[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 194 (Wednesday, November 29, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7394-S7402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The clerk will report the bill.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
     titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 2018.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Wyden or his designee be recognized to offer a motion to commit the 
bill, the text of which is at the desk. I further ask that the time 
until 8 p.m. be equally divided between the leaders or their designees; 
that at 8 p.m. the Senate vote in relation to the motion to commit with 
no intervening action or debate; and that following the disposition of 
the Wyden motion, the majority leader be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up the motion that I have at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. WYDEN] moves to commit the 
     bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to 
     report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting 
     any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes 
     that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) eliminate provisions that would raise taxes on millions 
     of middle class taxpayers.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this is a historic day, as the Senate begins 
consideration of tax reform that will help boost America's economy, 
create more jobs, and leave more money in people's paychecks.
  The House and Senate passage last month of the fiscal year 2018 
budget resolution marked an important first step toward tax relief for 
American families and job creators that will jump-start economic 
growth. The resolution gave the Senate Finance Committee the headroom 
to come up with comprehensive tax reform, and it instructed the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee to save $1 billion. Finance 
Committee Chairman Hatch and Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
Chairwoman Murkowski both deserve praise for developing legislative 
recommendations that fit with the budget resolution's reconciliation 
instructions, and I thank them for their efforts.
  Yesterday, the Senate Budget Committee took the next step by 
combining the legislative recommendations from the Finance and the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committees and reporting the combined bill 
to the full Senate for consideration. This put our Nation one step 
closer to real tax reform while advancing American energy security.
  It is past time for us to act. A lot of things have changed since the 
last major tax reform in 1986, and unfortunately our Tax Code hasn't 
kept pace with those changes. It is an outdated mess that is hurting 
American workers and holding back our economy. That is why we need tax 
reform that will make our system simpler and fairer and allow people to 
keep more of what they earn. The bill before us will do that. It will 
help grow the economy, create jobs, and ensure that hard-working 
Americans aren't missing available tax relief.
  This bill also will provide relief to small, family-owned businesses. 
We want to make sure that small businesses, which currently employ the 
majority of the private sector in Wyoming and are the backbone of our 
communities all over the country, have the opportunity to grow and 
provide more jobs.
  If you care about jobs, if you care about American companies staying 
here and being able to compete globally, then you should also care 
about reforming our business tax system. America has the fourth highest 
corporate rate in the world. We need to encourage companies to bring 
back their overseas money to increase the number of jobs here in the 
United States. Lowering our uncommonly high and uncompetitive business 
tax rate would be one of the quickest ways to solve the problem. It is 
time we make America a more inviting place to invest, to do business, 
and to create jobs.
  We heard a lot of rhetoric yesterday in our committee meeting where 
we reported this bill, and I expect we will be hearing a lot more of 
the same arguments over the next couple of days. So I want to address 
some of the claims made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
yesterday.
  Several Members complained that there have been zero hearings on this 
reconciliation legislation and that this has been a rushed process. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The entire 2018 budget reconciliation process has been open, 
transparent, and subject to regular order, starting with the passage of 
the Senate budget resolution. The Senate Budget Committee marked up the 
budget over 2 days and accepted amendments from both sides of the aisle 
to make the resolution stronger. In fact, for the first time ever, the 
minority was given a copy of the chairman's bill 5 days prior to the 
start of the markup. According to many of my colleagues, it was one of 
the most transparent budget resolution markups in history.
  The budget resolution, complete with the reconciliation instructions 
being used this week, was then debated on the floor in an open process 
that allowed every Senator the opportunity to offer and vote on 
amendments to improve the resolution before its final passage. That set 
in motion the instructed committees' process for producing 
recommendations.
  Over the last 6 years, the Senate Finance Committee has held 70 
hearings on how the Tax Code can be improved and streamlined to work 
better for all Americans.
  Earlier this month, the Senate Finance Committee held a 4-day markup 
before finally approving tax reform legislation designed to modernize 
our Tax Code. The markup lasted 23 hours and 34 minutes over the course 
of those 4 days. Of the more than 350 amendments filed, 69 were asked 
to be considered in committee. An additional 35 amendments, offered by 
both Democrats and Republicans, were included in the final bill 
reported out of committee.
  On November 2, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held 
a hearing to receive testimony on the potential for oil and gas 
exploration and development in the so-called 1002 area of the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. On November 15, after adopting a 
bipartisan amendment, the committee approved, with bipartisan support, 
legislation authorizing responsible development in the 1002 area and 
meeting the $1 billion reconciliation deficit reduction target.
  Let me explain what we are talking about. ANWR is 19.3 million acres. 
It is about the size of South Carolina. The 1002 area is 1.57 million 
acres--about the size of Delaware. The area within 1002 that we are 
talking about for development is just 2,000 acres, which is smaller 
than the Fargo, ND, airport.
  When the Budget Committee met yesterday, consistent with our 
responsibility under the Congressional Budget Act, we were only allowed 
to combine the recommendations of the two committees. We reported the 
combined bill to the full Senate. As provided by law, no amendments 
were allowed because, under the Budget Act, our committee is prohibited 
from substantially changing either committee's approved 
recommendations. Now that this bill is on the floor, however, it will 
be subject to the amendment process. For reconciliation bills like 
this, the amount of amendments that can be offered is unlimited.
  Several Members yesterday accused us of no longer caring about 
overspending and the debt. Again, this is completely false. Better tax 
policy will boost the value of everything we produce, and this will 
mean more revenue for the Federal Government.
  The cost of this bill that you will hear my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle argue assumes the bill has little effect on the 
economy. That assumption is based on the sluggish growth we have had 
recently. In 2016, annual GDP growth was 1.6 percent, but our 
historical average growth is 3.2

[[Page S7395]]

