[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 194 (Wednesday, November 29, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7370-S7376]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               TAX REFORM

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I have listened to the minority leader's 
remarks. If anybody believes that we are going to be able to work 
together closely when they just want a bill for the Federal Government 
at all costs--they had us right there on the cusp of socialism just a 
month ago, and we are still right on the cusp of socialism. I hate to 
say it, but our Democratic friends are pushing us toward socialism, 
which has never worked anywhere in the world, and it is not going to 
work here. Their answer to everything is big government.
  There are two different points of view here. I have to tell you I 
used to be on their side when I was a young fellow. I was raised in 
poverty. I came up the hard way. I learned a trade. I became a 
journeyman metal lather, which was one of the most skilled trades at 
the time.
  I have to say that these haunting refrains were used by Democrats 
back then, too, but look at this country and the mess it is in, and it 
is in a mess because of their philosophy. We have to change it. I 
admit, with him, that the business community isn't always right, and 
they are not always the best to spend our money, but they are sure a 
lot better than government spending it all the time. So much for that.
  The Senate will soon vote on a motion to proceed to legislation to 
reform our Nation's broken Tax Code and to provide significant relief 
for tens of millions of middle-class families.
  Members from both parties have worked for years on this effort. As we 
move to consider this legislation, we will take another step toward 
accomplishing what has--until recently, anyway--been a bipartisan goal. 
I want to thank all of those who have helped us advance this process, 
especially the members and staff of the Finance Committee, who have 
worked tirelessly to get us to this point. I also want to thank our 
distinguished majority leader, Senator McConnell, for his work and 
leadership on this as well.
  Of course, we are not there yet. We have a number of additional steps 
to take, including today's vote. I don't want to put any carts ahead of 
any horses, but I am optimistic that we can get a positive outcome 
today.
  Our tax reform bill is crafted with the primary purpose of providing 
tax relief to the middle class and growth to our economy. To accomplish 
these goals, the bill lowers individual tax rates across the board. The 
bill also expands the zero tax bracket by nearly doubling the standard 
deduction, doubling the child tax credit, and increasing the child tax 
credit refundability, all of which, combined, will eliminate income tax 
liability for many hard-working American families and significantly cut 
taxes for tens of millions of middle-class taxpayers. That sounds like 
the right thing to do to me.
  Some examples, I think, can be illustrative here. Under our bill, a 
family of four making the U.S. median family income of around $73,000 a 
year will see their taxes go down by more than $2,000 a year. That is a 
savings of more than $180 a month. Overall, this represents a nearly 
60-percent reduction in that family's tax liability. A single parent 
with one child making $41,000 a year, under the bill, will pay about 
one-quarter of the Federal income taxes he or she may pay today, an 
annual reduction of almost $1,400. Now, that is real money for these 
families. It will help them to make car payments, to pay their rent or 
mortgages, to bring down credit card balances, or to increase their 
ability to save for the future.

  In addition to reducing the tax burden on low-income to middle-income 
families, the changes in our bill will make filing taxes much simpler 
for most of these taxpayers. According to JCT, or the Joint Committee 
on Taxation, more than 9 in 10 American families will opt for the 
standard deduction under this legislation, avoiding altogether the 
difficult and complicated process of itemizing deductions. This means 
less time and money spent on tax compliance and preparation for 
millions of middle-class taxpayers. It may hurt the legal profession, 
but it is going to give freedom to the American people.
  The bill also repeals one of the most regressive taxes in American 
history--the ObamaCare individual mandate tax, which overwhelmingly 
burdens middle-income and low-income families. In fact, 80 percent of 
the families that pay the tax make less than $50,000 per year. Yet this 
repeal has been the source of much consternation for my friends on the 
other side of the aisle. I will have more to say on that in a moment.
  For most small businesses that pay taxes on the owners' individual 
returns, or passthroughs, the bill provides significant relief in the 
form of a simple tax reduction applied to qualified business income. 
This will reduce the overall tax burden for passthrough businesses, 
which are the primary engines of our job creation in the United States. 
In addition, our bill helps Main Street businesses by enhancing 
expensing and expanding the availability of simplified cash 
accountability. All told, this means more expansion, more investment, 
and more jobs for U.S. workers employed by small businesses.
  Make no mistake, this bill is pro-small business, which is why the 
National Federation of Independent Businesses, the largest small 
business association in the country, has enthusiastically expressed its 
support for our legislation. They are not stupid. They are brilliant 
people. They know how badly the small business community has been 
treated by our tax writers over the years, and they are looking forward 
to this legislation passing.
  It should probably go without saying at this point that the United 
States currently has the highest corporate tax rate in the 
industrialized world, and, as a result, we are seeing businesses flee 
our country for more favorable tax conditions overseas, while others 
are getting purchased by foreign companies. Some of them are just 
giving up and letting foreign companies take them over. That is not 
good for American workers, and that is not good for America.
  Former Presidents Clinton and Obama have spoken in favor of lowering 
the corporate tax rate to allow our country to be more globally 
competitive. That sentiment has been shared by countless Democrats in 
this Chamber, including the current ranking member on the Finance 
Committee and the Senate Minority Leader. With this bill, we are taking 
their advice by lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent.
  We also shift to a more territorial system of international tax--
another idea that was explicitly endorsed in a bipartisan working group 
report, coauthored by my good friend Senator Schumer, by the way, who 
just spoke here. This shift is paid for largely through the use of a 
``deemed repatriation,'' another idea supported by Democrats in recent 
years. We are creating both incentives and penalties to prevent base 
erosion, a goal that has become clearly bipartisan during the recent 
waves of corporate inversions.
  Long story short, there is quite a bit in this bill that both 
Republicans and Democrats should be able to support. Of course, anyone 
who gets their information solely from the statements and talking 
points from our friends on the other side would never get that.
  Over the next few days, I expect we will hear quite a few misleading 
claims, both about the bill and about the process which led us here. 
For example, I think we will hear that this bill is just a massive 
giveaway to the so-called rich. That is always the claim of the 
Democrats: It is a gift to the so-called rich. Gosh, give me a break. I 
get so tired of that phony, lousy argument that they make all the time. 
They have hurt the middle class so badly in this country; it is 
unbelievable.
  My colleagues will make the claim that this is a massive giveaway to 
the so-called rich even though they have the same data from the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, which clearly shows that middle-class taxpayers 
will receive the largest proportional tax cuts under the bill and that 
none of the existing tax burden will be shifted downward from those at 
the top. In fact, those in the highest bracket, according to JCT, or 
the Joint Committee on Taxation, will pay a higher percentage of the 
overall tax burden than they do now.
  I expect we will hear that, by repealing the individual mandate tax, 
the bill will be taking people's health insurance away and raising 
taxes on the

