[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.

                          ____________________