than seven pages' worth. They do reports
like this on a regular basis, sometimes more than one report in a week.
I know folks can't read it from a distance, but here is what the
headline says: ``JCT Estimates''--Joint Committee on Taxation, that is
the acronym--Joint Committee on Taxation estimates ``Amended Senate Tax
Bill Skewed to Top, Hurts Many Low- and Middle-Income Americans.'' That
is what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said yesterday. So
what they are analyzing is not the original proposal folks in the
Senate Republican caucus offered. This is the amended Senate bill.
Here is what they say, in pertinent part. I will just read maybe two
sentences.
Under the amended bill, in 2025 (when most of its
provisions would be in place), high-income households would
get the largest tax cuts as a share of after-tax income, on
average, while households with incomes below $30,000 would on
average face a tax increase. By 2027, when many of its
provisions would have expired, those at the top would still
get large tax cuts, but every income group below--
[[Page S7355]]
I will read that again.
--every income group below $75,000 would face tax increases,
on average.
You heard that right--tax increases on average. So whether you look
at it in the year 2019 for people making $20,000 to $30,000 or 2019 for
people making under $50,000 and compare that to the wealthiest among us
or whether you look at it in terms of what happens just a few years
later in 2025, you can see the basic unfairness of this.
Just at a time when we have this great opportunity to do a number of
things which would not only turbocharge the economy and potentially
lift families out of poverty--and certainly lift children out of
poverty--just when we have the opportunity to simplify the code, to
help middle-class families in a substantial and robust way, not the
stingy way the bill does it, to the point where some might get a tax
break one year that is very limited and then that goes away and their
taxes go up and others are losing healthcare because of the repeal of
the individual mandate--what is most egregious here is maybe not even
the giveaways. That is egregious enough. What is outrageous is, the
giveaways happen, and the debt is run up to do that. Then, on top of
all that, we miss an opportunity, as Washington often does. There is an
old expression that Washington never misses an opportunity to miss an
opportunity. This is an opportunity to give the middle class maybe a
record tax cut, but the majority has chosen not to do that. This is
also an opportunity to lift a lot more children out of poverty with a
much more generous child tax credit, a much more substantial commitment
to lifting kids out of poverty, because we have a bill that allows us
to do that, a big tax bill that only comes around once every couple of
decades, potentially. The last time this was done was 31 years ago. So
this is a critically important moment for the middle class, a
critically important moment for children--middle-income children but
also children from low-income families who don't get a lot of help
under current policy.
Now, some people might ask: Well, how have the rich done over the
last number of years? Maybe some might want to make the argument--the
ridiculous argument, but they might want to make it--that somehow the
rich need a little help. Well, let's see what has happened since 1980.
Since 1980, the richest 1 percent have seen their share of national
income almost double--double--from 11 percent to 20 percent in 2014,
the last time this was measured. So the richest 1 percent, in about 35
years, have seen their share of all national income almost double. So
the richest 1 percent have been doing pretty well over the decades
since 1980. Do they really need yet another tax cut? Do they really
need tens of billions of dollars split or divvied up among a very small
number of Americans? I don't think so, and I think most Americans would
agree with me.
According to the New York Times, no other nation in the 35-member
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development--the so-called
OECD countries, 35 countries, and we are one of them--no other country
has seen this widening of the gap between the richest and everyone
else. You could see it in the other example. The richest small number
in America get $34 billion, and then 90 million people have to split a
number that is less than half that. That is really an insult to who we
are as Americans.
That same JCT--the Joint Committee on Taxation--their estimate of the
Republican bill shows that households earning over $1 million would get
an average tax cut about 73 times larger than households earning
between $50,000 and $75,000 in 2019, that same year, the first year.
We can go on and on with these comparisons, but I want to go back to
the number I started with, that $59,000 number. If you keep the dollar
sign on it, and use it for another purpose, you have just arrived at
roughly the median household income for the United States of America.
So the median household income is about $59,000. That is the median
household income all across the country. That number happens to be
roughly the same number as the $59,456, the average annual tax cut for
those making over $1 million in 2019.
There are lots of other ways to describe the bill. The bill raises
$134 billion on the backs of hard-working Americans by changing how the
Tax Code measures inflation. Not many people are paying attention to
this, but the measurement is going to change if the bill passes. This
number only grows over time.
For someone who is just starting out in their professional life, they
would see this change haunt their paychecks for the next 50 years. So
they are going to change how the Tax Code measures inflation. Not many
people know that, and I think they are starting to find out.
If all of that wasn't enough, this bill would do a number of other
things which are particularly destructive. It will reward companies
that have outsourced jobs, it will increase healthcare premiums by an
average of an additional 10 percent a year, and it is going to give, at
the same time, obscene tax cuts to the superrich by, at the same time,
increasing taxes on the middle class.
So when I described this bill last week in the Finance Committee as a
thief in the night, I didn't choose those words casually; I meant every
word of it. It is a thief in the night because of what the adverse
impact on middle-class families and lower income families trying to get
to the middle class would be, compared to what happens to the
wealthiest among us. So it is robbing people of an opportunity to get a
better tax cut for the middle class and giving away the store to the
rich.
I will have more to say about this, but I see the majority leader is
on the floor.
I yield the floor.
____________________