[[Page S7371]]

poor. That claim will be made despite confirmation from congressional 
scorekeepers that nothing--nothing--in the bill removes or limits 
anyone's access to health insurance. The approach they are taking 
toward health insurance will put us into a socialized medicine 
situation overnight. If anybody thinks that is a great idea, I ask them 
to look at the socialized medicine countries and compare them to what 
we have been able to have. Instead, JCT and CBO predict that, with no 
individual mandate, people will choose to not get health insurance even 
if they still have access to premium subsidies, employer-provided 
plans, or even free health coverage through Medicaid. This bill 
provides choice. It doesn't take anything away from those individuals.
  We can quibble with that conclusion and question whether tens of 
millions of people who currently have health insurance--including a few 
million who are currently getting it for free--will suddenly opt to go 
uninsured once the mandate penalty is zeroed out. Given that most 
observers have concluded that the mandate has essentially failed to 
draw enough participants into the healthcare market to keep premiums 
from skyrocketing, there is room for questioning whether the 
scorekeepers are right on that score. However, even if they are 100 
percent correct, no one will lose their health insurance under this 
bill when the mandate is repealed. Anyone going uninsured will be doing 
so voluntarily. We are not kicking anyone off their insurance by 
zeroing out the individual mandate penalty, and it is a blatant 
distortion of reality to claim otherwise.
  Similarly, no one's taxes will go up if the mandate is zeroed out. 
True enough, our scorekeepers have produced distribution tables showing 
an uptick in taxes at the low end of the income spectrum due to 
decreased utilization of premium tax credits under ObamaCare. My 
colleagues, I am sure, will talk about this at length as well. However, 
I would like to have one of them explain how a person's voluntary 
decision to forego a tax subsidy amounts to a tax hike. So far, I 
haven't heard a serious attempt at such an explanation. In fact, during 
our recent markup, when the chief of staff of JCT sat at a table and 
told my colleagues that no one will owe a dime in additional taxes as a 
result of the individual mandate repeal, none of my colleagues disputed 
this conclusion. Instead, they opted to ignore it, even after they were 
shown a JCT table showing that, if the behavioral effects of the 
mandate repeal are removed from the equation--as they should be when we 
are talking about taxes owed--every income group will see their taxes 
go down under this bill. I hope our colleagues and those watching will 
remember these facts when they are evaluating the claims being made by 
some on the other side.
  We have a good bill here, under the circumstances, and I believe 
Members of both parties, if politics were removed from consideration, 
could support it. We have gotten significant support throughout the 
business community, with associations and companies from almost every 
industry and sector publicly in support of the reforms in this bill.
  I know some of my Republican colleagues have concerns, and I have 
been committed to working with them to see if improvements can be made, 
and, as this process moves forward, we are going to have to make a few 
more changes. This, of course, is how the legislative process works. 
Our process is designed to produce legislation that reflects the 
combined views and interests of a majority of Senators and, more 
importantly, the constituents they represent.
  As with any legislative endeavor of real significance, the perfect 
should not be considered the enemy of the good. As I have said before, 
I have been around long enough to know that anyone demanding perfection 
when it comes to major legislation is bound to be waiting a very, very 
long time and likely will not accomplish much.
  Before I close, I want to underscore how much of a once-in-a 
generation opportunity this is. We need to get this done. The costs of 
failure and continuing with the status quo are just too high. The 
American people deserve a tax system that provides greater opportunity, 
a stronger economy, and better jobs. We need a tax code designed to 
work for the world of 2017 and beyond. Our bill will accomplish these 
goals. We need to take this next step so that we can continue the work. 
So I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, two weeks ago, I urged my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle to reject the partisan and fiscally 
irresponsible Republican tax proposal in the so-called Tax Cuts and 
Jobs Act. I asked them to remember that, when it comes to our 
responsibility to plan for the nation's long-term economic future, we 
are here to create opportunity and security for future generations--not 
to serve the short-term interests of partisan politics. Today, I regret 
to say that the process surrounding the Republican tax bill has only 
become more rushed, more partisan, more bitter, and less transparent. 
My Republican colleagues wrote this bill behind closed doors, held no 
serious hearings or debate, and even now are planning to make 
substantial changes to the final bill that we will vote on before we 
have even had the benefit of a comprehensive, nonpartisan score of its 
cost.
  We all know better than to believe that this irresponsible process 
will lead to a responsible or sustainable outcome. Therefore, because 
it is clear that this bill is an unprecedented giveaway to wealthy 
corporations and individuals at the expense of poor, sick, elderly, and 
middle-class Americans, and because it will drive our Nation trillions 
of dollars further into debt, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject 
this bill and to work with both sides of the aisle to craft tax reform 
that will help--rather than burden--future generations and the middle 
class.
  The only future generations that this bill appears to take into 
account are the children and grandchildren of the wealthiest families 
in the United States, including President Trump's family and the 
families of the wealthiest Cabinet ever assembled by any President. 
According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, half of all 
households, and two-thirds of households making between $54,700 and 
$93,200 would see their taxes go up under the current Republican bill. 
Individuals who struggle to get by because of sickness or the 
unavailability of well-paying job opportunities would lose tax 
exemptions and advantages that have helped them stay afloat. Many 
Americans who have played by the rules and persevered through our long 
recovery from the great recession will open their paychecks to see a 
little more taken out every month, but not for their benefit. On the 
other hand, for the 5,000 American families with fortunes in the 
millions of dollars or more, the Republican plan to repeal or 
drastically curtail the estate tax could, on its own, funnel hundreds 
of billions of dollars to those few who need it the very least.
  The mere idea that we would raise taxes on poor and working Americans 
to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest American estates epitomizes how 
this Republican tax bill is wholly at odds with our values. The 
trillions of dollars this bill will add to our deficit will almost 
certainly lead to deep cuts in earned benefits like Social Security and 
Medicare, as well as our national defense. Indeed, major cuts to 
defense historically follow deficit-increasing tax cuts, and this is 
almost precisely why we have an estate tax in the first place.
  Our Nation first enacted estate taxes in order to pay for military 
conflicts without driving the Nation deeply into debt. Starting in 
1797, and continuing through the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, 
and World War I, the United States used temporary estate taxes to 
offset the costs of war. Congress kept the estate tax after World War I 
as a means of balancing the Federal budget and countering the growth of 
massive wealth inequality. Because of this foresight, the estate tax 
was a critical source of revenue that softened the blow of the Great 
Depression and supported the war effort in World War II.
  Prior Congresses saw it as their responsibility to pay America's 
bills at home and abroad. They did not leave years of war on America's 
line of credit, nor did they expect the poor and working classes to pay 
while the