percent. Under President Trump's efforts and the hope that he has 
brought to working Americans, our economy has grown at more than 3 
percent over the last two quarters. If we only get to 2.4 percent 
growth in the private sector, this bill will be paid for. If we reach 
3.2 percent growth, part of the debt will be paid down with the extra 
revenue that will be generated.
  We have tried stimulus, and it left us with the 1.6 percent. We have 
tried cutting. In Washington, if you don't give the amount of increase 
that people are asking for but you give them more money than they had 
last year, that is considered a cut. So cuts haven't worked here, 
either. So what is the other option that we have? Growing the economy.
  Now, I want to repeat that in 2016 the annual GDP growth was 1.6 
percent, but our historical average growth is 3.2 percent. And under 
President Trump's efforts and the hope he has brought to working 
Americans, our economy has grown at more than 3 percent over the last 
two quarters, without this. If we only get to 2.4 percent growth in the 
private sector, this bill will be paid for. I believe we can reach the 
3.2-percent growth, and part of the debt will be paid down from the 
extra revenue that will be generated.
  Some people will say that after tax cuts before, the deficit has gone 
up. I hope you check and see that the revenue has gone up, but the 
spending went up bigger. It is like somebody winning the lottery and 
spending their winnings twice.
  This reconciliation bill will make concrete reforms to the broken 
U.S. Tax Code and put the American economy back on a growth track. This 
tax plan is an investment in hard-working Americans, one that will 
produce more jobs and result in higher wages and a stronger and more 
competitive American economy.
  You are probably going to hear a lot of screaming going on in 
speeches this week. Please don't confuse volume with veracity or truth.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to help pass this bill. 
It will not only benefit hard-working Americans, but it will make our 
economy and our country stronger.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I listened to the remarks of my colleague, 
the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, and he said there were 70 
hearings on taxes. I think it is important that the American people 
know that there was not one single hearing--not one--on this bill. 
There were no discussions of the specific provisions in this 
legislation. There was no hearing on the personal responsibility 
requirement in the Affordable Care Act, which is so essential to that 
law and to what we ought to be looking at strengthening in the years 
ahead with respect to cost containment. So I just want to set the 
record straight right at the outset of the debate. Since I have heard 
once again that there were 70 hearings, I think it is important that 
the American people know that there was not one on this bill.
  Contrast this to 1986, when Democrats and Republicans got together 
and there were more than 20 hearings--more than 20 discussions on 
specifics about how to work together and find common ground on this 
enormously important issue.
  The Senate is 20 hours of debate away from a broken promise of truly 
historic proportions. This was supposed to be the year that the working 
people of America regained a powerful voice in Washington. Instead of a 
strong voice, what they got was a big con job. If this Republican tax 
bill passes, Washington is going to reach into the pockets of working 
Americans and cut a big check to multinational corporations, to tax 
cheats, and to the politically powerful and well connected.
  The bill before the Senate would enshrine an economic double standard 
that makes permanent second-class treatment of Americans who work hard 
and do their best day in and day out to provide for their families. For 
the cops, for the nurses, for the mechanics, and for those who work 
retail, this Republican tax plan is a big gamble. They don't get any 
special tax dodges--no Cayman Islands deals for them. Those folks are 
stuck clinging to the hope that they will not be among the millions hit 
with an immediate tax hike. Even for those lucky Americans who do see 
some benefit, there is bad news coming down the pike. All they get out 
of this Republican plan is the fleeting sugar high of temporary tax 
cuts.
  That is not the case, though, for multinational corporations or 
powerful high fliers who wield big political power in this town. Under 
this tax plan, the basic message to them is this: You can pay what you 
want, when you want, and, if you are lucky--really lucky--you may pay 
hardly anything at all. That certainly is not what working people were 
promised in the fall 2016 campaign. That is not what Republicans have 
spent month after month telling Americans their tax plan would do. The 
Republican rhetoric doesn't match the reality of this tax plan, and 
every day we get frightening news reports about the harm it is going to 
do to working people and the middle class.
  Just yesterday, I received a letter from the independent 
congressional tax experts known as the Joint Committee on Taxation, and 
they gave us really important information about the bill. Buried in one 
of those answers was information that ought to put a scare into 
millions of Americans who work hard every day to get ahead. This bill 
showers trillions of dollars on multinational corporations, but the 
fact is, these multinational corporations are already awash in cash. 
What it means, according to these independent congressional tax 
experts, is that interest rates are going up. The Federal Reserve will 
have to tighten the screws of the economy.
  But here is the bottom line for what it means for a middle-class 
American in North Carolina, or Oregon, or anywhere else in the United 
States: If you want to buy a house, this bill is going to make it more 
expensive. If you want to buy a car, this bill is going to make it more 
expensive. If you want to get a credit card, this bill is going to make 
it more expensive. If you want to take out a student loan, this bill is 
going to make it more expensive.
  It is not just harm for typical families. The cost of doing business 
is going to rise for the brewery owner or the tool-and-die maker who 
wants to build a new facility or purchase new equipment. They would 
like to hire new workers, but they will find that the money they need 
to do it is getting drained by higher interest rates.
  In short, higher interest rates will wipe out the benefits of this 
bill for a lot of small businesses and add pain to the tax hikes that 
are going to hit millions of families. The only businesses and 
individuals who will not feel the effects I just described are those 
sitting on mountains of cash--those who will never need to borrow to 
get ahead. That is just one of the latest of truly frightening details 
about what this destructive bill would do.
  If there was any doubt remaining, it is clear based on those tax 
experts that individual working Americans and families are going to be 
on the hook for handouts to multinational corporations.
  Republicans have spent months shouting from the hilltops that they 
were bringing jobs back. The President made it a centerpiece of his 
campaign. Jobs are coming home, he said. Corporations that ship jobs 
overseas are going to be punished. The plight of so many mill and 
factory towns is over. It is too bad that those talking points from 
stump speeches and interviews never made it into the proposals on 
paper, because the tax plan that is actually before the Senate does the 
opposite.
  Under the new notion of taxes for American companies overseas called 
the territorial system, corporations will get a bigger tax cut if they 
lay off their American workers here in the United States, pack up, and 
move abroad. It creates colossal new loopholes, a true bonanza of new 
tax gifts for the tax cheats, for the people who have sophisticated 
help to cut corners.
  When it comes to international tax rules, my view is that the United 
States shouldn't get suckered into a race to the bottom with a bunch of 
no-tax, resort-lined islands to please the tax avoidance industry and 
their lobbyists. That is a truly expensive competition in terms of 
taxpayer dollars and jobs, but this Republican plan forces working 
Americans to pay up.
  The tax experts we rely on here in the Congress make it clear that 
the Republican corporate tax scheme loses

[[Page S7396]]

