[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 195 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7508-S7557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 1, which the clerk will report.
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.
Pending:
McConnell (for Hatch/Murkowski) amendment No. 1618, of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to respond briefly to the
majority leader, who touted what he claimed would be great benefits
coming from the Republican tax reform bill.
Colleagues--and I say to the public that is following this--this
isn't tax reform at all. What this is, is a grab bag full of special
interest goodies for multinational corporations, powerful political
supporters, and lots of people who are in the position to have vast
amounts of influence to sway the Tax Code their way.
The fact is that the independent tax umpire, which is called the
Joint Committee on Taxation, has just told us that 37 million middle-
class families are going to pay more in taxes in 2027. Those are the
consequences of the Republican bill that writes into black letter law a
double standard--permanent breaks for the multinational corporations
and, of course, temporary breaks for the working class.
I believe we will have more to say today on analyses that are being
done by the Joint Committee on Taxation, but already we have seen a
variety of reports indicating that this proposal is going to produce
negligible growth and big deficits. That is why Republicans are talking
about how they would like to have some kind of trigger to deal with
this proposal.
Well, what has been in the bill is the Republicans' wildest dream,
which says a lot about their priorities. If their wildest dreams about
magical growth come true and this bill causes Federal revenue to
skyrocket, multinational corporations would get yet another automatic
tax cut. They already go from 35 to 20.
By the way, when we had our bipartisan bill, Senators Coats and Gregg
didn't insist on going to 20 or spending hundreds of billions of
dollars more that could go to the middle class, beyond what the
bipartisan bill called for.
Then, on top of that, the trigger says that if the Republicans get
their magical unicorn mathematics about growth--if the growth fairy
arrives--multinational corporations will get yet another tax cut.
I would like to respond briefly to what the Republican leader said,
because this does not resemble the kind of tax reform Ronald Reagan and
Democrats wanted.
I will close just by way of saying that it did not have to be this
way. Seventeen Democrats, led by Senators Manchin, Kaine, Donnelly,
Heitkamp, McCaskill--a big group, with a tremendous outpouring of good
faith, said: We would like to have a bipartisan bill. They asked me to
come because I have written a bipartisan bill.
I want to show the contrast between what Ronald Reagan did in 1986
with Democrats and what has happened, unfortunately, here. In 1986,
Bill Bradley--someone I have talked about a bit on the floor, a
Democrat who served on the Finance Committee, committed to good
government, to growth and innovation--flew all over the United States
to work out with Republicans the various provisions of tax law that
would make the bill bipartisan. So in 1986, Democrats flew around the
country to meet with Republicans to get bipartisan reform.
This year, Republicans have not been willing to walk down the
corridor to discuss specific provisions about how we can move forward
on a bipartisan tax reform bill. That is why our moderates are so
concerned that we are missing a great opportunity.
The multinationals are awash in cash. By the way, look at the first
letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation. We could be looking at
interest rates that will make it hard for people
[[Page S7509]]
to buy a house or buy a car because of what this bill produces.
This bill is not tax reform. It is a grab bag of goodies for special
interests. It embeds into the tax law a double standard with breaks for
the multinationals and vanishing benefits for the middle class--and,
most importantly, it didn't have to be, and it still doesn't have to
be. There is another alternative. That is what 17 moderate Democrats
expressed, and I was proud to join them.
We will have more debate on this over the course of the morning. But
since the leader did talk about how this was sort of a textbook case of
what tax reform ought to look like, I wanted to make sure that we
started this morning by injecting a little bit of reality with respect
to what is actually on offer.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, later tonight or in the early hours of
tomorrow morning, we will vote on final passage of the Republican tax
bill. I would like to make two main points about the Republican tax
bill in my speech this morning, first on process and second on
substance.
From the beginning, the Republican tax bill has made a mockery of the
legislative process. Republican leaders disappeared behind closed doors
and negotiated a framework for a tax bill without a shred of Democratic
input. Then Republican leaders wrote a bill, behind closed doors,
without a shred of Democratic input. Republicans brought that bill
through a markup in the Finance Committee, where it underwent the
scrutiny of one--I repeat, one--expert witness. That is it. Finance
Committee Democrats offered 60 amendments to the bill, but Republicans
rejected every single one. The Republicans on the committee made it
crystal clear that they were not interested in bipartisanship.
Now that bill is before us on the floor. Even further, significant
changes will likely be made by the majority leader today. We will get
huge changes in a bill today and try to vote on it tonight. This is
tax--one of the most complicated issues before us. These changes, and
the way the majority leader is handling this, make it impossible for
any independent analyst to get a good look at the bill and how it would
impact our country.
From the one-sidedness with which it was drafted to the reckless
haste with which it was considered, the Republican tax bill has failed
to go through anything resembling the normal legislative process.
Before the night is out, I hope my Republican friends will ask
themselves if this is the way they want history to remember how the
first major tax bill was passed in over 30 years. I hope they will ask
themselves if this process has lived up to the fine traditions of this
body, as they were so eloquently described by my friends, the Senators
from Arizona, both senior and junior.
The American people are clamoring for us to work together. They
believe our politics is broken. They think our politics is starved of
commonsense and compromise--and it is. The way this tax bill is being
rammed through is exactly why the American people believe our politics
is so broken.
Now let me address the substance of the bill. Without exaggeration, I
believe that if this bill passes, it will be remembered as one of the
worst pieces of public policy in decades. A vote for passage will be a
vote my Republican friends will regret.
At a time of immense inequality, the Republican tax bill makes life
easier on the well-off and eventually makes life more difficult on
working Americans, exacerbating one of the most pressing problems we
face as a nation--the yawning gap between the rich and everyone else.
Corporations enjoying record profits get a massive permanent tax
break while over 60 percent of the middle class will end up paying
higher taxes because their benefits expire. Healthcare premiums will go
up 10 percent, and 13 million fewer Americans will end up having health
insurance as a result of repealing the individual mandate. The CBO said
yesterday that even if we pass the Murray-Alexander bill into law, it
would have little or no impact on either of those two things.
When it is all said and done, the tax bill would balloon the deficit
by at least $1.5 trillion, adding to the debt burden borne by the next
generation and diminishing our ability to support the military and
invest in our schools, our roads, and in scientific research. Let me
just repeat that. The increased deficits caused by this bill will
cannibalize support from everything we know is essential to economic
growth and a strong middle class, including support for our men and
women in uniform.
Ultimately, this deficit-busting tax cut will endanger Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as my friend, the Republican Senator
from Florida, admitted yesterday when he said higher deficits will mean
``instituting changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future.''
So a win today for the GOP will be a very temporary one. It would be
enjoyed almost exclusively in the political media that measures who is
up today and down tomorrow but fails to grasp the bigger picture.
It will not be a long-term win politically. Recent polling has shown
this tax bill is less popular than previous tax hikes. Let me say that
again. Recent polling has shown that this tax bill is less popular than
previous tax hikes, but, more importantly, it will not win out in the
country. It will not be a win for 13 million middle-class families who
pay higher taxes in 2019, or the 87 million middle-class families who
pay higher taxes in 2027. It will not be a win for the single mom in
the suburbs who no longer is able to deduct State and local taxes and
will find it that much harder to send her daughter to college. It will
not be a win for the 13 million Americans who go without health
insurance and everyone else who will face 10 percent higher premiums
next year.
Those hard-working Americans have waited years for their Congress to
pass legislation to make things just a bit easier on them. They have
watched an economy that for decades rewarded hard work and fair play
turn against them, producing more wealth for the already wealthy but
less pay and less work for workers.
For so many, this rigged economy that benefits too few and leaves too
many behind is a source of frustration, anger, and despair. Donald
Trump, in his campaign for the Presidency, spoke to that anger, and yet
his tax bill--the Republican tax bill--is a betrayal of the working men
and women who feel that anger and would make worse all of the problems
that led to it in the first place. We can do a better job on tax
reform, but only if we work together.
The way this Congress has careened from partisan bill to partisan
bill, with no attempt even made at bipartisanship, has brought shame on
this body and reinforced the skepticism that so many Americans have
about our politics.
Today my Republican friends have an opportunity to turn back from
this partisan bill and this partisan process. If they do, I guarantee
they will find a Democratic leader, a Democratic Senate caucus, and a
Democratic Party that is eager to work with them on the kind of tax
reform our country deserves.
We will not sit in our corner and make unreasonable demands. As many
of my colleagues know, there is a lot of sincere intent on this side of
the aisle to do tax reform. I have worked with Senator Hatch, and I
have worked with Senator Portman. Many others of my caucus have worked
with Republicans on tax reform ideas for years. We can certainly put
together a bill acceptable to both parties that reduces burdens on the
middle class, makes our economy more competitive, and creates jobs here
at home, and do it in a deficit neutral way. The bill doesn't do those
things, but we can write a bill that does--together.
I say: Let's give it a shot. If my Republican friends close the door
on their partisan tax bill tonight, they will find
[[Page S7510]]
an open door for bipartisan tax reform tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have sat here and listened to Democrats,
year after year, talk about how they are so much more committed to the
middle class and to the poor, as they have driven us right into
bankruptcy.
Instead of trying to work on these matters so that we are not driven
into bankruptcy, it is more and more spending, more and more Federal
Government, more and more regulations, and more and more controls, all
of which tend to make us less and less efficient, less and less
successful, less and less able to do the will of the people, less and
less able to really do the things we have been sent here to do.
Now we are having a lot of complaining about what is going on right
now, but, to make a long story short, the Democrats are pushing a
financial system that was bound to take us right into bankruptcy. We
might have had 2 more years where payments could be made, but we have
gone right straight to hell as far as being able to handle the matters
that are so important to every one of us in this country.
Now, I have to admit that our side has some flaws, too. Some of our
people think that we should do a better job without any money, or that
we should do a better job without any increase in taxes, or that we
should do a better job without the Federal Government. Both sides have
been in error. Both sides have been, from time to time, wrong.
But I have to say, as a former Democrat when I was coming up in
Pittsburgh, PA, when I went to Brigham Young University, by the end of
my time at Brigham Young University, I thought: My gosh, how could I
have ever believed this stuff--which is more and more government, more
and more spending, more and more bureaucracy, more and more controls
over all of our lives, and less and less freedom.