[[Page S7372]]

wealthiest took a tax cut. There were certainly times when running a 
deficit was necessary, and even economically wise, but because of this 
pay-as-you-go principle, no American generation has faced what we do 
now: 16 years of deficit-financed military conflict with no end in 
sight, compounded by the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that never paid 
for themselves, despite repeated Republican promises. Before we give 
the wealthiest Americans another tax cut at the expense of our children 
and our children's children, we need at least an idea of how we are 
going to handle trillions of dollars in compounding war debt--not to 
mention the trillions more we must spend to maintain and modernize our 
military--and address our basic domestic needs that have gone unnoticed 
and underfunded for so long.
  That is why I plan to file a motion on this bill that would send this 
bill back to the Finance Committee to reinstate the estate tax at 
current levels and place all the revenue generated by it into a trust 
fund. Those funds, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars over 
a decade, will be devoted evenly between maintaining the readiness of 
our Armed Forces and addressing the opioid epidemic here at home. This 
motion not only restores original intent of the estate tax as a tool 
for combating deficits in times of war but also makes a much needed 
down-payment on our long-stalled domestic agenda.
  But the bill's elimination of the estate tax is just one of its many 
harmful provisions. The bill sabotages our healthcare system by 
repealing the individual mandate, which could easily throw 13 million 
Americans off their health insurance and increase premiums for millions 
of others. Yet again, the 130 million Americans with preexisting 
conditions must fear that their premiums will skyrocket or that they 
will be left with no options at all.
  And the poor and the sick may find even fewer options after this bill 
forces $25 billion in cuts into Medicare in 2018 alone because of the 
massive deficits it will produce. Do not tell me this will pay for 
itself with growth. I have served in this body long enough to know that 
trickle-down economics doesn't work, and I take the word of the scores 
of economists who say, in no uncertain terms, that this bill will 
balloon the debt and will not create enough growth to offset it. Even 
major companies like Cisco, Pfizer, and Coca-Cola say they will use the 
gains from these massive corporate tax cuts to pay shareholders, rather 
than create jobs or raise wages for the middle class. We are making 
decisions here that will guide the largest economy in the world. We 
simply cannot roll the dice on a plan of this scale and hope for the 
best.
  It remains my sincere hope that my Republican colleagues will see the 
error of their ways and choose to work with Democrats on tax reform 
that is bipartisan, reasonable, and in keeping with our responsibility 
to leave this Nation better than we found it. We can and should address 
other domestic priorities in dire need like our Nation's 
infrastructure, the economic security of children and seniors, and 
programs that create and sustain employment for the middle class. I and 
my colleagues are ready and willing to work in good faith on tax 
reform, but we cannot begin that work until we abandon the kind of 
recklessness and partisanship that led to this Republican tax bill.
  Once again, we are all here, and we are all committed to defending 
our Nation, but this bill will make it virtually impossible to do what 
we know we must do. There are unavoidable costs in our national 
security that are not even counted in this bill. My fellow members of 
the Armed Services Committee and I have committed to making needed 
increases to the size of our military forces. It costs roughly an 
additional $1.8 billion per year for every 10,000 servicemembers. Where 
will we get that money when we are going $1.8 trillion in debt to 
provide tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? We want a 355-ship Navy. 
There have been some estimates that doing that will require at least an 
additional $1 trillion a year. Where are we going to get that when we 
have already given $1.5 trillion to the wealthiest Americans? We have 
to modernize our nuclear triad, our submarines, our land-based 
missiles, and our aircraft. There are estimates that this will cost 
about $400 billion per year in costs. Where are we getting that, since 
we have given the money--$1.5 trillion--to the wealthiest Americans? We 
have overseas operations in Iraq. Over a 10-year period, roughly $10 
billion must be repaid. We pay about $1 billion a year there. For 
Syria, that is $13 billion. If we stay there for 10 years--and that 
seems to be the present policy--that is $130 billion. We pay $50 
billion a year to support the Afghan operation. We are going to stay 
there, apparently, under the current procedure--not based on time but 
conditions--for another 10 years. Add that up, and that is about $640 
billion over the next 10 years, just to maintain the situation in those 
three countries.
  These are not costs we can ignore. If we did, we would--at the very 
least--be turning our backs on the policies announced by this President 
and this Congress--and by my Republican colleagues in particular. But 
where is this money coming from? We don't have the situation we had in 
2001 when President George W. Bush proposed his tax cuts. We don't have 
an expected $5 trillion surplus. We already have a multitrillion-dollar 
deficit over 10 years, and we are adding to that deficit. We know we 
have to maintain the military expenditures.
  Anyone who is voting for this bill is essentially saying: I will talk 
a good story about supporting national security, but when it comes down 
to the money, it is going to go to the wealthiest Americans, to things 
like the estate tax cut. It is going to go to the wealthiest Americans 
who are paying the alternative minimum tax. The money we need for 
security will not be there unless we borrow it from future 
generations--to fund the things we know we already have to fund to 
defend America.
  This is absolutely irresponsible, and, as a result, I would hope we 