revenue, but the individual tax changes raise revenue. That is a whole 
lot of tax lingo for saying that working people are going to get 
fleeced so that multinational corporations can pay a lot less.
  Here is how it is going to work. More and more Americans will face a 
tax hike with every passing year. Stealthy tax tricks will force people 
into higher tax brackets over time, heaping a heavier burden on their 
shoulders. Millions of working Americans are going to lose their 
healthcare and the tax credits that make insurance affordable for them 
and their family. Put all together, it is an immense amount of money 
being taken from people who are already walking an economic tightrope--
an economic tightrope in North Carolina and Oregon and everywhere 
else--where they balance food costs against the fuel bill and the fuel 
bill against the cost of housing. An immense amount of money is being 
taken from them and being handed to multinational corporations that 
ship jobs overseas.
  This is not a plan to create red, white, and blue jobs. This is not a 
plan to turn the lights back on in factories that went dark many years 
ago. This is a plan to sell out millions of Americans--American workers 
and their families--and the damage will get even worse when the deficit 
climbs into the stratosphere.
  As I begin to touch on the deficit, I want to note that it didn't 
have to be this way. I wrote two fully bipartisan Federal income tax 
reform bills with our colleagues. I believe they were here before the 
Senator from North Carolina joined us: Dan Coats, now the head of 
national intelligence, and Judd Gregg, the former Republican chair of 
the Budget Committee. The three of us--Senator Gregg first, then 
Senator Coats--made changes to ensure that American companies could be 
competitive for red, white, and blue jobs. We understood that you had 
to have a competitive rate to grow those companies. But we certainly 
didn't create new breaks for shipping jobs overseas, and--because I am 
going to touch on the deficit now--our proposal was revenue neutral.
  So it didn't have to be this way. That is what Senator Manchin and 
Senator Kaine said yesterday, along with 17 Democrats. We wanted a 
bipartisan alternative that didn't create new incentives for shipping 
jobs overseas and that didn't jack up the deficit, but I certainly was 
surprised when I saw early on that Senate Republicans, who had given so 
many speeches on their concern about the deficit, said: It is kind of 
OK with us if we have a net deficit of $1.5 trillion. And as the Joint 
Committee on Taxation has essentially indicated to me, it would be 
higher than that.
  All of the deficit hawks in the Republican Party just flew away. That 
was surprising because it seems like just yesterday when the Congress 
couldn't buy lunch without a whole cast of Republican deficit hawks 
doing some pretty serious hollering about the deficit. But based on 
history, what is coming next is pretty predictable. We have seen the 
movie before. The deficit hawks come flying back after ideas like the 
one we are looking at in the Senate become law. We have already heard 
the Speaker say, what is next? Entitlement reform, which means 
Medicare, Medicaid, and anti-hunger programs.
  The Speaker said that is what is next. That is next on the docket. 
Everybody listening ought to know that is code for attack, and it is 
multiple fronts on these kinds of programs for the most vulnerable 
people in our country--the lifeline programs, the safety net programs I 
have just described. What we are going to hear, because this is the 
script from earlier movies, is we have these big deficits. Oh, my 
goodness. There is a lot of red ink. America can't afford the safety 
net. They will say we have to do something. Instead of being willing to 
go after the people at the top, history says the people who really face 
the burden of those deficit reductions are the most vulnerable.
  The first big legislative push after the Bush tax cuts, for example, 
was an all-out assault on Social Security. The fact that it was stopped 
doesn't mean Medicare or Medicaid or other safety net programs like 
Social Security are going to be safe this time around.
  The policy on offer, in my view, is simply a disaster. It makes a 
mockery of the approach Ronald Reagan took with a big group of 
Democrats. I know so many of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle admire President Reagan greatly. This bill is the opposite of 
what President Reagan did.
  What President Reagan did is he said to those big multinational 
corporations: I have to ask you to give up some money in order to make 
sure the middle class, the individual ratepayer, will get a fair shake.
  This is just the opposite--180 degrees away from what Ronald Reagan 
did. We are going to have an amendment on the middle class pretty soon, 
but what could be more stark than the fact that the tax cuts for the 
multinationals are permanent, and the relief for the middle class is 
temporary. This bill is the opposite, the total opposite, of what 
Ronald Reagan worked on in 1986.
  Our colleague Senator Enzi--and I have worked with him often, and I 
am sad to see us have such differing views on this--said we have had 70 
hearings. I can tell you, the once storied Senate Finance Committee 
never even attempted once to craft a bipartisan bill. We said for 
months that was our preference. That was what was stated in the letter 
the vast majority of Senate Democrats signed. That is what we said when 
we were invited to the White House to meet with the President. We said 
it repeatedly.
  I mentioned the two bills I wrote. They are the only two bipartisan 
Federal income tax reform bills--the only two we have had since 1986. 
By the way, they didn't go as far as Ronald Reagan went. Ronald Reagan, 
in 1986, said, for purposes of taxes, a dollar is a dollar is a dollar.
  We are going to have the same rate for those who make money on 
investments that we do for those cops and nurses who get that wage, 
that ordinary income. I have indicated on the floor that Senator 
Bradley, former New York Knick--and as I like to say, another tall 
Democrat who served on the Senate Finance Committee with a much better 
jump shot than mine--is incredulous at this process. He is just slack-
jawed when he asks about what is being done to bring both sides 
together. Senator Bradley, and others on the Republican side, in 1986, 
flew all over the United States to get together with senior Republicans 
and Jim Baker, Richard Dorman, and others to talk about the specifics 
of getting bipartisan tax reform together. You hear the stories, and 
you see that is the way you tackle an issue like this. Bill Bradley 
flew all over the country to work with Republicans to get a bipartisan 
tax reform bill. Right now, the majority on the Senate Finance 
Committee wouldn't walk down the corridor of the Dirksen building once 
to talk about anything resembling how we would put together a 
bipartisan proposal. So the process we have seen here makes a mockery 
out of Reagan-style reform.
  Some have asked, was this foreordained, did it have to be. I have 
already made it clear that I don't think it had to be. It is hard work 
putting together a bipartisan bill. Senator Gregg, for example, when he 
was in the Senate, I think was one of Leader McConnell's top economic 
advisers--chairman of the Budget Committee. We used to say in our 
house, Judd Gregg is scary smart. We sat next to each other in chairs 
in our office for almost 2 years to put together a bill. It is heavy 
lifting, but it can be done. A lot of that work was brought into other 
efforts since then--the question of the Bush proposal, bipartisan 
commissions, or a variety of other ones. It is pretty hard to do when 
the majority leader says, on the first day, the very first day out, we 
are going to use the most partisan process--budget reconciliation and, 
in effect, say: What we are telling the other party is we don't want 
your ideas because we don't need your votes. Sometimes it got almost a 
little ridiculous because I know there were times when statements were 
made by the Republican leadership that no Democrats were interested in 
bipartisan tax reform, despite the fact that in the few instances where 
a White House official would call and ask our opinion, Senate Democrats 
would meet. That was the point of the press conference that was 
held yesterday with 17 Democrats from various parts of the country, as 
well as legislation I have described that was written.

  By the way, in the work product Republicans finally produced, they 
took

[[Page S7397]]