I can remember the days when we couldn't get the other side to work
as hard as we should on national security issues, which were critical.
Both sides have room to grow. Both sides have room to improve. Each
side could do a better job here, and I have lived for the day when we
both could work together, arm in arm, for the betterment of this
country. But the betterment of this country isn't to go to socialized
medicine, which is where the Democrats actually took us, until we
finally pulled them back a little bit. Now, they had the help of some
Republicans to do that, but the fact of the matter is that they were
moving us right to socialized medicine, which really has never worked
anywhere. It is as though they prey on the poor as though they are the
only ones who could help them, when in fact they are part of the reason
we are poor.
The government cannot do everything. The government should not do
everything. We, as a people, have to help ourselves and do a lot to
help our country in the process.
I get a little disgusted sometimes when I see the lack of
communication between the two sides, the lack of working together. One
side believes the Federal Government is the last answer to everything.
My gosh, you have to be a real raving idiot to believe that. Well,
maybe I shouldn't have put it that way. The other side sometimes has
trouble seeing how we should help the poor and help those who are less
fortunate than we are. But we have a lot of people on the Republican
side who have spent a lot of time trying to help the poor, trying to
get this country going again, trying to get the economy on top, and
trying to get it so that we really can help the poor and not just mouth
off about it.
I am very concerned because, if we don't get together and start
working together, it is going to get worse and worse and worse. But I
think the crocodile tears on the other side, as we have watched them
over the last year pushing us more and more toward socialized
medicine--something that will not work, one-size-fits-all government
programs, with no real restraint of growth or spending, just more and
more buying of votes. I come away pretty disconsolate and concerned
about the direction in which we are going.
Both sides have enduring pluses, and both sides are wrong in some
ways. Sooner or later, we have to find some way of assisting the
greatest country in the world--which has the greatest economic system
in the world, which believes in the free market system--and to do so
without total government control.
My friends on the other side like that government control because it
means more control by them. We dislike it because we think they
shouldn't have this kind of control. We know that is not good for the
country. It is not good for the people. It is not good for our future.
It is not good for our economy, but that is where we are. I would like
to see us someday just really start working in the best interest of the
country and a little less in the best interest of our respective
parties.
I am concerned about where we are going. I am concerned about how
little effort is being put forth to try and bring us together. I am
concerned about the itty-bitty, stupid, partisan infighting that goes
on here constantly. It is not all bad, but it is not all good either. I
am very concerned about a lot of this driven by a media that is one-
sided, that really doesn't tell the truth, that really doesn't help us
in this country--everybody--to know what is wrong. I think the media
has gotten better in recent years, but it has pretty well been one-
sided. I don't think anybody with brains would deny that.
I am really concerned because I believe we have great people here.
There are some wonderful people on the Democratic side. We know we have
a lot of good people on the Republican side. We have to somehow find a
way of bridging the gap and getting together and making this country
solid, dependable, economically sound, and deserving of being called
the greatest country in the world. I think we can do that, but we can't
do it if we don't work together. We can't do it if we can't put aside
Republican and Democratic itty-bitty problems and work together. We
can't do that if we don't care. We can't do it if we keep having the
ridiculous, stupid politics that go on around here year after year. It
is not all bad, but it is certainly not all good either. I hope that
somehow the more reasonable people on both sides will get together and
start to work together.
I remember when I became chairman of the Labor and Human Resources
Committee in 1981 with the advent of Ronald Reagan. The Democrats had
been in control for years, and they knew it. My gosh, when I got here,
there were 60 Democrats in the Senate--62 Democrats, 38 Republicans. It
was hard to get a point of view across; that is, the Republicans' point
of view. Then Ronald Reagan came along. I have to say, it brought an
awareness to the public that something was wrong here, and he was able
to bring us together.
I saw some of the greatest Senators over the years on both sides work
together. I saw Daniel Patrick Moynihan come here and work with people
like me. Some mentioned Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch. When I
became chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Kennedy had
been chairman of the Judiciary Committee and came over to become my
ranking member. I have to give him credit because he was willing to
give and to work together. He always had to have his share of whatever
it was, but he did move. He did come over. He was willing to. Some
point to that particular Hatch-Kennedy period as a pretty good period
at the time in the U.S. Senate. Certainly Ted Kennedy did. He was
calling me from the Cape before he died, knowing I cared for him,
knowing we were people who fought for very hard battles against each
other, from time to time, but who really respected each other because
we both believed in our respective sides, and we were willing to stand
up for our particular beliefs. I don't see as much of that today as I
did then. Maybe I am shortsighted. I don't know, but I don't think so.
I am very concerned that we are not doing the job for the American
people in our little bitty fights that we have around here that don't
amount to a hill of beans. I am somewhat depressed because of the way
things are going right
[[Page S7511]]
now. I can't say I am discouraged because I keep thinking we can come
back, we can do better, we can witness things, and we can find ways of
getting together. We can work together, but so far I haven't seen that,
not for a number of years. We can blame both parties for it, I am sure.
One party believes the Federal Government is the almighty blessing to
all of this, while the other believes, hey, we need not allow a central
government to control everything. It is good that we have two
differences of opinion in these areas. I don't think it hurts the
country at all to have differing opinions, but it does hurt the country
when one side thinks their opinion is the only opinion that should be
given any credence or consideration. I have seen a lot of that around
here. Both sides are at fault, by the way. I am very concerned about
it.
I look over at my colleague from Oregon. When he was chairman, I was
his ranking member. When I am chairman, he is my ranking member. We
have gotten along well. He is a proud liberal, and deservedly so, and I
am a proud conservative. I think most people would say deservedly so.
We are two people who can make this place sane and who have been
working assiduously together to try to help our country.
I see these two-bit, partisan politics arising all the time around
here, and I don't think we benefit from it. In fact, I know we don't
benefit from it. I am not meaning to blame anybody, but I think we
ought to all do some self-awareness studies and determine what role we
have in the deterioration of what has always been great about the U.S.
Senate. What role do we have? Are we living a plus role or are we
living a minus role? It would be wonderful if we could all live plus
roles.
I like my Democratic colleagues, every one of them. There is not one
of them I don't care for. I am hoping we can start working together and
open our eyes and our hearts and our minds to some of the points of
view of the other side. It is hard to do sometimes because we have
people around here who are so partisan that they think there is only
one side. I can tell you, there are two sides.
I remember the day when Republicans wouldn't vote for any social
spending program, and I remember the day when Democrats thought
everything should be a social spending program and didn't care where
the moneys were coming from or if they were there at all. I have seen
both sides, both extremes, throughout my 41 years in the U.S. Senate. I
have also seen times when leadership, true leadership, has brought us
together, where consideration was given to the Democratic side,
consideration was given to the Republican side, and we worked out our
difficulties. We worked together. We didn't mouth off all the time
against the other side. Naturally, I like those days better than what
we have today.
Mr. BROWN. Senator Hatch?
Mr. HATCH. Yes, sir.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Senator Hatch.
Mr. HATCH. I didn't yield to you. I am saying I will yield for a
question.
Mr. BROWN. The question is this. I appreciated the exchange we had in
the Finance Committee the other night----
Mr. HATCH. I felt bad about that.
Mr. BROWN. I am fine. I just wanted to clarify something. When we had
our little exchange a couple of Thursdays ago, I talked about the bill
I thought was much more heavily weighted toward the top 1 percent. I
wanted to put another number out there and just ask you your opinion.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities yesterday said that in the
Bush tax cuts, 27 percent of the tax cuts went to the top 1 percent.
Their studies show that 62 percent of this tax cut goes to the 1
percent. I know in the Bush days people thought too much of it went to
the top 1 percent. That was only one-quarter. This is almost two-thirds
of that goes to the top 1 percent.
I wonder, Senator Hatch, if you would explain that to us.
Mr. HATCH. I would like to be able to look at that particular
analysis. There are other analyses that indicate that, yes, we can do
better in this bill but also would disagree with that one. I don't
happen to have my hands on those documents at this time.
To make a long story short, we know you can come up with any outside
liberal faction and come up with criticisms of anything around here,
and we also know we can find some outside conservative factions that
would cause most of us to cringe and wonder what in the world is going
on.
I can tell you this. I know what is going on; that is, we are
spending ourselves into bankruptcy, and we are not doing a good job
here. We are not watching the moneys of the American people. In fact,
one reason we can't watch them very well is because they are all spent.
We continuously have people come to the floor and act like they are
better than others because they want to spend all our money to help the
poor. I would love to help the poor. I grew up in a very poor family--
poor in the sense of money, great in the sense of everything else.
Let's be honest about it. We are in trouble. This country is in deep
debt. You don't help the poor by not solving the problems of debt too.
You don't help the poor by continually pushing more and more liberal
programs through that don't do the job anyway. You don't help the poor
by continually pushing programs that really don't work.
Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HATCH. For a question.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you. I accept that, but this bill was not spending
money on the poor, except Senator Lee and Senator Rubio wanted to do a
child tax credit, and we have done the earned-income tax credit. You
supported some of this----
Mr. HATCH. If you have a question----
Mr. BROWN. But one of the things we could be doing instead of this
bill is the CHIP program, which you proudly, with Senator Kennedy,
offered 20 years ago. There are going to be letters that will go out to
people in Virginia next and Ohio and other States----
Mr. HATCH. I got the point.
Mr. BROWN. This is not a giveaway. This is something we have done
bipartisanly. Is there something we can do to----
Mr. HATCH. Let me take the floor back.
Nobody believes more in the CHIP program than I. I invented it. I was
the one who wrote it. Kennedy came over and became the one who helped
put it through.
Mr. BROWN. We recognize that.
Mr. HATCH. Of course I do. I don't think I do everything on my own
here. I have to have good Democratic friends to do it. I don't think
you do either. Let me tell you something. We are going to do CHIP.
There is no question about it, in my mind. It has to be done the right
way. The reason CHIP is having trouble is because we don't have any
money anymore. We just add more and more spending and more and more
spending, and you can look at the rest of the bill for the more and
more spending.
I happen to think that CHIP has done a terrific job for people who
have really needed the help. I have taken the position around here for
my whole Senate service that I believe in helping those who cannot help
themselves but would if they could. I have a rough time wanting to
spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who
will not help themselves--who will not lift a finger--and expect the
Federal Government to do everything.
Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HATCH. Unfortunately, the liberal philosophy has created millions
of people that way, who believe everything that they are or ever hope
to be depends upon the Federal Government rather than on the
opportunities that this great country grants them.
I have to say that I think it is pretty hard to argue against these
comments because, if you look it over, for decades now, we have been
spending more than we have, building more and more Federal programs,
some of which are lousy, some of which are well-intended, and some of
which are actually good, like the CHIP program. We are going to get
CHIP through. There is no question about that. I am going to see that
it gets through.
Mr. BROWN. Will the chairman yield for a moment?
Mr. HATCH. I will yield for a question.
Mr. BROWN. OK. My one comment about CHIP, if that is OK, is that
there are letters that are going to go out. I so respect what you did
with Senator Kennedy. I know that your work was exemplary on it, 20
years ago, to start the Children's Health Insurance Program.
[[Page S7512]]
Mr. HATCH. I was the one who pulled Kennedy into it.
Mr. BROWN. I know. We all understand that.
Mr. HATCH. I wrote the doggone bill.
Mr. BROWN. We so appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
My concern is that you know some of these families. When you write a
bill like that, you meet a lot of these families who benefit--209,000
in my State alone. Some of the parents of those kids, if we don't move
on CHIP in the next week or so, are going to get letters in the mail
that read, ``Sorry, your child's health insurance is going to expire,''
while we are sitting here, dressed pretty well. I know you said that
you grew up with the poor people, is how you said it the other night,
but I worry about these families, and these are families with jobs. You
know that about CHIP. These are families who make $8 and $10 and $12 an
hour, who don't have insurance, and they are going to get letters,
reading: Your insurance is canceled.
How can we let that happen, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. HATCH. I don't intend to let that happen. I think that we will
get CHIP taken care of and, hopefully, a number of other things, too,
but we are going to have to resolve some of these big problems around
here, it seems to me, before we do get those problems solved.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HATCH. But to prey upon the CHIP program as though it is the be-
all and end-all of everything here in every aspect of this debate is
not quite right either.
All I can say is that I don't know anyone here who is not going to
support CHIP when we bring it up, and I am one who wants to make sure
that we bring it up. I appreciate my friend's feelings on this matter.
Look, I like my friend from Ohio. He is sincere; he is dedicated; he
is liberal and well-meaning, but I would like to see him be a little
more concerned about everyone else.
Let me just finish by saying that I am happy to be in this body. It
is the greatest deliberative body in the world, but we are not living
up to our potential, and we are not doing the job. We are getting into
these little snits and fights around here that don't amount to a hill
of beans in the final analysis. I would like to see us all get together
and start running this country in a good manner--living within our
means and finding ways of increasing our economy so that we can take
care of the poor better than we are right now and do the things that we
all know we should be doing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just to respond briefly to the chairman,
the chairman, I think, said about eight times that what really ought to
be the focus here is working together. I so share that view.
As we start voting today, I would just like for the public to
understand that this side was never given the chance on this tax bill
to work together--never once. The majority leader announced, right at
the outset, that the most partisan process would be used. It is called
reconciliation. It means that it is our way or the highway, that we
have the votes, and that is the end of it.
I appreciate what the chairman has said about emphasizing our working
together, but that was taken off the table by the majority leader when
we started, when it was declared that we would use the reconciliation
process.
There are other areas that I will just touch on.
The chairman made mention of the fact that everyone over here is for
socialized medicine. Right now, what we are trying to do is to ensure
that we don't have upheaval in the private insurance marketplace
because of the majority's effort to unravel the Affordable Care Act.
The Affordable Care Act is not socialism. It focuses on private sector
choices through the exchange. What the challenge is going to be is, if
you further hammer this effort to increase choices in the private
sector marketplace, you are just going to cause more problems for our
people and make it more difficult for us to hold down the costs of
medicine.
I will close this section of the discussion simply by clarifying
again this point about the middle class, because Senator Brown was
right with respect to the number of families who are going to get
hammered under the Republican bill, but when the Republicans said that
is a partisan group, the figures Senator Brown talked about are
supported by nonpartisan organizations as well.
The Joint Committee on Taxation, which is composed of the people who
are our independent tax referees, has indicated that by 2027, more than
50 percent of middle-class persons are going to see a tax hike. That is
not a Democratic group; that is not a Republican group. That is an
independent group.
I think that this has been instructive this morning. I am one who has
dedicated my time in public service to trying to find common ground. I
see Senator Cornyn and Senator Toomey, both of whom I have talked with
about bipartisan tax reform--and, again, the chairman, whom I very much
enjoy working with. Yet this tax bill has really been an anomaly; it
has been so different from everything else. It is important that the
public knows that when there was discussion about working together, the
majority leader took that prospect off the table. It was ruled out--not
going to happen. This was going to be a partisan bill. This would be
just the opposite of what Democrats and Ronald Reagan would have
wanted.
That is why 17 moderate Democrats, earlier this week, made one more
plea, as we will continue through the day to talk about, that if you
want to do tax reform right, it has to be bipartisan in order to bring
certainty and predictability to the private sector. It is not about
socialism. It is about certainty and predictability for private sector
growth.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I just want to respond to my friend from
Oregon.
I have enjoyed the many, many conversations that he and I have had on
tax reform and other policies, but I want to strongly disagree with his
characterization of this process.
What our friends on the other side of the aisle want to do is to be
able to kill tax reform by filibuster. That is their goal here. That is
what they want to do. In fact, they were kind enough to be explicit
about it in a letter that they made public, in which 45 of the 48
Democratic Senators stipulated the terms under which they would be
willing to work with us on tax reform. One of them--one of those
terms--included that we had to use a process that would allow them to
kill it by filibuster. They put that in writing. There were 45 of the
48 who signed the letter.
Now, how could we proceed and deliver the tax relief and the tax
reform that we want to provide for the American people and our economy
with the Democrats holding the threat over our heads that they would be
able to kill it by filibuster?
Mr. BROWN. Will Senator Toomey yield?
Mr. TOOMEY. Let me finish my point. Then I will be happy to yield.
Mr. President, obviously, it would be malpractice for us to allow
them to kill this that way. So we have taken an approach that fully
allows unlimited Democratic participation, but at the end of the
process, it is a simple majority vote, and a minority will not be able
to kill this bill by filibuster.
In every step along the way, our Democratic colleagues have had every
opportunity to weigh in, to engage. We had I don't know how many
hearings on this. We had a full markup in the committee. Unlimited
amendments were offered, debated, voted on. Here, over the next--I
don't know--day or two, I expect that we will have many more
amendments. There is no limit to the amendments that our Democratic
colleagues can offer. It is not true to say that the reconciliation
process precludes bipartisan participation. I hope that it doesn't.
This bill cuts taxes for middle-income families. That is a fact. It
is not a convenient fact for some of my friends on the other side of
the aisle, but it lowers taxes for working-class families and for
middle-income families. That is a fact. It is going to help encourage
tremendous economic growth by allowing our businesses to be
competitive. That is a fact, and we will get into why, and we will get
into
[[Page S7513]]
the details. The fact is that this is exactly what our economy needs
right now. More importantly, it is exactly what our constituents need
right now.
There is nothing about this process that precludes my Democratic
colleagues from offering their amendments, engaging in a debate, and
supporting the product in the end. By the way, I am still hopeful that
there will be some support in the end because I think that it is going
to be pretty hard to explain opposition to working-class and middle-
class tax cuts and corporate tax reform that is going to generate
strong economic growth.
I am happy to yield to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, has the Republicans' time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority's time has expired.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am so amused at how any of my Republican
colleagues can talk about this being a legitimate process and that they
want Democratic support. I sat at the White House with Senator Wyden,
with Senator Cornyn, with Senator Toomey, with a number of--probably 11
or 12--Republican Senators on the Finance Committee, and with 6 on the
Democratic side of the Finance Committee.
I went up to the President and had a copy of two bills in my hand. I
brought it up to the whole group--the Patriot Corporation Act, on which
I will speak in a moment. It does exactly what President Trump wants to
do. It rewards corporations that pay good wages, that pay decent
benefits, and that keep their production in this country. The President
said that he liked it. He had had an interview with either Forbes or
Fortune Magazine not too much earlier, and he had talked about it. Then
I brought up to the President the Working Families Tax Relief Act,
which puts money directly in the pockets of people who are making
$25,000 and $50,000 and $75,000 a year. The President said that he
liked that.
But do you know what happened? He said it then, and he said it in a
phone call that a group of us were on a little bit later. Do you know
what happened? We know exactly what happened. They all went down the
hall here to the majority leader's office. All of my Republican friends
walked into that office, and they had their Wall Street lobbyists with
them; they had their drug company lobbyists; and they had their tobacco
company lobbyists. That is where they wrote the bill. There was no
light of day on this.
Then my colleagues on this committee told us that it was a legitimate
process on the night that we had the markup in the Finance Committee.
They call it legitimate, but they give us a bill with almost no
warning. They try to jam it through. They change it in the middle of
the night. Then we talk about it the next day. Then they change it in
the middle of the night again. They add a healthcare provision about
which the Congressional Budget Office said 13 million people will lose
their insurance; rates will go up; premiums will go up 10 percent a
year. If you are paying $500 a month today, you will pay $550 next
year, and you will pay $605 the following year, and you will pay $660-
something a month the following year.
I mean, don't even insult us by saying that this is a legitimate
process. I don't even want to talk about the process, because that
really doesn't mean much to people.
In this letter that my friend mentioned, the first line states: ``We
write to express our interest in working with you on bipartisan tax
reform.'' That is what Senator Wyden said, if you would like to look at
it.
I want to talk about my amendment, which is exactly what Candidate
Trump campaigned on, exactly what pretty much everybody on this side of
the aisle stands for, but most importantly, it is exactly what the
American people have asked for.
It is simple. It is called the Patriot Corporation Act. If a company
does the right thing, if a company pays good wages and provides decent
healthcare and retirement benefits to its employees and does its
production in the United States, it will get a significant tax break
based on the number of employees it hires--a significant tax break.