could regain our senses, sit down, and deal, on a bipartisan basis, 
with tax reform that could help all of us and could indeed even begin, 
after 16 years, to put real money into our national defense rather than 
borrowing it from future generations. Again, this bill is not only 
economically unwise because it will not generate growth, but it is also 
irresponsible because it will put us in a position where we will be 
choosing, very shortly--in the next several years--whether we are going 
to cut defense or whether we are going to cut Social Security or 
whether we are going to cut everything because the deficit is growing 
so large. I don't think we should put ourselves in that position.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the American people have gotten a lot 
of lip service over the past 10 months. Remember draining the swamp and 
fighting for the forgotten families? The President apparently forgot 
them when he filled the Cabinet with a who's who of Wall Street. How 
about every single American having better, cheaper healthcare? That 
was, of course, before Republicans tried to kick millions of people off 
of their coverage, increase costs for millions more, and gut 
protections for people with preexisting conditions.
  You would think it would be tough to top all of that, but here we are 
watching as Republicans, led by President Trump, twist themselves into 
knots trying to convince hard-working families that the GOP tax plan is 
anything but a high-priced giveaway to millionaires, billionaires, and 
the biggest corporations. It is a high-priced giveaway paid for by--you 
guessed it--the middle class and those who can least afford it. This is 
so wrong, and I am glad, finally, the phones across the Capitol are 
today lighting up with constituents demanding to know how anyone 
promising to represent them could possibly put their name on this 
terrible, partisan, fast-tracked bill because they see the same 
nonpartisan reports we all do. They know expert after expert has 
confirmed what we all know: The Republican tax plan will hurt millions 
of everyday Americans, including those who are already falling behind 
in an economy that tilts further and further in favor of the wealthiest 
few. They know the Republican tax plan takes money out of their 
pockets. They know it guts their healthcare by spiking premiums and 
leaving millions and millions of

[[Page S7373]]

Americans without the coverage they need. They know it papers over our 
Nation's paid family leave problem, instead giving corporations a 
massive giveaway and leaving families who need to care for loved ones 
in the lurch. They know it adds trillions of dollars to the national 
debt, setting up, once again, the perfect foil for Republicans to then 
come after Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other middle-class 
priorities when the bill comes due.
  In case that wasn't enough, the Senate Republican tax bill adds a 
backdoor attempt to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 
drilling for oil, just for good measure. Republicans are even trying to 
pay for tax cuts for those at the top by sabotaging families' 
healthcare in this bill in a way that would spike premiums, cause 13 
million people to lose their coverage, and creates more chaos in the 
healthcare system.
  I know they are claiming the bipartisan bill I reached with Chairman 
Alexander can somehow fix this if it is signed into law and that other 
bipartisan legislation to help States cover the costs of enrolling very 
sick patients might help, too, but let me make very clear, that is very 
wrong. This is the classic example of trying to fit a square peg into a 
round hole and would be cold comfort to the people across the country 
who will struggle even more to get the care they need while at the same 
time watching massive corporations get more tax breaks they don't need.
  If anyone was still under any illusion that Republicans were 
concerned about the middle class or fiscal responsibility or even 
regular order, that ends here and now. This is shameful and wrong. I 
have to say, it is not too late. I say this to my Republican 
colleagues, let's move right now to the bipartisan work we know our 
constituents actually want and expect. Let's return to a process that 
allows a true debate about our values and priorities as a nation. Let's 
talk about ways to help our workers and grow the economy from the 
middle out, such as access to high-quality childcare and pre-K for all 
of our working families; providing meaningful paid family and medical 
leave for every American; making college more affordable; investing in 
retirement security for our workers; supporting our veterans; and 
making healthcare higher quality, more affordable, and more accessible. 
Those are the kinds of conversations we should be having. Those are the 
people we should be investing in. We will not stop reminding you of 
that every day until you give up this cruel tax plan.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, President Trump and the Republican 
leadership are on television every day telling the American people how 
this tax bill is going to help the middle class, how it was written for 
the middle class. Unfortunately, I will not shock too many people by 
suggesting what President Trump is saying is not truthful.
  This legislation, according to independent studies, will provide 60 
percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent. We are living in a moment 
in American history where we have massive levels of income and wealth 
inequality, where the top one-tenth of 1 percent now owns almost as 
much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, where three people--three of the 
wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half 
of the American population. Yet my Republican colleagues believe this 
is a moment when 60 percent of the benefits of the so-called tax reform 
bill should go to the 1 percent. Meanwhile, millions of middle-class 
families will end up paying more in taxes. So we have a situation in 
which the wealthy, who need tax breaks the least, will benefit the 
most, and many millions of struggling working-class and middle-class 
families will end up paying more in taxes at the end of 10 years.