some of the ideas from the bipartisan bills; for example, increasing 
the standard deduction, but we tripled the standard deduction without 
any takeaways, like the State and local deduction or the permanent 
exemptions, and what that meant is, in the bipartisan bills, if you 
passed something like that, people adjust their wages, and immediately 
working-class folks get hundreds and hundreds of dollars more in every 
paycheck. Not only were there no discussions--and I have seen 
Republican Senators stand out on the floor sometimes and hold up a 
sign: What we are doing is the Wyden-Coats bill. Nothing could be 
further from the truth, whether it is on the international provisions I 
mentioned or the personal provisions. I was so proud to stand with 
Senate Democrats in a meeting yesterday put together by Senators 
Manchin and Kaine, once again, stating that it doesn't have to be this 
way.
  What is the rush to take taxes for multinational corporations from 35 
to 20 percent? Back when I was working with Senator Gregg and Senator 
Coats, the Republicans, we didn't have multinational corporations 
saying we should go to 20 percent. The difference between 25 and 20 
percent is $500 billion.
  My colleagues yesterday were saying--moderate Democrats--we are 
serious about tax reform, both on the individual and the corporate 
side, but it ought to be based on bipartisan give-and-take, not 
something like we have seen.
  Republicans in Congress and the administration's top salesmen have 
spent months and months telling the American people that in the long 
run, their bill is going to pay for itself with explosive growth. They 
had cheerleaders, those who cooked up these phony growth forecasts 
based on revenue-neutral reform proposals that don't exist. Respected 
economists will tell you tax cuts don't pay for themselves. In fact, 
when we had a chance to have some discussion not about a specific bill 
but some ideas about taxes, the Republican economists who were before 
the Finance Committee said the tax cuts wouldn't pay for themselves.
  The honest predictions say that any growth caused by this bill is 
going to be modest. After they have spent years insisting--I can't tell 
you how many times I heard this--that we would have dynamic scores, 
Republican Senators are rushing the independent scorekeepers to try to 
get a thorough analysis, but we don't have it as we are on this floor 
debating the bill.
  Finally, we ought to forget that this bill has been getting a rewrite 
behind closed doors for weeks now. A number of my colleagues on the 
other said what was important to them is we have what is called regular 
order. Regular order is probably not a concept people talk about in too 
many coffee shops unless they traditionally get eggs or toast or 
something, but what it means is, you have a process where both sides 
work together, and you have a chance to discuss ideas and differing 
approaches or offers. We haven't had anything like that. We haven't had 
an open process with open debate and real amendments. What we have seen 
is a mad dash to pass a bill that can't stand scrutiny in broad 
daylight. If this bill really got scrutinized and had a chance to be 
examined, we would see a lot of Americans coming to their Senators and 
saying: Senator, no way--no way--should you support that bill.
  What is on offer is a plan to force working people and working-class 
families to pay for handouts to multinational corporations and tax 
cheats. This bill does not deserve to pass. My view is, it really 
doesn't deserve the ink that was used to print it on paper. The process 
that has culminated in this scramble to drive this through, drive it 
through with the most arbitrary process imaginable, I consider 
shameful.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the last time Congress modernized the 
Tax Code was in 1986. That was more than 30 years ago, which is quite 
obvious to anybody who can subtract. In the generations since, the Tax 
Code has grown out of control. It has been a dream come true for whom? 
The professionals in accounting and the lobbyists who protect the 
loopholes. But it happens to be a real nightmare for most Americans. I 
would say, for most Members of Congress, as one reads regularly, very 
few Members of Congress do their own taxes.
  The outdated Tax Code helps the powerful and the well connected but 
hurts American workers. It hurts American industry, and it hurts 
America's ability to compete with the rest of the world. That means 
lower wages and less employment.
  The bill that passed out of the Finance Committee moves us very much 
in the right direction to make our Tax Code simpler, fairer, and more 
competitive. At the heart of the legislation is a middle-class tax cut. 
A typical family of four with two children making $59,000 a year could 
see a tax cut of more than $1,700. That is very significant tax relief, 
but you would never know it by listening to the rhetoric of my 
colleagues of the other political party. They have repeatedly recited 
the tired line that Republicans are only interested in giving tax cuts 
to the wealthy. In fact, they began pushing that narrative even before 
this bill was written. In going way back to September, they started 
analyzing a bill that didn't even exist. It was a charge made by a 
document that was put out, called the Big Six framework. But the 
framework was no piece of legislation; it merely provided guidelines 
from which to start for the tax-writing committees.
  The partisan Tax Policy Center then filled in the gaps with policy 
assumptions and crafted an analysis to fit its narrative and its 
analysis of a piece of legislation that had not even been written. The 
problem is that its narrative hasn't changed. The Finance Committee 
provided policy details that it should have used to change its 
narrative, but it still keeps with the same old rhetoric. I think even 
the Tax Policy Center would have to agree that the Finance Committee's 
product differs drastically from the underlying assumptions of its 
initial analysis.
  I am going to try to explain what the Tax Policy Center says about 
the tax law that we ought to pass in comparison to our bill, and you 
will see that there seems to be a real closeness in some of the ideas 
that ought to be done that we get from the left that are in this bill, 
but they don't even recognize it.
  The Finance Committee used all of the available tools it was granted 
under the unified framework to target more relief to middle-income 
taxpayers and retain the progressivity of the Tax Code. Let's take a 
look at some of the major features of the Finance's bill and how it 
provides relief for the Nation's middle-class and low-income earners.
  First, it nearly doubles the standard deduction, which means that 
many lower income Americans will be removed from the tax rolls 
completely and that tax filing season will be simpler for millions 
more. Second, it doubles the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 and 
moderately increases its refundability. Both of these are made possible 
in large part by repealing personal exemptions. Personal exemptions for 
the taxpayer and spouse help to increase the standard deduction, and 
the personal exemptions for children help with increasing the child tax 
credit.
  Interestingly enough, these provisions mirror a proposal that was put 
out by the leftwing Tax Policy Center in December of just last year. 
Nearly identical to the Finance bill, the very liberal Tax Policy 
Center's paper argued for repealing personal exemptions, nearly 
doubling the standard deduction, and increasing the child tax credit to 
$2,012. According to the authors of the liberal Tax Policy Center's 
proposal, such a change would ``reduce complexity, remove inequities, 
and mitigate marriage penalties.'' That is exactly what the bill before 
the Senate does, but they don't seem to recognize that. They sure 
wanted that as a goal last year.
  The fact is that these changes provide more tax relief to the middle 
class and at the same time simplify the Tax Code. As the liberal Tax 
Policy Center's paper points out, the value of the personal exemption 
is largely dependent on the tax bracket of the taxpayer. The higher the 
tax bracket, the more benefit that comes from the personal exemption. 
In comparison, the child tax credit generally lowers a taxpayer's tax 
liability dollar for dollar regardless of the tax bracket. As a result, 
repealing the personal exemption

[[Page S7398]]

in favor of expanding the child tax credit makes the Tax Code more 
progressive and targets more relief to lower and middle-income 
taxpayers.
  Admittedly, there are some differences between what was suggested by 
the liberal Tax Policy Center and what is in the bill before us. Its 
proposal would have been more generous on the refundable feature of the 
child tax credit, but on the opposite end, it would have made the child 
tax credit available to everyone, including to millionaires. The 
Finance's bill is less generous to the affluent because it phases out 
the credit for married taxpayers with incomes of over $500,000. One 
would think that those on the other side--meaning the Democratic 
Party--in their finding fault with this bill, would offer some credit 
for taking this rather progressive approach to providing family tax 
relief, but no. They continue repeating their line over and over that 
this bill is a tax cut for the wealthy.
  Another major feature of the Finance's bill that provides relief to 
middle-class and lower income earners is the reduction of tax rates for 
middle-bracket taxpayers. First, it retains the 10-percent bracket, 
which many on the other side expressed concern about being repealed 
based on the Big Six framework. They were wrong in using the framework, 
but they have not admitted that.
  Next, it lowers the current law's 15-percent bracket to 12 percent 
and expands its applicability.
  Additionally, it reduces what is essentially the current law bracket 
of 25 percent down to 22 percent and what is essentially today's 
current law 28-percent bracket to a much wider 24-percent bracket. 
These rate reductions target tax relief to the very heart of America's 
middle class.
  One may be wondering how this middle-class tax relief bill will be 
financed--largely by repealing the State and local tax deduction, also 
known as the SALT deduction. Our colleagues on the other side have 
tried to argue that the repealing of the State and local tax deduction 
is a tax increase on the middle class. Nothing could be further from 
the truth in considering the reduced tax brackets, which I just 
discussed, in combination with the higher standard deduction and the 
doubled child tax credit.
  The repeal of the State and local tax deduction is actually a very 
key piece of this legislation that makes the middle-class tax cuts 
possible. The State and local tax deduction overwhelmingly benefits the 
so-called wealthy, who our colleagues on the other side vehemently 
argue should receive no tax benefits under this bill.
  I am going to tell you now how the liberal elements in this town see 
the State and local tax deduction as something that should have gone 
away anyway, and now they are complaining because we are doing away 
with it. Don't take my word for it. Here is what several partisan think 
tanks have said about the State and local tax deduction in the past.