President Trump said he liked that. He told Forbes that he wanted a
bill with economic development incentives for companies. The President
has said repeatedly that he wants legislation--a tax bill that supports
companies that stay here and are patriotic, and he said that we should
penalize companies that don't do their production in this country.
This bill now--comments from my friend from Pennsylvania
notwithstanding--gives a massive, permanent tax cuts to large,
multinational corporations, and it gives them more incentives to move
offshore.
The Presiding Officer grew up in the Cleveland suburbs. A plant shuts
down in Cleveland or Garfield Heights or Mansfield, where I grew up, it
moves overseas, and it gets a tax break now. Don't you think we should
fix that? Instead, this bill greases the wheels to send more jobs
overseas. Of all the things we should fix, that is it. That is what the
President wants to do, and that is what Senate Democrats want to do.
Instead, Senate Republicans--again, that deal was struck back there in
Senator McConnell's office--Senate Republicans are writing a bill that
gives huge tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country.
The Center for Budget Priorities just yesterday came out with this,
done precisely according to the numbers. In 2001 and 2003, 27 percent
of the Bush tax cuts went to the top 1 percent. I thought that was too
high at the time. This bill more than doubles that--61 percent of the
benefits. It is not going to the middle class, and they know that when
they say it over and over. In addition, it kicks 13 million people off
of their insurance. We know that.
Under this bill, U.S. companies would pay a rate of 20 percent on
profit earned in a manufacturing plant in Akron, OH. That same plant
can shut down, lay off its workers, build a new factory in Asia, and
get a tax deduction for the cost of moving. Do you know what they pay?
They potentially likely pay a zero-percent tax rate. So what are they
going to do? Even in the Senate Finance Committee, where people are not
as quick as one might think they are, 20 is a larger number than zero.
Even we can figure that out. At 20 percent, what that means is that
there is an even greater tax incentive to go overseas.
The Presiding Officer knows Cleveland well. He knows that my wife and
I live in a neighborhood in Cleveland, OH. Our neighborhood ZIP Code is
44105. There were more foreclosures in my neighborhood in the first
half of 2007 than any ZIP Code in the United States of America. Why? It
wasn't the Wall Street scam that caused so many foreclosures later; it
was mostly because of the loss of manufacturing jobs. Do you know why
that is? Partly because of trade agreements like NAFTA, other trade
policies, PNTR with China, and all that. Much of it was about tax
legislation giving incentives to move overseas. Why are we doing more
of it? This bill rewards companies for sending jobs overseas.
Our legislation, the Patriot Corporation Act, will work to keep jobs
here. We know these corporate tax cuts are not going to end up in the
pockets of ordinary working Americans.
Senator Hatch and I had a very public discussion in the Finance
Committee a couple Thursdays ago when the bill was voted out. We talked
about a number of things. One of the things we talked about was this
promise, this assertion, this myth that if we give a company a big tax
cut, then we know what they are going to do. They are going to hand it
out to their employees. They are going to give a $4,000 or $5,000 or
$6,000 or $7,000 a year raise. That doesn't happen. That has never
happened. When this body passed a tax holiday a decade-plus ago, the
money that was brought back from overseas at a lower tax rate went to
executive compensation, to stock buybacks, and to dividends--almost all
of it. Workers didn't get raises and they didn't invest more in our
economy.
Companies are sitting on large stacks, huge caches of cash. Those
companies can hire more people now. They can raise wages now. They are
not doing any of that.
What we ought to do, instead of shoveling more money to the top, to
these large corporations that outsource jobs, we ought to cut out the
middleman and put the money directly into the middle class. If my
friends want to give a tax cut to the middle class, why don't we
[[Page S7514]]
give a tax cut to the middle class? Why don't we directly put the money
there?
I know the President said that he is a big loser on this bill
personally, that it will cost him zillions of dollars--whatever he
said. We know that is not even close to true. But if we really care
about the middle class, I say to my colleagues, let's give a tax break
to the middle class.
Think about it. They are not even hiding what they are doing. These
cuts go to corporate stockholders. They don't go to raise wages; they
go to executive compensation. They don't go to create jobs; they go to
stock buybacks. They don't go to middle-class Ohioans, Oregonians,
Texans, Pennsylvanians, or Alaskans. We know what will happen. Do you
know what will happen? As Senator Rubio said, after we pass this bill
and the President signs it into law, the budget deficit will explode
again. Do you know what will happen? Senator Wyden knows. This will
come back, and you guys will say: You know, we have this budget
deficit, and we are going to have to raise the Social Security
retirement age. Do you know what that means to a barber in Garfield
Heights? Do you know what that means to a construction worker in
Warren, OH? Do you know what that means to somebody who is working in
manufacturing in Mansfield, OH? They can't work until they are 70. We
can all work until we are 70, if our constituents allow us, because we
have these jobs. Well, a lot of our constituents can't. And if that is
the scenario--and it is almost inevitable--if we pass this bill, if we
do this bill, if we pass this bill of big tax cuts for the wealthiest
people in this country, we will drive a hole in the budget deficit, and
then we will come back and make the middle class and working families
pay to fill that hole. That is irresponsible. That is morally
reprehensible.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Brown
be recognized to offer a motion to commit, which is at the desk, and
that there be 30 minutes of debate on the motion; that following the
use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to the motion
with no intervening action or debate. I further ask that following
disposition of the motion, the majority leader be recognized. I ask
unanimous consent that the 30 minutes be equally divided in the usual
form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio.
Motion to Commit
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I call up my motion that is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. BROWN] 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;
(2) create a tax credit of up to $1,500 per employee for
employers that--
(A) maintain headquarters in the United States if the
company has ever been headquartered in United States;
(B) maintain or increase the number of employees in the
United States as compared to the number of employees overseas
(including independent contractors);
(C) have not inverted to avoid United States taxes;
(D) pay not less than 90 percent of their employees in the
United States an hourly wage that is not less than 218
percent of the Federal poverty line for an individual;
(E) provide quality health insurance coverage to employees
in the United States;
(F) provide not less than 90 percent of their employees in
the United States who are not highly compensated with a
defined benefit plan or a defined contribution plan and match
employee contributions to such plan up to an amount that is
not less than 5 percent of the employee's annual
compensation;
(G) pay to any employee who is a member of a reserve
component (as defined in section 101 of title 37, United
States Code) who serves on active duty an amount equal to the
amount, if any, by which the employee's regular salary
exceeds the employee's military compensation; and
(H) have a plan in place to recruit veterans; and
(3) fully offset the tax credit described in paragraph (2)
by changing the corporate tax rate as necessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes of debate equally divided
on the motion.
Who yields time?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania
for such time as he may use of up to 15 minutes.
Mr. President, I take that back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know that our friends across the aisle
have offered a motion to commit to send this back to the Senate Finance
Committee, but, as the ranking member knows, as the Senator from Ohio
knows, the Senate Finance Committee has delivered a bill that received
a vote of the majority of that committee, who considered this tax bill
on a bipartisan basis in the committee. So it strikes me as odd, if not
just outright fallacious, to suggest that we are somehow keeping them
out of a bipartisan process. Just the opposite is true. They are taking
themselves out of the process by obstructing, blocking, and doing
everything they can to prevent us from actually delivering tax reform
and tax cuts to the American people. That is what is happening here.
Just as the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the
Senator from Oregon, offered a motion to commit last night, just as the
Senator from Ohio is offering a motion to commit here today, they are
participating in the process while claiming to have no part of the
process. The only problem is, they are not contributing anything
positive. All they are trying to do is to blow up the process. They
must like the fact that we have the highest business tax rate in the
world, which forces jobs and investments overseas rather than
encourages that money to come back home. They must like the fact that
wages in America are stagnant. They must like the fact that working
American families have not seen a pay increase because of those
stagnant wages. They must like the fact that there are many people who
are looking for work who can't find work, because they refuse to
consider an alternative that might provide better wages and more jobs
to people looking for work. They must think that 1.9 percent economic
growth is the best we can do. This is the new normal after the Obama
years, since the great recession of 2008, but I will state that the
economy has grown at 3.2 percent since World War II. This is not the
new normal.
We don't have to accept this. We can do better, but we can't do
better when your head is in the sand and the only thing you want to do
is to blow up our efforts to try to improve the quality of life, the
standard of living, the take-home pay, and to reawaken the slumbering
giant which is the American economy to restore this country to
greatness and leadership in the world economically, militarily, and in
every sort of way.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania such time as
he requires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the Senator from Texas and the Presiding Officer.
Let's describe what is really going on. There are two big
accomplishments with this legislation that I am really proud of, and
they are the reason that this is going to succeed and that this is
going to be a big success for the American people.
The first thing we do is we absolutely directly lower the tax on
lower income and middle-income Americans, hard-working families, and
folks who live paycheck to paycheck. The fact is, virtually all of them
are going to get a significant tax cut. That is fact No. 1.
The second fact is, we fundamentally restructure the way we tax
business so that we can be competitive, so that our workers can compete
and win against companies from anywhere in the world, so that we will
have more jobs, more companies, and existing companies will expand.
Those are the two things we are trying to do. That is what is in this
bill, and that is why this is a great deal for the people I represent.
Let me go through these individually.
The first is on the individual side of the Tax Code. I have said it
before, and I will say it again. It doesn't matter how many times my
colleagues on the other side get this wrong, the fact is, we are
lowering taxes for every single
[[Page S7515]]
income category--absolutely, no exceptions, every category, and they
know it. They absolutely know it. We do this through a number of
mechanisms.
We double the standard deduction, so that on the first $24,000 that a
couple earns, they pay no tax at all--none, zero, nothing--and then the
income above that is taxed at very low rates, and there are other
deductions that are available beyond that. The fact is, that is one of
our tools. Another is that we lower the rates. The rates that are
applied to income are lower under our bill than under current law. We
increased the child tax credit dramatically. That is another huge
source of savings for people who have children in our country. That is
a fact.
Let me start with this simple chart, which is a simple and compelling
fact that is going to be hard for our colleagues on the other side to
ignore.
A family of four who earns a median income, which is $73,000 in
America--a family of four: mom, dad, and two kids--is going to save
$2,200 a year in a lower tax bill. Their taxes go down by $2,200 a
year. How is that not a tax cut? How is that not good for that family?