  The President of the United States and my Republican colleagues tell 
the American people that trickle-down economics--giving huge tax breaks 
to the wealthy and large corporations--will expand the economy, will 
create new jobs, and will pay for the deficit that this legislation 
brings about. The simple truth is, trickle-down economics is a 
fraudulent theory. It has failed miserably in Kansas, where it has been 
most recently put into effect. It failed under the Reagan 
administration, and it failed under the administration of George W. 
Bush.
  What interests me the most is, my Republican colleagues will not tell 
the American people how they are going to be paying for the $1.4 
trillion increase in deficits that this bill creates. You have a $1.4 
trillion increase in deficits. How is that going to be paid for? My 
view is that, without doubt, as soon as this legislation is passed, the 
Republicans will come back, and they will suddenly rediscover their 
religion about deficits. They will go before the American people and 
say we need ``entitlement reform'' or we need ``welfare reform.'' Let 
me translate for you what ``entitlement reform'' means. It means that 
when millions of older workers have nothing in the bank saved up for 
retirement, they are going to propose massive cuts to Social Security.
  We do not know exactly the form it will take. Maybe they will want to 
raise the retirement age, forcing older workers to work more before 
they can get their Social Security benefits. Maybe they will cut back 
on cost-of-living increases through a so-called chained CPI, which 
means lower benefits. They are going to go after Medicare. Maybe their 
idea will be to privatize Medicare, convert it into a voucher program, 
and say to older Americans: Here is a check for $8,000. You go out and 
find the private insurance that you can, and good luck to you with your 
$8,000 check if you are dealing with heart disease or cancer. They 
will, no doubt, come back to slash Medicaid.
  Now, these are not just wild ideas that I have been thinking about. 
This is pretty much what was in the budget the Republicans voted for 
right on the floor of the Senate. They already voted for a $1 trillion 
cut over a 10-year period to Medicaid, and that means massive 
reductions in help not only for lower income Americans, not only for 
children but for people in nursing homes. They have already voted in 
the budget, over a 10-year period, to cut Medicare by $470 billion, and 
in the House they are working hard to figure out ways to cut Social 
Security. The Republicans will also make massive cuts to education, to 
nutrition, and to environmental protection.
  The other day, I sent a letter to the Senate majority leader, Mitch 
McConnell, and to the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. What I asked of 
them was to be honest with the American people.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                Washington, DC, November 27, 2017.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan: It is no 
     secret that I am vigorously opposed to the disastrous ``tax 
     reform'' bills that you are pushing in the U.S. House and 
     U.S. Senate.
       At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, both of 
     these bills would provide huge tax breaks to the very rich 
     and large corporations. Meanwhile, they would raise taxes for 
     millions of middle class families.
       Further, and the point of this letter, is that both of 
     these bills would increase the federal deficit by more than 
     $1.4 trillion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
       I am very concerned that if you succeed in passing tax 
     legislation that significantly adds to our national debt, you 
     will then move aggressively to balance the budget on the 
     backs of working families, the elderly, the children, the 
     sick, and the poor. In other words, in order to pay for tax 
     breaks for the rich and large corporations, you will make 
     massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 
     nutrition, environmental protection, and every other program 
     designed to protect the needs of the middle class and working 
     families of our country.
       Before the Senate votes on tax legislation that adds over 
     $1.4 trillion to the deficit, you owe the American people a 
     specific and detailed explanation as to how the Republican 
     Congress will achieve its commitment of balancing the budget 
     over the next decade.
       Will you schedule a vote to raise the eligibility of 
     Medicare from 65 to 67 as called for in the House Budget 
     Resolution? Will you attempt to end Medicare as we know it by 
     giving seniors vouchers to purchase private health insurance, 
     something long supported by Speaker Ryan?
       How much will you cut Social Security? Will you try to 
     increase the retirement age

[[Page S7374]]

     to 70, cut cost-of-living adjustments for senior citizens and 
     disabled veterans, and/or privatize Social Security?
       Will you support legislation to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion 
     over the next decade, kicking 15 million Americans off of 
     health insurance? As you know, this was a provision included 
     in the Republican Budget Resolution that was passed earlier 
     this year.
       How much do you plan on cutting affordable housing, Pell 
     Grants, WIC, and Head Start to pay for a permanent tax break 
     for profitable corporations?
       The bottom line is that the American people have a right to 
     know exactly how you plan to pay for a $1.4 trillion increase 
     in the deficit before, not after, tax legislation is signed 
     into law. In your response, please be as specific as you can.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Bernard Sanders,
                                                   Ranking Member.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this is what I asked:

       I am very concerned that if you succeed in passing tax 
     legislation that significantly adds to our national debt, you 
     will then move aggressively to balance the budget on the 
     backs of working families, the elderly, the children, the 
     sick, and the poor. In other words, in order to pay for tax 
     breaks for the rich and large corporations, you will make 
     massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 
     nutrition, environmental protection, and every other program 
     designed to protect the needs of the middle class and working 
     families of our country.
       Before the Senate votes on tax legislation that adds over 
     $1.4 trillion to the deficit, you owe the American people a 
     specific and detailed explanation as to how the Republican 
     Congress will achieve its commitment of balancing the budget 
     over the next decade.
       Will you schedule a vote to raise the eligibility age of 
     Medicare from 65 to 67 as called for in the House Budget 
     Resolution? Will you attempt to end Medicare as we know it by 
     giving seniors vouchers to purchase private health insurance, 
     something long supported by Speaker Ryan?
       How much will you cut Social Security? Will you try to 
     increase the retirement age to 70, cut cost-of-living 
     adjustments for senior citizens and disabled veterans, and/or 
     privatize Social Security?
       Will you support legislation to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion 
     over the next decade, kicking 15 million Americans off of 
     health insurance? As you know, this was a provision included 
     in the Republican Budget Resolution that was passed earlier 
     this year.
       How much do you plan on cutting affordable housing, Pell 
     Grants, WIC, and Head Start to pay for a permanent tax break 
     for profitable corporations?

  That is what I wrote to the majority leader.
  My challenge right now to my Republican colleagues is--and I ask 
you--to come down to the floor of the Senate and tell me I am wrong. 
Come down here and tell the American people, if this legislation--this 
disastrous tax bill--passes, that you will not be coming back to cut 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition, education, and other 
programs. Maybe I am wrong. If Republicans come down here and say: 
Bernie, you are wrong. We have no intention of cutting Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid, I will come here, and I will apologize.
  So here is my challenge right now to my Republican colleagues: Come 
down here. Tell me and tell the American people I am wrong. Tell us all 
that you are not going to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and 
education in order to deal with the $1.4 trillion deficit you will 
bring about in this disastrous tax bill. Tell the American people you 
are not going to cut programs that the elderly, the children, the sick, 
and the poor desperately need in order to give huge tax breaks to the 
wealthy and large corporations.
  That is my challenge, and I will be listening eagerly to see if there 
are any Republicans who are going to come down and tell me what I am 
suggesting is wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this week, we are debating the 
Republican tax relief plan.
  I had a telephone townhall meeting the other night, along with 
Senator Enzi, and we talked to the people of Wyoming who have actually 
done the math and looked at the impact of the things that are included 
in this proposal--doubling the standard deduction and the child tax 
credit. People think it is a good deal for them personally, so there is 
a lot to like in this legislation. It gives tax cuts to hard-working 
American families; it makes taxes simpler and fairer; it makes American 
businesses more competitive around the world; and it makes our economy 
stronger here at home. That is all good news for our country and for 
the American people.
  Now, there is other good news in this legislation, and it is 
something I continue to hear about at home and heard about over the 
Thanksgiving recess in Wyoming, which is that it wipes out the 
ObamaCare insurance mandate tax. This is the tax penalty the Obama 
healthcare law forced on the American people. Under the Republican 
plan, people would no longer have to pay a tax penalty to the IRS if 
they did not want the Democrats' expensive health insurance or if they 
just couldn't afford it.
  We have seen health insurance premiums skyrocket over the past few 
years in this country, and it is because of the way Democrats wrote the 
healthcare law. The cost and the deductibles are so high that many 
people find that even if they have paid for the expensive insurance, 
they still can't afford to get the care they need. The law says that no 
matter how expensive the insurance gets or how unusable it is for that 
individual, by law, people still have to buy it or pay a tax.
  Families ought to be able to make decisions about what they want to 
buy and what works for them, not the government. I believe that if 
people don't want to buy the ObamaCare insurance, they shouldn't have 
to pay a tax penalty to the IRS. Those are the things we are looking 
at.
  Interestingly, today in the New York Times, there was more than half 
a page devoted to this. ``Millions Pay Penalty Instead of Buying 
Policy. Who Are They?'' Well, in the State of Wyoming, over 15,000 
people paid over $5 million in fines to the IRS. This article today 
says that 6.7 million tax filers paid the penalty in 2015. Who are 
they? Well, it is not surprising to the Presiding Officer that the 
great majority of these--8 out of 10 who paid the fine--have an 
adjusted family income of less than $50,000. It says the $25,000 to 
$50,000 income range group had the highest share of people paying the 
penalty in 2015. Why do we think those people aren't able to buy the 
insurance? It is too expensive. It is not a good deal for them. That is 
why even the New York Times is reporting that the $25,000 to $50,000 
income group--hard-working American families--has the highest share of 
people paying the penalty.
  Then they questioned why they paid the penalty, and it was because 
they couldn't afford the insurance. It is right here in black and 
white. It points out that the average penalty in 2017 is $708. That is 
money those families could use for many other things, but it is not 
enough compared to the cost of the insurance, which is even higher. A 
single woman would have to pay a tax of either $695 or 2.5 percent of 
her income, whichever is higher. That is the rule. The average is over 
$700. For a couple, the tax would be double. A family with kids would 
pay additional for each of the children. The majority of Americans say 
they don't have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency expense if one 
came up.
  Who actually pays? These 16,000 people in Wyoming who paid the 
penalty are hard-working men and women who are opposed to the fact that 
Washington--the Federal Government under ObamaCare--says they have to 
pay a tax if they don't buy a government product that doesn't work for 
them.
  Across the country, over 6 million people were hit with this extra 
tax. The ObamaCare insurance mandate tax is a direct tax on the working 
people of this country. I think it is not right. The Republican Party 
Members of the Senate think it is not right. Washington should not make 
people pay higher taxes just because they can't afford expensive 
ObamaCare insurance. People shouldn't be forced to buy a product that 
is not the right choice for them and their families.
  The Congressional Budget Office says that if we get rid of the 
insurance mandate, 13 million people will eventually decide under their 
own free will not to have insurance. These people don't view it as a 
good benefit for them. That is why they may walk away from it. They 
don't view it as worth their money. Republicans want to give all these 
people a tax cut. Democrats want to make sure that people still have to 
pay the tax penalty.
  There is a lot that I want to change about how America's healthcare 
system works. I want to repeal the entire healthcare law that the 
Democrats wrote a few years ago. I want to return