  According to the Tax Policy Center--remember that is the leftwing 
organization finding fault with the bill even before it was written--
about 40 percent of the State and local tax deduction benefit goes to 
taxpayers with incomes exceeding $500,000. So we do away with the State 
and local tax deduction because it benefits wealthy people, and they 
don't give us any credit for it.
  Keep in mind that tax filers with incomes of half a million or more 
make up only about 1 percent of all tax filers, making it a very 
lopsided benefit. Here is what the very leftwing Center for American 
Progress has said about the State and local tax deduction:

       The deduction for state and local taxes disproportionately 
     benefits high-income taxpayers, property owners, and 
     residents of high-tax states. That is because these groups 
     pay the most taxes at the state and local level. It also 
     benefits high-income taxpayers because any kind of deduction 
     is worth more to people in high tax brackets than in low tax 
     brackets.

  I just finished quoting the Center for American Progress, which said 
that the State and local tax deduction ought to be done away with 
because it benefits wealthy people. Yet they complain to us that our 
tax bill is a tax benefit for the wealthy.
  To further illustrate who eliminating the State and local tax benefit 
really hits, I would like to highlight a recent Bloomberg article 
entitled ``Tax-Hike Fears Trigger Talk of Exodus From Manhattan and 
Greenwich.'' This article is not about the concerns of middle-class 
police officers or teachers on repeal of the State and local tax 
deduction. Instead, it highlights concerns of wealthy hedge fund 
managers who may now consider moving out of the high-tax State of New 
York. The Bloomberg article states:

       The problem for the Connecticut hedge-fund set--and, more 
     broadly, for a lot of the Wall Street crowd--is that 
     Republican proposals in both the House and Senate would drive 
     up taxes for many high-earners in the New York City area. By 
     eliminating the deduction for most state and local taxes, an 
     individual making a yearly salary of $1 million . . . would 
     owe the Internal Revenue Service an additional $21,000.

  This legislation repeals that deduction and makes the person making a 
yearly salary of $1 million pay $21,000 more in taxes, and liberal 
groups are proposing doing away with it, and we put it in our bill so 
that we don't let these wealthy people get the benefit of the tax 
deduction, and they don't recognize it. So I ask my colleagues on the 
left: Are you prepared to go to bat over SALT deductions for 
millionaire hedge fund managers?
  From listening to my Democratic colleagues' rhetoric, I am really 
surprised by this article. I thought Republicans were all about ``tax 
cuts for the wealthy'' and giveaways to Wall Street. But this article 
suggests otherwise. In fact, these types of taxpayers are likely to 
experience sizable tax hikes under the proposal on the Senate floor 
now.
  According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, by 2023, 
nearly 30 percent of taxpayers with incomes exceeding $1 million will 
experience a tax hike. That does not sound like a giveaway to the 
wealthy to me.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that motions to 
commit be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Motion to Commit With Instructions

       Mr. WYDEN moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee 
     on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the 
     Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is 
     not in session, with changes that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) eliminate provisions that would raise taxes on millions 
     of middle class taxpayers.

                   Motion to Commit With Instructions

       Mr. Wyden moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee 
     on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the 
     Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is 
     not in session, with changes that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) are made through regular order and a bipartisan process 
     resulting in substantive provisions contributed by both 
     parties.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I agree with my colleagues that we need 
tax reform, but we need tax reform that simplifies the Tax Code, 
bolsters the middle class, and helps small businesses to create jobs. I 
think we can do that, and we can do that in a fiscally responsible way, 
but we need to work together, Republicans and Democrats, as we did the 
last time we did tax reform.
  Unfortunately, these priorities are not reflected in the bill that is 
before us. Instead, it is a partisan, fiscally irresponsible giveaway 
to the wealthy and the largest corporations in this country, and it 
comes at the expense of the middle class and small businesses.
  We know that the wealthiest Americans will see massive tax breaks 
from this bill, including President Trump himself. In fact, the New 
York Times has estimated that President Trump and his family would save 
more than $1 billion from this tax bill.
  How does this legislation pay for these tax cuts? Well, it asks 
today's middle class and future generations to foot the bill. The 
nonpartisan analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation has found 
that the bill will raise taxes on millions of middle-class families 
making less than $75,000 a year. The bill sunsets any middle-class tax 
breaks in 2026, and at the same time it makes tax breaks for large 
corporations permanent. It increases the national debt by $1.5 
trillion.
  I think the headline in the current Forbes Magazine says it all. It 
says

[[Page S7399]]