It is, and that is a fact. That is absolutely typical. That is just one
illustration.
The second fact--and this chart is a little bit harder to read, but
the folks on the Joint Committee on Taxation quantify whether people in
different income categories are going to pay more or less. It is broken
down into narrow incremental changes in income, showing people who earn
less than $10,000; people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000; $20,000
to $30,000; all the way up. This column is titled ``Change in Federal
Taxes.'' In every single category, the dollar amount goes down. It is
negative because every category of Americans is going to have a
savings. We designed it that way. By design, there is a tax savings for
all working families, all categories of income, all middle-income
families. That is the reality. That is a fact that is illustrated here.
And it is not my word; it is the Joint Tax Committee in their report of
November 27.
Finally, let's take a look at the last chart. What this shows is who
gets the biggest percentage of relief, because it is not uniform across
all the different categories of income. What do we see? The biggest tax
cuts tend to be for the folks who have more modest income. Again, this
is not my data. This is from the Joint Committee on Taxation,
completely independent of us. The higher income folks get some tax
relief, but it is not as much, relative to the percentage increase of
savings for lower income and middle-income people. So those are the
facts.
We can have lots of discussions about things on which we disagree,
and we disagree on a lot of things. These guys want higher taxes. We
like lower taxes. These guys like to redistribute wealth. We like
people to be free to earn more and keep more of what they earn. There
are lots of differences, but let's at least stick to the facts. These
are the facts.
Now, let me move on to a discussion about the other big part of it. I
said that there are two big accomplishments in this bill. One is direct
tax relief for the people we represent. That is a fact. The second is
making the changes to our business Tax Code so that we can actually
have the economic growth we have been waiting for and have the
prosperity we have been waiting for.
The fact is that we have lived through the weakest economic recovery
in American history. In every past severe recession--even ordinary
recessions--the economy has always come roaring back, and we have
achieved economic growth that puts us back on the path we were on
before the recession. That is what is normal for America--strong
economic growth.
It didn't happen this time. It didn't happen after the great
recession, and it is not just a coincidence. Now, as my colleague from
Texas pointed out, there are some folks on the other side who think
that America isn't the country it was and just can't really have strong
economic growth anymore. That is absolutely nonsense. It is ridiculous.
We are entirely capable of restoring the robust growth that allows our
constituents to have a better standard of living. There is nothing
about America that has lost that ability to grow and prosper. That is
ridiculous.
What has happened over the last 8 years is that we have had the wrong
policies. President Obama and our Democratic colleagues got everything
they wanted when they had complete control of the government: huge tax
increases, massive wasteful spending bills they called the stimulus,
government virtual takeover of healthcare, massive overregulation of
the whole economy. Lo and behold, the result was exactly what we
feared--really weak economic growth, actually unprecedented weak growth
for an extended period of time.
Well, one of the problems they inflicted on us was some really bad
tax policy and multiple tax increases. While the rest of the world has
been making their tax code on the business side more competitive and
more aggressive, we have actually gone backwards. We haven't had a
major reform since 1986, and the incremental changes have been
counterproductive. So here is a big chance to make a huge improvement.
One of the things I am most excited about with this is that I am
completely convinced that the passage of our bill is going to address
one of the most persistent and really maddening challenges that we
have, which is stagnant wages of working Americans. They have been
stagnant for years. So you might ask: Why are they stagnant? Again, it
is not a great mystery, and it is not an accident. Under the Obama
administration era, we saw a collapse in the growth of invested
capital. That means investment in the kind of equipment that makes
workers more productive.
It is growing worker productivity that allows us to have higher
wages. Think about it this way. You go to a construction site, and you
have two guys digging holes. One guy is operating a backhoe, and one
guy is swinging a shovel. Which one is getting paid more? I guarantee
you every time it is the guy operating the backhoe, and it is not
because there is a minimum wage there that forces it. It is because the
guy operating the backhoe is more productive. He has a set of skills,
and he is using them on a big piece of expensive equipment. He is able
to dig a lot more dirt in any unit of time than the guy swinging the
shovel. When business is able to put capital to work, workers become
more productive and they make more money. That is what is going to
happen under our bill.
One of the things we do, fundamentally, about the business side of
our Tax Code is that we lower the cost of investing in that new
equipment--that new tractor, that new vehicle, that new machinery,
filling that new plant with the ability to produce more goods and
services. Our bill makes that more affordable, and when you make that
more affordable, guess what, businesses buy more tractors and factories
and backhoes. When they buy those things, someone has to operate them.
That means they are creating new jobs. Guess what. Someone else got to
have a job in building it in the first place. I know that some of our
colleagues don't understand how that leads to growth. They don't
understand. So I am trying to explain this. If you have more invested
capital, you increase the productive capacity of the economy, you
produce more goods and services, you have more workers needed to do
that and more wages.
Guess what. Businesses don't go out and raise wages because they wake
up one day and decide: Oh, I think I will be generous today. That is
not what happens. What happens is they have to compete for workers.
They need more employees. There is a limited number, and so they start
bidding up wages. That is what I want to see, and we are going to see
that. We are going to see so much demand for workers that companies
have no choice but to offer more compensation, better terms. That is
how people have a higher standard of living. That is how they get the
pay raise they ought to have.
Let me mention another provision in our bill that is extremely
constructive. We are fixing a badly flawed international treatment for
our multinational companies. I think our Senator from Oregon, our
Democratic colleague, has acknowledged real problems in the way our
system works. The short version is that we have a system that
encourages companies to move overseas. Has anybody heard of inversions?
I think we all have.
[[Page S7516]]
Why do companies invert? It is because there is a tax code that
drives it. It is now very hard to explain and justify why you would
headquarter a multinational company in the United States when we see
uniquely put multinational companies at a competitive disadvantage
because of our tax system. So we are changing that so that we can
compete.
It is very good to have multinationals headquartered in America. I
have a number of them in Pennsylvania. There are great jobs in
Pennsylvania supporting all of their business domestically and
supporting a lot of their business internationally.
Now, in order to cover the cost of what we are doing--the tax
reductions, the rates reductions, allowing the lower cost for deploying
capital--we have some offsets. We have ways that we are asking business
to pay more taxes, in some respects, where it will not be harmful for
economic growth. We limit the amount of interest that a business is
going to be able to deduct going forward. We limit deductions that
favor certain industries over others. We limit deductions for certain
fringe benefits, and we close a lot of loopholes. That helps us
generate the revenue that allows us to have the constructive pro-growth
features, like lower marginal rates and lowering the cost of putting
capital to work. So that is what we are trying to do here. That is what
we do in our legislation.
The effect of this is very, very clear. A large number of economists
have acknowledged that it is going to mean more business investment,
more new businesses being launched, businesses moving from overseas
back to America, expansion of existing businesses. All of that activity
requires more workers--all of it--to fill the additional jobs that are
going to be created. That means more jobs, but it also means upward
pressure on wages if everyone has a job now because businesses are
going to have to compete.
To be continued.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator's time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I first want to respond to the Senator
from Texas, and then I am going to pose a question to the Senator from
Ohio.
The Senator from Texas talked about how everybody on this side was
obstructing bipartisan tax reform. I am a little puzzled by that,
having written the only two bipartisan tax reform bills that have been
before the Senate. Maybe the Senator from Texas will bring his
bipartisan tax reform bills over and we could look at them at some
point.
One of the keys to that bipartisan proposal--and it relates to the
point made by the Senator from Pennsylvania--was our cosponsor, Senator
Gregg. Our former colleague, who is very knowledgeable about economics,
said that what he wanted to do was to make it more attractive to do
business in the United States. The heart of that bipartisan bill was to
make it more attractive for small businesses and businesses of all
sizes to create red, white, and blue jobs.
This bill does just the opposite. It makes it more attractive to do
business overseas. It is not what the bipartisan bill was all about. It
is not what our former colleague, Senator Gregg, signed onto when he
went onto our bipartisan bill.
I think I would like now to pose a question to my colleague, a
valuable member of the Finance Committee, about why the patriot
corporation legislation is so important. I think my colleague believes
that it is so important--as I did with Senator Gregg, the Republican
from New Hampshire--that we ought to make it more attractive to have
red, white, and blue jobs. Is that really what my colleague is working
on here?
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oregon, and I
appreciate the time in this as we wind down this debate.
The answer is yes. We have a tax system right now in place. I hear my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle disingenuously say: Well, as
for the Democrats, because they don't like our tax plan, that means
they are for the tax system the way it is. Of course, we don't like the
tax system the way it is, and we particularly don't like it in States
like mine and, I would say, especially in places like Eastern Oregon,
where companies shut down production in Lima, OH, or Springfield, OR,
and move to Wuhan or Beijing and get a tax break for doing it. We want
to close that loophole, but you know what, this bill explodes that
loophole. It explodes it, because, as I said a few minutes ago, if a
plant shuts down in Barberton or it shuts down in Xenia or it shuts
down in Zanesville, the company, under this bill, would pay a rate of
20 percent on profits. If it shuts down and moves to Asia, it can build
a new factory and get a tax deduction for the cost of moving, still,
and pay a U.S. tax rate of zero. So why wouldn't they move?
Mr. SULLIVAN. Will the Senator from Ohio yield for a question?
Mr. BROWN. Briefly, very briefly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. As to the issue on economic growth, I have been coming
down to the floor in my relatively short time here and talking about
growth, growth, growth, growth. I have not in 3 years--3 years--heard
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that economic growth
of 1.5 percent for almost 10 years is good for the country, good for
workers in Ohio.
Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Here is my question.
Mr. BROWN. I take back my time.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Here is my question. Will the Senator yield for a
question?
Mr. BROWN. Sure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has the floor.
Mr. BROWN. OK, I will yield for a question, if it is a question.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Here is the question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Do you believe that the new normal is 1.5 percent, like
CBO, like the Obama administration said--GDP growth of 1.5 percent for
the entire future? Is that what you believe?
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I reclaim my time.
Mr. SULLIVAN. If you don't, how do we get that faster growth?
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I reclaim my time.
Of course, I don't believe that is the new normal. It is the same old
game they played before. If you are not for our tax plan, then you are
not for tax reform. Nobody believes that.