[[Page S7375]]

the money and the decisions back to the people or do that at the State 
level, where people at the local level can make the best decisions 
about what works best for them and their State, not a one-size-fits-all 
coming out of Washington. I haven't given up on trying to get that done 
because we need to make healthcare better in this country.
  In Wyoming, we are down to just one insurer willing to sell these 
policies. That is happening more and more around the country. One 
insurer is not a marketplace but a monopoly. That has left many people 
at the breaking point.
  I got an email from one man in Sheridan, WY. He talked about the fact 
that his monthly premiums will be going up by more than $700 each month 
next year. That is for two adults, no children, and there is a 
deductible of $6,000. He and his wife are stuck in a position where 
they will have to pay more than $2,400 a month for insurance or pay an 
extra tax.
  A woman from Park County wrote to me that her family had to switch 
insurance plans a couple of years ago. The coverage they had before was 
canceled.
  Why did 5,000 people in Wyoming lose their insurance? Why was it 
canceled? It was good enough for them, provided what they needed, but 
the government said it wasn't good enough for the government. That is 
wrong.
  This lady writes about the incredible increase in the costs. She 
asked, ``What are we supposed to do?''
  I have heard that in all corners of the State of Wyoming. What are 
they supposed to do? I don't believe these people should face a choice 
between paying sky-high insurance premiums or a sky-high tax penalty to 
the IRS. People in Wyoming and around the country want to buy insurance 
that is affordable, that works for them, and that fits their families' 
needs. They don't want to be forced to buy the insurance that 
Washington tells them they have to buy because Washington, as we have 
seen in the past, thinks they know better than the American people. 
People want the coverage they need so they can go to the doctor they 
want at lower costs.
  I would also point out that the cost of insurance isn't the only 
problem we are looking at right now. There are other parts of the 
healthcare law that may actually be harming patients.
  As a physician, I receive multiple medical journals. There was a new 
study out in the American Medical Association cardiology journal that 
looked at Medicare patients who were hospitalized with heart failure.
  Many people across the country are hospitalized for heart failure. It 
is a chronic condition, and occasionally they have to go back in the 
hospital for additional treatment.
  There is a program in the healthcare law that started to penalize 
hospitals if that Medicare patient was readmitted to the hospital 
within 30 days after they had been released from the hospital. There 
are a number of reasons that may happen, but the goal was to penalize 
hospitals, and--the goal, the laudable goal, was to give patients 
better treatment, but that is not what happened. This is the problem: 
The Democrats wrote into this law and the regulations something that 
they really had no evidence would actually help patients and save money 
at the same time. They said: We are going to penalize hospitals. So if 
every hospital improved its numbers, they were still going to grade it 
on a curve, so if a hospital didn't improve enough, it was still going 
to be penalized. That has had huge a impact on hospitals that take 
sicker patients, regardless of their location, in terms of how they do 
followup with patients.
  Well, it turns out that the study in the Journal of the American 
Medical Association--a well-respected cardiology journal, their heart 
issue--says that the death rate actually went up after hospitals faced 
this new requirement. The study covered over 400 hospitals and over 
110,000 patients. The study found that an extra 5,400 people are dying 
every year just among heart failure patients because of the way the 
Federal Government has chosen to penalize hospitals around the country 
when patients are readmitted. It is interesting because what has 
happened is that the readmission rates in the hospital have actually 
gone down. The hospitals succeeded in keeping people out to avoid the 
penalty, but people died in the process.
  The Wall Street Journal had an editorial about it last week. They 
concluded that if you were doing a drug trial on a drug that you were 
working on inventing to improve the lives of people and you had the 
same results as this--5,000 people dying--they would have shut it down 
long ago. That is a deadly, unintended consequence of the ObamaCare 
healthcare law.
  The insurance mandate was supposed to keep premiums from rising. 
Premiums have gone way up anyway. That is another unintended 
consequence of the law. In spite of good intentions, that is not what 
happened under the law that was passed and is the law of the land right 
now.
  I believe we should repeal the entire law. Until we can do that, we 
should do what we can to help the American people who are struggling to 
deal with this expensive insurance and what I believe to be an unfair 
tax and fine that they must pay if they don't buy the insurance because 
they can't afford it, because it is not a good deal for them and it 
doesn't work for them or their families. It is not just unpopular, it 
is un-American. It took away people's choices. It forced them to buy 
expensive insurance that wasn't right for them.
  It is time for the insurance mandate to go away. We know it is a bad 
idea. We need to give people relief from this terrible tax. The people 
of Wyoming and the people of this country simply can't afford to wait 
any longer. It is time to repeal the mandate of the healthcare law.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). The Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Presiding Officer 
for his comments just before mine, and thank him for presiding so that 
I can step down and speak briefly.
  I wasn't sure if I was going to speak. I don't have any notes. But I 
was inspired by some of the comments that were made by the Senator from 
Vermont as I was presiding.
  We heard--actually, for those who are visiting the DC area, if you 
don't get an opportunity to go to any of the wonderful theaters we have 
here, such as the Kennedy Center, don't worry because you are seeing a 
lot of theater down here on the Senate floor.
  Anybody who would suggest that we are going to come back and cut my 
mother's Medicare and my mother's Social Security and that of the 
mothers and brothers and sisters of other people who are depending on 
that for their livelihood is somewhat involved in political theater.
  Some of you were here and probably heard the challenge to have a 
Republican come down here on the floor and say: Bernie, you are wrong.
  Well, the distinguished Senator from Vermont is wrong.
  This bill is about actually providing freedom and tax relief to 
working families and reducing the tax burden on businesses so that the 
economy will grow and we will have the resources to pay our bills.
  I can understand that maybe it is not intentional theater on the part 
of some of these folks; it may just be because they simply have never 
done it before. But if you have ever lived in North Carolina or if you 
have lived in North Carolina since 2011, you know that we did.
  I have seen this theater before--from the dais as speaker of the 
house in the State of North Carolina when we were one of the highest--
the sixth highest tax State in the Nation, with one of the slowest 
growing economies. We were having a problem paying our Medicaid bills. 
We were having a problem paying our bills. We had a $2.5 billion 
structural deficit. I heard the theater on the floor: If you cut taxes, 
you are going to drive up the deficit. If you cut taxes, you are going 
to cut Medicaid. If you cut taxes, you are going to cut social 
services.
  I heard it all. Everybody accused us of that. I hit the gavel, and I 
ratified the bill for tax reform. Guess what happened. We went from 
being the sixth most taxed State that today is in the top ten best 
taxed. We went from one of the worst performing State economies to now 
one of the best performing State economies. We have reduced the