``The GOP Tax Bill Is The End Of All Economic Sanity In Washington.'' 
As more people look at this bill, they are beginning to see how it will 
hurt middle-class families across the country.
  Over the past few weeks, I have heard more and more concerns from 
people throughout New Hampshire, and I just want to take a minute to 
highlight some of these concerns. I met recently with the New Hampshire 
Realtors and homebuilders. They are major advocates for home ownership 
in New Hampshire. They told me that this bill is nothing short of an 
attack on home ownership. In particular, they are concerned about the 
impact of repealing the State and local tax deduction, which would be a 
huge hit to middle-class families in New Hampshire. Right now, more 
than 200,000 Granite State homeowners use the State and local tax 
deductions so that they are not double-taxed. That is about one-third 
of taxpayers in New Hampshire. It is particularly important to us where 
property taxes account for 66 percent of all State and local taxes. 
That is a higher share than any other State in the country.
  Homeowners are also concerned about proposals to limit the mortgage 
interest deduction, including on home equity lines of credit, where 
homeowners in New Hampshire are going to get hurt more than others 
because we have approximately 14 percent of homeowners who have a home 
equity line of credit, compared to 3.8 percent nationally. The result 
is, according to the Realtors and the homebuilders, that home values 
will decline significantly.
  According to the Association of Realtors, this bill will put downward 
pressure on home values by as much as 18 percent in New Hampshire and 
10 percent nationally. If we look at this chart for New Hampshire, we 
can extrapolate this across the rest of the economy.
  If we look at this tax bill, this is the impact on homeowners in New 
Hampshire. Values are going to be reduced by about 18 percent. That is 
equivalent to what we saw after the financial meltdown in 2008, where, 
again, we had about that same reduction in property values--about 18 
percent. That is a huge hit for us in New Hampshire and for people 
across the country.
  I thought the Realtors put it very well when they said: It is simply 
unfair to ask homeowners, who pay 83 percent of all Federal income 
taxes, to take a greater tax burden so that the biggest corporations in 
this country can have steep tax cuts. It doesn't make sense.
  I also heard significant concern from students, colleges, and 
businesses that this bill will raise taxes on students trying to get 
the skills they need to get ahead. That is really crazy because when we 
do that, we don't create the workforce we need for the future. The 
House bill, for example, would eliminate the ability of individuals to 
deduct the interest on their student loans, and it would tax graduate 
students on tuition assistance. I heard from a graduate student who, 
right now, is making $20,000 a year on a stipend. That is what he is 
trying to live on. If this bill goes into effect, he will pay $5,000 of 
that in taxes. It doesn't make sense. We need to be encouraging our 
students to get graduate and higher education degrees so that they can 
take on the jobs of the future.
  Again, in New Hampshire, it is a particular problem, where student 
loan debt is higher than the national average. For the graduating class 
of 2016, New Hampshire had the highest per capita student loan debt in 
the country. The average debt for New Hampshire graduates was $36,367. 
We know, nationally, student loan debt has roughly tripled since 2004 
to a staggering $1.3 trillion. That is higher than the total credit 
card debt. What this legislation is likely to do is to make that worse 
for young people who are trying to get out of college, have their 
student loans paid, get married, start families, buy a house. If they 
continue to have this impact, they are not going to be able to do any 
of those things.
  The top challenge that faces New Hampshire businesses and so many 
businesses across this country is finding skilled workers. The last 
thing we should be doing is making education more expensive.
  I also serve as the ranking member on the Senate Small Business 
Committee. Small businesses employ more than half of our workforce. 
They make up more than 99 percent of all employers. We need to work in 
a bipartisan way to enact tax reform that supports our small 
businesses. Again, this bill, unfortunately, doesn't provide meaningful 
reform for small businesses and the problems they are facing with the 
Tax Code. First of all, this bill doesn't address the top issue that we 
have heard from small businesses--tax simplification and the cutting of 
redtape in our Tax Code.
  For entrepreneurs, time is one of their most valuable resources. 
Every wasted hour spent filling out forms or navigating confusing tax 
rules is an hour they can't spend innovating, marketing, and growing 
their businesses. The tax system is so difficult to navigate that 89 
percent of small businesses turn to outside tax preparers to fill out 
their forms and file their returns. The compliance burden for small 
businesses is 67 percent higher than it is for large businesses, and it 
costs about $18 billion annually.
  Tax reform should be an opportunity to help us help small businesses 
focus on what they do best, and that is running their business. 
Instead, this bill will result in even more redtape and complexity.
  According to a former Joint Committee on Taxation economist, if this 
bill becomes law:

       Treasury will be writing regulations and Congress will be 
     enacting technical corrections for years. There are more 
     ticking time bombs in this bill than in a Roadrunner cartoon.

  A recent poll of small business owners from Businesses for 
Responsible Tax Reform found that a majority of them oppose the plan. 
This is polling that has just been done in the last week or so; 61 
percent oppose, and only 28 percent support.
  Small businesses are even more concerned about the impact this tax 
bill will have on our debt and deficit. In fact, 61 percent of small 
business owners oppose raising the debt by $1.5 trillion to pay for tax 
cuts.
  Increasing the debt will inhibit our ability to address the real 
challenges facing small businesses, such as educating a skilled 
workforce, building out broadband in rural areas, and fixing our broken 
infrastructure.
  Then there is the repeal of the individual mandate, which is a part 
of this tax proposal. According to CBO, repealing the individual 
mandate, as this bill does, would cause 13 million Americans to become 
uninsured by 2027. It would sharply raise premiums for those who 
purchase insurance on the individual market.
  Now, we have heard from our colleagues that they think that including 
the Alexander-Murray legislation would help address that, but that is 
not designed to address the underlying healthcare bill that we have in 
this country. All that will do is address the uncertainty in the 
marketplace.
  Repealing the individual mandate is going to deny health insurance to 
millions of Americans. It is going to cost middle-income families more, 
and, ultimately, it is going to have an impact on people's abilities to 
provide for their families and the long-term health of this Nation. 
That is not the kind of investment we should be making in the future of 
this country.
  There are many more issues with this tax bill, but my time is 
limited. If we look at who is opposed to this bill, there are so many 
organizations: the Realtors, the homebuilders, the AARP, and the 
Fraternal Order of Police. They have all come out in opposition, and 
that is just to name a few.
  I have heard from nearly 3,000 Granite Staters who have expressed 
their opposition to the impact of this bill, and as more and more 
people have a chance to read it, that number is going to continue to 
grow.
  You know I want to work with my colleagues here. I think Republicans 
and Democrats should genuinely reform the Tax Code. It is long overdue. 
But we need to do it in a way that is transparent, that looks at where 
we want to go in the future and what we need to be investing in in this 
country. We need to work in a bipartisan way that puts the middle class 
and small businesses first and that doesn't leave a massive debt for 
our children and grandchildren. If we pass this legislation, that is 
exactly what we are going to be doing--leaving future generations to 
deal with a massive debt without

[[Page S7400]]