Of course, we don't think 1.5 percent is the normal. But do you know
what else we know? We know that the last time, 20 years ago, when we
focused on the middle class and cut taxes on the middle class during
the Clinton years, the economy exploded. There were 22 million private
sector jobs.
But do you know what happened a dozen years ago? President Bush did
two tax cuts for the wealthy, under the view that it trickles down and
everybody will do better. During 8 years of President Bush, there was
no net job growth.
Yes, during the last few years, we have had this low level of GDP
growth for a whole lot of reasons, but you don't fix it--you don't grow
the economy--by giving tax cuts for the rich with the hope of it
trickling down. One of the ways you fix that is to do the patriot
corporation legislation. If a company does the right thing, if a
company pays good wages, if a company provides decent health benefits
and retirement benefits and keeps its production in the United States,
that company gets a better tax rate--$1,500 for workers, the way this
amendment would work. That is how you grow the economy. That is what
Candidate Trump said and then President Trump said to me in a meeting
with all my Finance Committee Republicans in the room--in the
President's Cabinet room. Now, we know that. That just goes without
saying, in spite of the myth that we continue to propagate on the
floor.
Before I turn it to Senator Durbin, who is one of the original
authors of the patriot corporation legislation, I want to say one other
thing. We have seen some pretty charts on this floor about middle-class
tax cuts. Well, what we didn't hear mention was that on about the third
year of this bill, the tax cuts go down and down and down and then they
cross zero, and then you have tax increases. The Tax Policy Center said
that, in 2019, 13 million
[[Page S7517]]
households will have a tax increase; in 2025, 19 million households
will have a tax increase; and in 2027, 87 million will have tax
increases. Those aren't the Trump family that will have tax increases.
Those aren't Senators' families that will have tax increases. Those are
working families in Toledo, in Dayton, and working families in Omaha
and in East St. Louis, IL. They are the ones who are going to get hit
with these tax increases while the wealthy continue to get more tax
breaks.
I will yield the remainder of the Democratic time to the assistant
Democratic leader, Senator Durbin
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me thank my colleague from Ohio for
raising this important issue. It comes down to a very basic question
for the Senate. We have a tax code that creates incentives and
penalties for certain conduct. We encourage Americans to give to
charities, and we give them a deduction. We encourage Americans to own
homes, and we let them deduct the cost of interest on their mortgage.
We encourage them in so many different ways and discourage other
conduct.
Why shouldn't we encourage American businesses to hire American
workers? Why shouldn't we reward American businesses that keep their
businesses in America and not move them overseas? Why shouldn't we
incentivize businesses and corporations to pay a decent minimum living
wage to their employees, to provide basic benefits when it comes to
health insurance and healthcare, and a good retirement plan? Why
shouldn't we incentivize American companies to hire veterans? Why don't
we put in our Tax Code incentives that create stronger, better,
patriotic American corporations?
I am going to wave the flag here. I think there are a lot of great
corporations, companies in America that really do care for this
country. Some don't, and I don't think they should be rewarded for
turning their backs on America--but we do.
In the current Tax Code, if you decide to ship your jobs off
overseas, send your factories overseas and put Americans out of work,
do you know what the Tax Code says? Be my guest. The provision says you
can deduct the cost of moving so we incentivize and reward companies
that want to leave America.
What Senator Brown and many on this side of the aisle believe, as I
do, is why don't we incentivize the companies that want to stay in
America? Why don't we incentivize those who say: We want to hire
American people and pay them a decent wage.
I think that is what a tax code is all about, to create incentives
for good things for the American economy and discourage bad things, and
so I introduced this bill several years back. Congresswoman Schakowsky
of Chicago joined me in that effort. We have had this bill there.
Senator Brown has been such a leader in this area. I was proud to stand
with him today to do this jointly and offer this as part of the tax
plan.
So it is a basic proposition for President Trump and for the
Republicans. Do you believe--do you believe American businesses that
stay in this country deserve a break? Do you believe American
businesses that pay a decent wage to their employees deserve a tax
break? Do you believe American companies that put together health
insurance and retirement plans that are fair and just for their workers
and their families deserve a break in our Tax Code? Do you think we
ought to give a helping hand to those companies that will hire a
veteran, put a veteran to work? Do you think our Tax Code should also
recognize that some companies are going to hire disabled people and
give them a chance of a lifetime? Do you think all of those are good
conduct by corporations that deserve not only a pat on the back but a
helping hand when it comes to the Tax Code? That is what this is about.
It is very basic. That is what I believe. I think that is what most of
the people in Illinois believe. I think that is what President Trump
might have been speaking to during the course of his campaign, about
creating jobs in America.
This President and those who are in his party now have a chance to
put a vote on the board and show they believe that too. If you vote
against this, how in the world would you explain it when you go home?
Oh, yes, I voted against patriot corporations. I don't think we ought
to reward American companies that hire American workers and treat them
fairly. How do you explain that?
This Tax Code is loaded with incentives. It is loaded with special
interests. The special interest we are focusing on are American workers
and their families with this amendment. We are focusing as well on the
companies that respect them, treat them fairly, pay them a decent wage,
and give them a fighting chance to make it in America. It sounds to me
like a middle-class issue. It sounds to me like a middle-income issue.
It sounds to me like a good economic growth policy, not just to
increase corporate profits by reducing their taxes but to make sure the
company's business model is based on what is good for the future of
America and what is good for our economy.
Yes, I am waving the flag here. I am proud to do it. I want to wave a
flag at every company that respects American workers and treats them
the way they deserve, and I think this is a good way, a good step in
that direction.
I thank Senator Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, how much time remains on the Democratic
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three and a half minutes.
Mr. BROWN. I appreciate the leadership of Senator Durbin on this
issue.
I want to ask Democratic Ranking Member Wyden a question as we wrap
up. We have heard that in order to sell this scam that we see rushed
through and negotiated in the majority leader's office with his Wall
Street and drug company lobbyist friends, that to sell this scam for
the 1 percent and their billionaire contributors, that Republicans
continue to say the Democrats didn't want to participate, didn't want
to do this in a bipartisan way. Senator Wyden and I were at the White
House when I handed the President the Patriot Corporation Act and
handed the President the Tax Relief for Working Families Act. Other
Democrats were saying: Here are some ideas that can make this truly a
bill aimed at the middle class, helping the middle class and expanding
the economy.
I keep hearing them say: We didn't want to do this. I mean, really.
So I want to ask Senator Wyden--he is the senior Democrat on the Tax
Committee--would you just expand on that? I mean, what really happened?
Mr. WYDEN. I very much appreciate what you and Senator Durbin are
seeking to do because not only have you tried to generate bipartisan
support for it--I was there at the White House when you handed it to
the President. That was what the moderate Democrats tried to do again a
couple of days ago, to say: Look, we want to show enormous good faith
behind the cause of bipartisanship. I sure wish the Republican leader,
Senator Cornyn, had stayed on the floor because he was attacking
Democrats for obstructing the cause of bipartisan tax reform. He knows
full well that I have written two bills.
By the way, Republicans said, as part of that bill--unlike this one--
that they want everybody in America to get ahead, not just the folks at
the top. The senior Republican, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire,
Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, made the agreement with me
to make it attractive to create red, white, and blue jobs, not to make
it more attractive to ship jobs overseas.
So I want to give my colleague the last word with respect to the
importance of this, but people ought to understand, A, Democrats have
been showing for months--for months--how strongly we feel about doing
this in a bipartisan way; B, my colleague on this particular issue,
patriot corporations, handed this proposal to the President asking for
bipartisanship, and we have had a bipartisan proposal for years.
Senator Cornyn has never had a bipartisan tax reform proposal.
I would like to let my colleague finish up.
Mr. BROWN. This is a really simple debate. Then-Candidate Trump,
President Trump, has said: We reward corporations that do the right
thing: They pay good wages. They provide decent benefits. They keep
their production in the United States. He then went on to say: Penalize
companies that don't, but if they are patriotic, you give them a tax
break.
[[Page S7518]]
The Brown-Durbin amendment bill provides roughly $1,500 for every
employee when companies do the right thing. Why would we not want to
reward American companies that are making things in America?
This suit I wear is made by union workers 10 miles from my house. Why
wouldn't we want to reward companies that do that instead of reward
companies that go overseas?
Vote for the Brown-Durbin Patriot Corporation Act Amendment.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the Brown motion to commit.
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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 286 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--52
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
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Casey be recognized to offer a motion to commit, which is at the desk;
that the time until 2:15 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form for
debate on the motion; and that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate vote in
relation to the motion with no intervening action or debate. I further
ask that following disposition of the motion, the majority leader be
recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Request for Authority for Committee to Meet
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee does not have the
approval of the Democratic leader to meet; therefore, they will not be
permitted to meet past 12:30 p.m. this afternoon.
I ask unanimous consent that the request for authority to meet 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 Judiciary,
Washington, DC, November 28, 2017.
Committee on the Judiciary
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate, on November 30, 2017, at 10:30 a.m., in SD-226 of
the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive
business meeting.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the
historic opportunity we have before us to grow the American economy, to
create jobs, and to make sure Washington has less money in its pockets
and the people across this country have more money in their pockets.
I rise to support the pro-growth tax reform proposal before the
Senate. I rise to support modernizing and simplifying the American tax
system to make it competitive. I rise to support American workers who
haven't seen wage growth for far too long. I rise to support American
families.
It has been 30 years since this country last reformed the Tax Code.
We haven't modernized our Tax Code in over 30 years, since 1986. Since
that time, we have had lobbyists and special interests adding on and
building on loopholes and giveaways to what once was a competitive tax
system. That 30 years of drag on the Tax Code has made it more out-of-
date day by day. It is so out-of-date that American families and
businesses now spend 6 billion hours and $263 billion every year just
to file their taxes. That is bigger than the economic output of the
nation of New Zealand, just to file our taxes every year.
Meanwhile, we have watched the world change since 1986 significantly.
Other countries have learned how to use their tax codes to entice U.S.
businesses overseas--businesses from around the globe--to their
country, to move away from the United States to their countries' more
competitive tax code. That disparity between the U.S. Tax Code and
foreign tax rates has literally chased jobs and wages out of this
country. Companies now not only invest in low-tax foreign countries,
but they leave U.S. dollars abroad without bringing them back into the
United States. Those billions have piled up, and now it is estimated
that there is somewhere around $2.5 trillion in foreign profits being
held by U.S. multinationals overseas.