[[Page S7376]]

number of people in poverty, and statistically--I mean, we can prove it 
to you. We do the counts. The number of people who have been lifted out 
of poverty has increased over the last 3 years. Median incomes have 
gone up. Job creation has gone up. Our gross domestic product has gone 
up over the past 5 or 6 years by $80 billion. We were at about $400 
billion, and now we are at $480 billion.
  So let me tell you how we are going to pay for these tax cuts. We are 
not going to pay for them by cutting Medicare for seniors. We are going 
to pay for them through the economic activity that will absolutely 
occur if we have the courage to fulfill the promise that we made last 
year to the American people. We are going to reduce the regulatory 
burden on businesses. We are going to get our tax policy consistent and 
competitive with nations that are eating our lunch on locating business 
expansion and having businesses come offshore--away from the United 
States to more preferable tax jurisdictions, and we are going to change 
people's lives.
  I am motivated to support this plan because I have been in a position 
of leadership where I had great people in my caucus who had the courage 
to fulfill a promise that I made if I became speaker of the house. Now 
we are at a point in time to do the same thing for America that we did 
for North Carolina. If we do it, it is going to be extraordinary.
  Let me reduce it down to an answer I gave to a little boy yesterday. 
I think he was in fourth grade. I had a Skype video conference with an 
English as a second language class in an elementary school down in 
North Carolina. One of the little boys asked me a great question, and 
it is a question that has never been asked of me. I have been in 
politics only for about 12 years. But he said: What piece of 
legislation are you most proud of? What is the thing you are most proud 
of since you have been in the legislature?

  I thought about it. It was a tough question because I can think of 
many things I have done. But then I went back to this little boy in the 
classroom, and I said: You know what, buddy, it was something I did 
back when I was speaker of the North Carolina House. By the way, if any 
politician tells you ``I did this,'' they are invariably not telling 
you the truth because you don't get anything done unless the team 
commits to it. So I, along with a lot of people in North Carolina, 
decided that your parents could not afford to pay the bills. They were 
having a difficult time paying the utility bills, their rent, and their 
groceries, paying for food. So we decided we were going to do something 
to make sure that government gave your parents more money to make sure 
you could go to school, to make sure they could pay their bills, to 
make sure they could have a better paying job. And, buddy, that is the 
thing I am most proud of. The thing I am most proud of was tax reform 
that produced results that are indisputable. I have seen the theater 
before, and it didn't work out too well because it proved to be fiction 
in North Carolina.
  If we have the courage over the next couple of days to take that same 
vote here, we are going to see the same results for those working 
families and those job employers in the United States. So I hope all of 
the Members of this body recognize that we are not going to fund the 
tax cuts on the backs of people who need the help the most. That is 
absurd. It is unfair. It is theater. We are going to take care of them, 
and we are going to take care of everyone else who is relying on us, 
this caucus, to fulfill the promise we made, get the economy back on 
track, and start winning more than losing against our international 
competition. I am completely convinced that the bill that is going to 
be before us over the end of this week is going to do just that.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________