the benefits of the investment that we should be making in this 
country.
  So it is a sad day for America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my 
distinguished colleague from New Hampshire and begin, actually, where 
she finished. This massive tax cut has indeed so many ticking timebombs 
that are unknown at the moment because it has been rushed and rammed 
through this body, as well as the House, without the kind of regular 
order that should be given--the intense scrutiny and attention that is 
due a historic, massive measure of this kind.
  The idea that it has regular order is absolutely absurd. If this is 
regular order, it is surely regular order lite. There have barely been 
the most cursory of hearings--barely an excuse for hearings--no real 
markup, no real opportunity for the public to be heard, no real 
scrutiny of the complicated and numerous provisions that will affect 
people for years, decades, maybe generations to come.
  The last tax cut was in 1985. The last so-called reform, passed in 
the mid-1980s, involved scores of hearings, meetings, and sessions for 
the public to be heard, dwarfing, making a mockery of this process. 
This process has been, in fact, a mockery of democracy. It is a classic 
bait and switch. It is a promise that is unfulfilled--a tax cut, 
initially, for people, which then disappears after a couple of years, 
when the wealthy continue to enjoy their tax cut.
  There are winners and losers in this measure. Let's be very blunt. 
The winners are the wealthy. The losers are the middle class. The 
winners are special interests. The losers are the American people. The 
winners are people who already have it made. The losers are people who 
want to fulfill the American Dream and make it for themselves, people 
who are pulling up the ladder for others to climb and to make it real 
for them.
  The measure that we have before us is the result of a promise--
middle-class tax cuts--and that promise was made by Donald Trump, who 
said also that he would not benefit. He sent his Small Business 
Administration Administrator, Linda McMahon, to Connecticut to say: 
``Everyone will experience a tax cut.''
  This plan is a scam. Yes, some people will receive a tax cut 
initially, but if you earn less than $75,000 within the next decade, 
you will be worse off under this plan. In Connecticut that means that 
468,200 taxpayers in the bottom 80 percent of income distribution will 
experience a tax hike under this plan. The majority of people in 
Connecticut are losers, even though there may be a wealthy segment at 
the very top of the income distribution who are winners.
  Our children and grandchildren are surely losers because they will 
inherit the whirlwind of additional debt. The $1.5 trillion 
underestimates the amount of debt that will be added. I saw a cartoon 
in one of the newspapers that showed a rowboat filled with water, and 
one of the characters said to the other: Drill another hole in the 
bottom of the boat to let the water out. And the sea was the Dead Sea. 
That is what this measure does. It fills our boat--not only ours but 
our children's and grandchildren's boats--with additional debt. They 
are losers even though the wealthiest are winners.
  The losers include, also, first responders. Earlier this month, the 
president of the Fraternal Order of Police wrote a letter to the House 
and the Senate leadership urging Members of Congress to protect the 
State and local deduction as it is. This measure eliminates that State 
and local deduction, devastating for Connecticut but also for first 
responders, firemen, and police across the country, and our teachers 
who depend on the adequacy of Federal funding for essential services, 
which will be reduced.
  Because there is no incentive for State and local taxes--they can't 
be deducted anymore--States like Connecticut, New York, and California, 
we know are the losers and our middle-class taxpayers are losers. That 
is why the National Education Association has found that gutting the 
State and local tax deduction will seriously harm already underfunded 
public education, risking nearly 250,000 education jobs, including over 
5,000 teacher jobs in the State of Connecticut. It will lead to about 
$250 billion in cuts to public education over the next decade. While we 
are talking about education, there is eliminating the deduction for 
interest on student loans. What could be more stupid at a time when we 
are encouraging young people to invest in their futures and we should 
be investing in them?
  Ultimately, also, the losers are our job creators, the folks who need 
infrastructure, which will go unrepaired. Our roads, bridges, 
railroads, VA facilities, broadband, airports, and ports are all 
desperately in need of rebuilding--not just repair but true rebuilding, 
modernization, and innovation.
  There is no requirement or opportunity here for repatriation of the 
trillions of dollars parked overseas. There is no provision for any 
sort of incentive for companies to repatriate and invest in an 
infrastructure bank. So we will continue to see neglect and disregard 
for that very important infrastructure.
  It is clear who will be the winners. Despite all these losers, 
corporations that move overseas to evade taxes and benefit from special 
interest loopholes to lower their effective tax rates are going to be 
richly rewarded.
  Senate Republicans have decided to open the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge for oil and gas drilling.
  Those special interests are the winners. The bill borrows $1.5 
trillion so those special interests and corporations can have those 
benefits, but it will also line the pockets of those corporate CEOs--
not just the corporations but the CEOs. That is equivalent to the cost 
of all veterans' healthcare and benefit payments to every single 
veteran in America over the next decade.
  With $1.5 trillion, by the way, you could also pay off all the 
student loan debt in America. Think of the difference in lives that 
would make. Think of all the young students debt free. Think of the 
vistas and the dreams that could be fulfilled. Think of the economic 
growth that would be generated.
  Think also of the false promises and the bait and switch. When 
corporate CEOs were asked by the President's chief economic adviser, 
Gary Cohn, how many of them will create jobs with these corporate tax 
cuts, nary a hand went up in the audience. That is a picture that says 
a thousand words.
  I end my words now simply with a warning that Americans, far from 
buying this bait and switch, will see the proof in their pocketbooks 
and wallets. They will see the result of this consummately partisan 
measure run through without regular order, without real consideration, 
without the scrutiny that it needs and deserves, without public and 
popular support if we move ahead as the Republican leadership 
apparently appears intent on doing. Now is the time for us to show some 
backbone. I urge my colleagues to do it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about tax 
reform, which is so important for families in Nebraska and throughout 
this country. The last time Congress comprehensively reformed the Tax 
Code was in 1986, and we all agree it is long overdue. My priorities 
for tax reform have always been threefold: delivering relief to the 
middle-class, unleashing small business growth, and making our country 
competitive globally. This bill before us accomplishes these goals.
  American families have struggled over the past decade, and too many 
in our country have found themselves living paycheck to paycheck. Wages 
for workers have stagnated while the prices of goods and services have 
continued to climb. Things are only just starting to turn around and, 
as I travel across my State, Nebraskans have begun to tell me they are 
finally feeling confident about the economy again. That needs to 
continue, and the best way to do it is by putting more money back into 
the pockets of regular Americans. This bill does that in one of the 
best ways possible, by doubling the standard deduction and protecting 
the first $24,000 that married couples earn and the first $12,000 
individuals earn from Federal taxes.

  Increasing the standard deduction is pro-family, and it helps to 
foster the American dream. It not only leads to Americans keeping more 
of their hard-

[[Page S7401]]

earned money, but it also means that simplifying the code will help 
them save money in tax preparation as well. According to the 
nonpartisan Tax Foundation, a married couple with two kids making 
$85,000 per year, will see their taxes decrease by $2,224. This reform 
provides money that will allow Americans to plan for their future and 
to pay their bills. It can be a downpayment on a house or it can be put 
away for future college tuition or for retirement. It gives millions of 
earners more empowerment to use these savings for their lives as they 
see fit.
  Simplifying the code isn't the only family-focused provision included 
in this legislation. The Senate bill doubles the child tax credit from 
$1,000 to $2,000 per child. According to the Department of Agriculture, 
parents of a child born in 2015 are likely to spend more than $233,000 
raising a child to age 17. That doesn't even include college tuition. 
Doubling the child tax credit will allow families to keep up to an 
additional $4,000 every year if they have two children or more. This 
credit builds a stronger future by helping families all across our 
country keep more money to raise happy and healthy children.
  In addition to these changes, this legislation will preserve many 
other popular deductions. This includes the charitable deduction, 
medical expense deduction, the student loan interest deduction, the 
mortgage interest deduction, and the low-income housing tax credit. 
This bill also continues popular savings programs such as the 401(k)s 
and individual retirement accounts. These saving incentives are key 
tools that allow individuals to provide for their families and to 
prepare for retirement. It empowers Americans to plan ahead.
  There are also commonsense provisions in this bill that have been 
overlooked during the current debate. These are changes everyone here 
can agree are long overdue. For example, this reform takes away the 
tax-exempt status for professional sports leagues. We all love sports, 
but professional sports leagues like the NFL and the PGA shouldn't be 
allowed to use exemptions for nonprofits to avoid paying taxes. These 
are for-profit leagues where commissioners make tens of millions of 
dollars. They should be treated for what they are, and that is a money-
making enterprise.
  I also want to take the time to address a misconception. Some have 
argued that this bill will tax the tuition waivers graduate students 
receive from their universities as a part of attending to their 
studies. There is no such provision. Ph.D. research is a staple of 
higher education, and it drives our Nation's innovation. It helps us 
better understand our world and often leads to incredible technological 
advancements. We in the Senate support graduate studies, and none of us 
want to make it more difficult to obtain graduate degrees or do 
research at the highest levels. We will not be taxing you for tuition 
you don't pay while earning a master's or doctorate degree.
  There are some other important provisions in this bill that haven't 
gotten the attention they deserve, and I want to take a moment to 
discuss some of them. The Senate tax reform retains nearly all of the 
education incentives that are present in the current Tax Code for 
students and for teachers. For example, we keep the Hope credit, which 
allows taxpayers a credit of up to $2,500 per student, per year, for 
qualified tuition or related expenses. We also keep both the Coverdell 
and the 529 education savings accounts. These accounts promote saving 
for school, and they help parents prepare for future tuition. Finally, 
we double the educator deduction, which helps teachers make their 
classrooms as friendly for learning as possible. This is a pro-
education tax reform bill, and it acknowledges education is a key to 
our country's future success.
  We must also recognize that our economy has changed over the last few 
decades, and our Tax Code needs to catch up to the times. We have the 
chance to make history, one that will help working families. My Strong 
Families Act, which is included in this legislation, would be the first 
nationwide paid family leave policy in American history. If we want to 
build a better future for our children, we must tackle problems for 
families juggling those responsibilities between home and the 
workplace.
  This plan has the potential to make life much easier for working 
families across our country by providing a tax credit as large as 25 
percent for employers who offer up to 12 weeks of paid family leave to 
their employees. Under programs set up by employers, employees would be 
able to take an hour, a day, or weeks off for purposes like taking care 
of a sick child or an ailing parent to make sure they get to a doctor's 
appointment. They could also take maternity or paternity leave to bond 
with a newborn or recently adopted child.
  In 21st century America, the number of dual-income households is on 
the rise. According to the Department of Labor, 70 percent of mothers 
with children under 19 participate in the labor force, with over 75 
percent employed full time. For those without the means to take unpaid 
time off, the burdens of caregiving are a real burden. A recent study 
from the Pew Research Center found that most individuals who make 
higher salaries usually have access to some kind of paid family leave, 
but those making less than that are not always covered. This is why my 
paid family leave plan limits eligibility to those earning below 
$72,000 per year. We want these benefits to target hourly and lower 
salaried workers. We want to increase access to paid family leave for 
those who need it the most.
  While my friends on the other side of the aisle focus on the stick 
approach to paid family leave--pushing mandates or the creation of new 
government programs--this bill pursues the carrot approach, and 
Americans agree with us. A recent study showed that 87 percent of 
Americans supported a limited government approach that enables 
employers to provide the benefit themselves.
  It is not hard to understand why. The plan balances the need of 21st 
century workers with the real-world challenges that small businesses 
face today. Eric Dinger, who is the CEO of a Lincoln startup named 
Powderhook, put it the best. Eric told me:

       I want to offer my employees paid leave, but a mandate 
     forcing me to do so would be hard. I have to make payroll. 
     [The Strong Family Act] is much more workable and wouldn't 
     provide a disincentive to hire anyone.
  I agree.
  Another of my constituents, Alison Ritter--an employee at Applied 
Systems, Inc., in Lincoln--is helping her company's leadership develop 
a paid leave policy. In reaction to my bill being included in the tax 
reform proposal before us, she told me:

       This concept would change the game for many newborn babies 
     and their parents, allowing them the time they need to bond 
     and establish a nursing routine without as much of the stress 
     and guilt they face today. It would provide families with the 
     financial support they need in order to do what's best for 
     their family, but also help businesses that struggle with 
     putting a plan in place due to the financial burden extended 
     absences create. . . . Our country wins when we focus on and 
     invest in healthier families.

  Sara Rasby, who is the co-owner of Lotus House of Yoga, which has 
locations across my State agreed:

       It is refreshing to see a policy that supports the family 
     and small business unit. As co-owner of a small business and 
     a mother of two young children, I know firsthand how 
     challenging it can be without paid leave. A mother and/or 
     family needs time to adjust and bond. . . . This bill would 
     help parents, families, and small business owners be more at 
     ease with the transitions and changes that come with 
     maternity leave. Additionally, it will create more community 
     awareness on the importance of supporting the family 
     structure through policy.

  We need to get this done for people like Eric, Alison, Sara, and 
other business owners, caregivers, and working parents throughout the 
country.
  I also said my goal in this process is to promote policies that will 
ensure small businesses succeed. There are over 29 million small 
businesses throughout our country, and these small firms drive our 
economy. They have generated over 60 percent of the new jobs created 
over the last two decades and have made up nearly 98 percent of our 
exports. They are often the face of our country to the world.
  This reform will provide small businesses with additional incentives 
to invest and grow. When small businesses make money, they invest it 
back into their businesses and help grow their local economy. Places 
like Lincoln and Omaha are well known to the entrepreneurial community 
as bustling hubs of

[[Page S7402]]

innovation. This bill provides a 17.4-percent deduction for the large 
majority of small businesses, which will lower their tax bills and give 
them more financial flexibility. The preservation of things like the 
1031 like-kind exchanges and the stepped-up basis will further help our 
small businesses, especially agriculture businesses.
  Small businesses don't have the professional resources to deal with 
the Tax Code that comes in at over 74,000 pages. Simply doing taxes--
let alone paying them--has become a burden on too many of our small 
companies. Moreover, they cannot take advantage of all the corporate 
deductions or the little-known loopholes like big companies can. This 
is not fair. It hurts our competitiveness globally, stifles strong 
economic growth, and it favors big corporations, which have offices 
full of lawyers and accountants. This tax reform lessens this disparity 
and deserves support from everyone who wants to promote American 
entrepreneurialism.
  Lastly, this legislation goes a long way toward making America 
competitive internationally. A large part of this is lowering the 
corporate tax rate. At 35 percent, America's corporate tax rate is a 
full 13 percentage points higher than the average rate of our 
competitors from the developed world. This is a big reason why 
companies are fleeing our shores, and they are choosing to set up their 
headquarters or invest outside of America. These so-called inversions 
have been on the rise in recent years, and there is little reason to 
think that trend will reverse if we stand by and do nothing.
  This legislation will put us in line with our trading partners and, 
once again, make America an attractive place for business, which will 
lead to more jobs and higher wages for our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 
minutes to wrap up on the first vote we are going to have on my motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this first motion, the first motion the 
Senate is going to vote on, is a straightforward proposition. The 
motion says: Let us send this bill back to the Senate Finance Committee 
on a bipartisan basis and come up with a plan that actually works for 
the middle class.
  I am going to wrap up just by recapping the Republican rhetoric on 
this tax plan. First, it was said to be a guaranteed middle-class tax 
cut. Then, it was merely focused on the middle class. Next, it was an 
average tax cut across a variety of income cohorts. Now the numbers are 
actually in. Republicans want to run up enough red ink to threaten 
Medicare and Social Security and still raise taxes on more than half of 
the middle class. The Senate, on a bipartisan basis, can do better than 
this.
  I urge my colleagues to support this proposal to send the bill back 
to the Finance Committee and, on a bipartisan basis, come up with tax 
reform that actually works for the middle class.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Wyden 
motion.
  Mr. WYDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 285 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Amendment No. 1618

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Hatch and 
Murkowski, I call up amendment No. 1618.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Hatch, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1618.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
leader remarks on Thursday, November 30, the Senate resume 
consideration of H.R. 1, with 1 hour of debate remaining on the Hatch-
Murkowski amendment. I further ask that any debate time tonight count 
against the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________