That tells us three things: No. 1, corporations will find low-tax
jurisdictions; No. 2, without this reform, it isn't changing anytime
soon; No. 3, American workers are the ones who are paying the cost of
this failed economic system. It is the American workers who suffer in
the form of higher taxes, lower wages, and a less competitive economy.
We have before us an opportunity to change this. This reform will
bring the kind of relief Americans have been demanding for a number of
years, for over a decade--lower taxes, higher wages, and less time and
hassle filing their taxes. This change will mean that a family of
four--according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation--earning the median
family income of $73,000 would see a tax cut of nearly $2,202. That is
a 60-percent cut next year over what they paid last year with the
passage of this bill. A single parent with one child and an income of
$41,000 will see a cut of more than $1,400, according to the
nonpartisan Tax Foundation. That is a cut of 70 percent in their tax
rates from what they paid this past year to what they would pay next
year. This change will bring thousands of dollars in higher wages as
companies begin to invest in America again.
The Council of Economic Advisers has estimated that just lowering the
corporate rate alone would raise average income around $4,000 to $4,385
in my home State of Colorado. The academic literature supporting that
analysis suggests the gains could even be bigger. This change will
reduce the wasted billions of hours spent filling out the paperwork,
dotting the i's and crossing the t's, just to file your taxes.
The Council of Economic Advisers estimates that after passage of this
bill, about 92 percent of taxpayers will use the standard deduction
rate rather than itemize their taxes, and because the standard
deduction will have been expanded, they will end up being better off.
It shouldn't be more fun going to the dentist than it is figuring out
your taxes. We can't let this moment pass without bringing this relief
to America's taxpayers. Doing that would only chase more dollars and
jobs out of the country. The result of voting against this reform can
be summed up in the information I have right next to me.
Here is the first one. This shows how our corporate tax rate over
time--since the 1980s and 1990s--has stayed flat, has stayed the same,
while OECD nations and while our competitors have lowered their rates
and become more and more competitive over time. Countries like France,
Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, and country after country have lowered
their corporate tax rates far less than our rates today. Indeed, the
average European corporate statutory rate is around 18 or 19 percent.
The United States remains stuck at 35 percent--the highest statutory
tax rate in the industrialized world.
[[Page S7519]]
When a company decides it wants to expand or buy new equipment, it
looks at these rates to see how much extra revenue it needs to generate
in order to make the expansion profitable. The higher the rate, the
harder it is to generate enough revenue to justify the investment.
It doesn't take much more than this chart alone to know that
investing abroad has made a lot of sense to far too many people.
Businesses have responded to this. They have moved. As a result,
business investment in capital in the United States is at a low.
Investments in new structures, equipment, and intellectual property
have some of its lowest rates we have seen.
Indeed, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett recently
warned that there is a ``crisis in our country'' because of the lack of
what is called ``capital deepening''--which is what an economist would
use for the term meaning the impact of capital stock--on worker
productivity. Worker productivity, in turn, is what drives up wages.
That makes sense. The more productive a worker is, the more the
employer is willing to pay that worker to keep him or her.
That leads us to the other piece of information that is important to
look at. You can see the effects here. The relationship between
corporate profits and wages has broken down over the past couple of
decades. Prior to 1990, when corporate profits went up by 1 percent,
wages went up by more than 1 percent, but that has changed because of
our uncompetitive tax system. From 2008 to 2016, a 1-percent increase
in corporate profits corresponded with only a 0.3-percent increase in
worker wages. When we hear about a growing income inequality, which is
something we have to address, this is part of the story. This is part
of the reason we have income inequality, because that ratio has shifted
as a result of people going overseas, money being kept overseas, and
our tax rates simply being out-of-date and out of order.
One of the biggest culprits is that corporate tax rate. It is what
causes that disconnect between profits and wages. Businesses are
investing those dollars overseas, and they lay off workers in the
United States, expanding in Poland instead of Portland or not just
expanding at all. No matter which option they choose, the American
worker loses out. That is why experts say employees bear 45 percent to
75 percent of the burden of corporate taxes--because businesses invest
in them less the higher the tax rate goes.
That brings us to the third point of information. The empirical
evidence is remarkably clear. Countries with lower tax rates have much
higher wage increases than countries with higher corporate tax rates.
High-tax countries, like the United States, have weak wage growth, less
than 1 percent--even close to zero. You can see this. The highest
statutory corporate tax rate countries in the world have less than 1-
percent wage growth. High-tax countries, like the United States, have
that extremely weak wage growth. Low-tax countries, though, see the
wage growth of 1 percent, 1.5 percent, 2 percent, 4 percent, and that
is because low-tax countries create an environment that encourages
businesses to grow and to expand, while high-tax countries, like the
United States, chase money out of the country.
Over the last several years, we have been told we need to get used to
low wages--that we have to get used to low wages and low GDP growth. We
have been told we just need to accept a secular stagnation theory; that
the American economy's prime has gone away. I don't believe that. I
don't think anybody in this country should believe that. I believe our
economy's best days are ahead of us if we pass the kind of policies we
can this week.
Until we get our Tax Code competitive again, there are people who are
going to think the secular stagnation is all we can get. They will be
stuck with low growth, low wages. Bipartisan groups have pushed for
ways to change this: Simpson-Bowles Commission, Wyden-Coats, even
President Obama himself called for tax cuts in his 2011 State of the
Union Address. In fact, President Obama's economic adviser, Larry
Summers, said that reducing the corporate tax rate and lowering the
competitive disadvantage faced by American multinationals is ``about as
close to a free lunch as tax reformers will ever get.''
Here we stand at the end of this reform process, and the opponents of
this reform simply pound their fists on their desks and shoot off
standard talking points about millionaires and billionaires. They told
us from the outset, in a letter to Senator McConnell, that they didn't
want to cut taxes for everyone, so they wouldn't play a meaningful part
in crafting the package. What a shame that has been. They could have
worked with us, offered proposals that would help us find that solution
that benefits all. They rail against different specifics, often mixing
up what is in the House proposal with what is in the Senate's proposal
because it is politically expedient.
There really have been no honest, substantive amendments to make the
bill better, as we have asked time and time again. It is unclear if
they will even support amendments that mirror the bills they themselves
have introduced because I am afraid the opponents aren't interested in
making the bill better. They are interested in a political fight and
continuing to see Americans suffer under low wages and high taxes, but
they don't tell us why, other than ``just not this bill.''
We have a chance to help the middle class. We have a chance to cut
taxes, to grow the economy. For Coloradans, it means more jobs, it
means higher wages, it means true economic growth. Let's get away from
that Atari-era 1986 Tax Code, and let's put forth something that works
for this generation, the next generation, building competitiveness,
building opportunity, and building an America we were all proud of.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Motion to Commit
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CASEY] 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) establish an exception to reduced rates for certain
corporations in order to ensure any tax windfall to
profitable corporations also goes to increasing worker wages
by--
(A) requiring corporations to annually determine whether
their aggregate worker wages, excluding executive wages,
increase by an amount at least equal to increases in
executive compensation, stock buy backs, and dividends to
shareholders; and
(B) with respect to companies failing this test, providing
that the corporate rate reduction shall not apply for the
following year and the corporate rate under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and administered as if
the provisions reducing such rates had not been enacted.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about this motion to
commit. The amendment I am offering is very simple. It states that if
companies are giving executives a raise and giving more money to
shareholders through dividends or stock buybacks because of this tax
windfall, then workers who help make these profits possible in the
first place, and who also need a break, would see their wages go up. It
is as simple as that.
I hope every Member of the Senate will support this sensible
amendment. By one estimate, over the last 16 years, there seems to be
little to no correlation between rising corporate profits and increased
wages. We have seen record corporate profits over years, and in fact
profits as a percentage of the economy have nearly doubled over the
past 20 years.
The New York Times tells us:
In the United States, the richest 1 percent have seen their
share of national income roughly double since 1980, to 20
percent in 2014 from 11 percent. No other nation in the 35-
member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
is as unequal among those with comparable tax data, and none
have experienced such a sharp rise in inequality.
Let me review that again.
From 1980 to 2014, the richest 1 percent has had its share of
national income roughly double to 20 percent from 11 percent. So, since
1980, the top 1 percent has had a bonanza. It has done quite well.
What has been the case with workers?
[[Page S7520]]
At the same time, wage growth has stagnated. Many have seen the
reports over the last couple of years, one by the Economic Policy
Institute, which indicated that, if you compare wage growth after World
War II, from 1948 to about 1973, wage growth was 91 percent. Then from
1973 forward, to about 2014 or 2015, wage growth was only a total of 11
percent growth. So there was 91 percent wage growth after World War II
and only 11 since then, and in many years, it was not even 11. It was
stagnating.
People can go to the Economic Policy Institute's website and read
that series of reports about wages and about workers, which I thought
was the focus--the prime focus, I had hoped--of both parties when it
came to this bill. Apparently, it is not with regard to what the
majority is presenting. Those at the top are not only getting richer;
they have been getting richer in a big way since 1980. That increasing
rate of benefits to the wealthy continues at a fast pace in this bill
and continues year after year.
The Republican tax plan gives hundreds and hundreds of billions of
dollars of net tax cuts to major corporations. By one estimate, the
total corporate tax cut exceeds $1.3 trillion. That is trillion with a
``t.'' Some estimate that the number is even higher than that, but I
will go with that lower number. There is no requirement with that
corporate tax cut that any benefits go to workers' wages and no
requirement that companies invest in the United States of America--no
requirement at all.
So what should we do about that?
We can pass an amendment like mine to make sure that, if the
executives benefit and if the shareholders benefit, the workers
benefit. The workers have a lot to do with the profits. The workers
have a lot to do with the productivity of the corporation. In fact,
many large corporations have told shareholders exactly what they are
going to do with the money they get, with the benefits that are derived
from this corporate tax cut. Here is the conclusion, unfortunately: All
they are going to do is to increase dividends.
Here is a report from Bloomberg. This report is dated November 29,
2017, with the headline: ``Trump's Tax Promises Undercut by CEO Plans
to Reward Investors.''
Here is the opening paragraph of the story: ``Major companies
including Cisco Systems Inc., Pfizer Inc., and Coca-Cola Co. say
they'll turn over most gains from proposed corporate tax cuts to their
shareholders.''
This undercuts President Donald Trump's promise that his plan will
create jobs and boost wages for the middle class.
That is what that report that I am quoting from says. I will quote
from it more a little bit later. That is what they tell us in that
report.
What about the workers? What about the workers and their wages, which
have not gone up very much over decades and, in some measure, have
stagnated?
The Republicans have promised over and over that this corporate tax
cut would lead to higher wages. In fact, they even put a number on it.
They said $4,000, and then they said that it might go higher than
$4,000 if you give this corporate tax cut. So they were not just making
a broad, unspecific promise. They were making a very specific promise
about what would flow from this corporate tax cut, which I would call a
corporate tax giveaway. Workers are the reason that those profits exist
when a corporation is profitable, and they should see the benefit of
the gains from their labor.
I will go back to this Bloomberg report. It quotes Jack Bogle, the
founder of the Vanguard Group, which is a major company in
Pennsylvania. Jack Bogle, the founder of the Vanguard Group, spoke in
New York on this very topic this week. He is quoted in this Bloomberg
story from November 29.
I will just read you part of what he said: The tax proposals being
debated in Washington are a ``moral abomination''--those are his words,
not mine--because they favor corporations at the expense of workers--my
words not his.
Here is what Jack Bogle goes on to say:
Just think about this: Corporate profits after taxes last
year were the highest they've ever been in the history of GDP
going back to 1929 . . . and we are thinking of giving relief
to the corporations at the highest levels ever. Individual
wages are at the lowest level in about 15 years as a percent
of GDP.
That is what Jack Bogle said.
He goes on to say:
So we are helping people who are doing very well and doing
nothing for the people doing very badly. One of the flaws is
that corporations are putting their shareholders ahead of the
people that built the corporation, the people who put their
heart and soul on the line and are committed to the company.
It is just the unfairness.
That is Jack Bogle of the Vanguard Group, not some Democratic source.
He finishes with these words:
But the worst part of it is that corporations are making so
much money now that they don't know what to do with it. They
aren't investing in new equipment, in innovation. They're
buying back their own stock, which helps the stock price.
He goes on to say the following:
I'm all for capitalism . . . I'm a capitalist myself. But
there is such a thing as too much.
That is what Jack Bogle said about this bill and about the effects of
the corporate tax break.
Bloomberg reported on Wednesday that corporate leaders are saying the
tax cut proceeds will go to shareholders, as I said, which is the exact
concern that many people have about this bill, among many other
concerns.
Republicans say that this tax cut is to help competitiveness and wage
growth. This amendment would simply put some teeth into that promise.
If because of a tax cut a company spends, say, $50 million more on
executives' raises and increased dividends and stock buybacks, then it
ought to have to spend $50 million, as well, to increase workers'
wages. That is the effect of the amendment.
If you are truly reinvesting in your company, your complying with
this amendment shouldn't be an issue, but if your only goal is to put
more money at the top, then without this amendment, this tax bill is
grossly unfair to workers. If you don't want to take my word for it,
talk to Jack Bogle
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss four amendments that I
have submitted to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that would strengthen this
legislation in ways that are important to our middle-income families.
I express my thanks to the majority leader, my colleagues, and the
administration for working with me on these proposals.
The first amendment would allow taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 in
State and local property taxes. In recent years, more than 95 percent
of all of those who itemize on their tax forms and 28 percent of all
Federal income tax filers deducted State and local taxes, including
property taxes. Yet the Senate bill would eliminate this deduction
altogether.
The deduction for State and local taxes has been part of our Tax Code
since 1913, when the income tax became law. It was intended to prevent
a Federal tax from being imposed on a State tax. In other words, it was
to prevent double taxation.
This deduction is especially important to the people of Maine. In my
State, 166,000 itemizers deducted a total of $725 million in property
taxes on their Federal income tax returns. This amendment would allow
the vast majority of Mainers who itemize to continue to fully deduct
their property taxes.
Improving the bill in this way--by preserving the property tax
deduction up to $10,000--is crucial for middle-income taxpayers across
the United States. In fact, for filers earning less than $75,000 who
itemize, the State and local property tax deduction is typically larger
than the State and local income tax deduction.
While I would prefer allowing the deduction of both State and local
income and property taxes, the benefits of the property tax deduction
are particularly important to middle-income families with less than
$75,000 in income. In addition, by allowing the deduction of up to
$10,000 in property taxes, my amendment parallels the provision that
has been included in the House version of the tax bill.
My second amendment would strike a provision that could lessen the
retirement benefits of church, charity,
[[Page S7521]]
school, and government employees, including firefighters, police
officers, and teachers. I appreciate very much that my colleague from
Ohio, Senator Portman, has cosponsored this amendment.
We are in the midst of a retirement crisis in this country. According
to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research, there is a $7.7
trillion gap between the savings that American households need to
maintain their standards of living in retirement and what they actually
have. As Americans are living longer, seniors are in danger of
outliving their savings or of no longer being able to enjoy the
comfortable retirements they once had envisioned. We must do everything
we can to encourage people to save more for retirement, not less.
Employees of churches, charities, schools, and local governments are
generally paid less than their counterparts who work for for-profit
businesses. Thus, they are less able to save for their retirements,
especially early in their careers. Accordingly, there are special
catch-up rules that allow these employees to contribute additional
amounts near the ends of their careers when they are likely to have
higher salaries.
There is also a special rule that permits churches, charities, and
public educational institutions to make contributions for employees
after they retire so as to make up for the shortfalls in the employees'
retirement savings during their working years. Regrettably, as drafted,
the Senate bill would hurt many church, charity, school, and government
workers by eliminating these critical tax rules, including the ability
to make these catchup and makeup contributions to retirement accounts.
Striking this provision, as my amendment would do, would ensure that
those employees who serve the public achieve greater retirement
security.
My third amendment would improve the child and dependent care tax
credit by making it refundable, thus providing much needed assistance
to low-income working families. Making this credit refundable would
help many families afford high-quality childcare or adult daycare for
older parents or relatives who can no longer care for themselves.
Working families are increasingly faced with difficult decisions when
it comes to balancing care and work, with some concluding that the
steep cost of care serves as a barrier to working more or working at
all. Nearly 15 million children in America under the age of 6 have
working parents. These parents, particularly single parents, often
struggle to find affordable, quality daycare, which ensures that they
can continue to work while having the peace of mind that their children
or their elderly parents are well cared for.
Congress should make this tax credit refundable, meaning that
families who have no Federal income tax liability but pay other taxes
will also benefit. Since it is not currently refundable, most low- and
some middle-income tax-paying families are unable to take advantage of
the childcare tax credit. In fact, according to the Tax Policy Center,
almost no families in the bottom income quintile have been able to
claim that credit. Think about that. These are the lowest income
families who need help the most in paying for childcare or care for a
dependent, elderly parent or grandparent or other relative; yet
virtually none of them qualify for the credit--none of them are able to
claim the credit.
To pay for making the child and adult dependent care credit
refundable, my amendment would close the carried interest loophole, a
tax reform that the President has endorsed.
Finally, high medical expenses are continuing to burden many American
consumers, yet due to a highly unfortunate provision in the Affordable
Care Act, consumers can deduct medical expenses only if they exceed 10
percent of their income. That threshold used to be 7.5 percent, and my
amendment would return the threshold to that level to help taxpayers,
particularly seniors who are struggling with the cost of long-term care
for a loved one.
Just this past week, when I was in Maine, an elderly gentleman
stopped me in the grocery store to tell me that he simply cannot afford
long-term care for his beloved wife, given the change in this
threshold. For those who suffer from chronic medical conditions,
experience unexpected illnesses or injury, or find that long-term care
services are a necessity but are not covered by insurance or Medicare,
healthcare expenses can quickly become an unbearable burden. Many
Americans are forced to choose between purchasing medical services and
making other equally necessary expenditures. Since World War II, the
medical expense deduction has provided much needed assistance to
Americans with catastrophic medical expenses. We should reverse this
ill-advised provision of the Affordable Care Act and reinstate the
ability of those hard-pressed by high medical costs to deduct expenses
in excess of 7.5 percent of their income.
I believe that all four of these amendments would strengthen this
legislation in critical ways and make it more beneficial for middle-
income Americans.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL. I thank the Presiding Officer for the recognition.
Mr. President, the Republicans' tax bill is a disaster for the
American people. It would give the ultrawealthy a tax cut and make
middle-class families pay for it. I can't tell you how strongly I am
opposed to it.
We have heard a lot from the President and the Republicans about how
their tax cuts will be a rising tide to lift all boats, but this claim
just doesn't hold water. Look carefully. On top of $1.5 trillion in new
deficits, they are hiding where more than $5 trillion of cuts over the
next 10 years will come from and just who will actually benefit. The
Republican budget would force steep cuts in healthcare, education, and
other programs that working and middle-class families rely on.
It is a terrible plan for my home State of New Mexico, where a lot of
families already have a hard time getting by. Plain and simple, the
Republicans' plan is a massive redistribution of wealth. Listen to who
it is taking money from and where they are giving it to. It would take
money from working families, seniors, children, the sick and disabled,
rural families, and the poor, and give it to the very top 1 percent.
They propose it at a time when the gap between the very rich and
everyone else is already growing. We now have greater income inequality
in the United States than at the height of the Gilded Age over 100
years ago.
I want to highlight for my colleagues across the aisle another big
problem with the Republicans' bill. It has not been talked about
enough, but it is important to my home State of New Mexico and to many
Western States. The Republicans' deficit-creating tax cuts are going to
cause automatic sequestration, and this will cut several mandatory
programs under the Pay-as-You-Go Act. Some of those are the mineral
royalties from oil and gas drilling and coal mining on public lands
that the Federal Government shares with States. New Mexico's royalty
share is projected to be $437 million next year. Other States count on
these payments for millions of dollars in their budgets too. Colorado
received over $80 million in 2016. All of that will be at risk. Wyoming
received over $660 million last year. Its State budget cannot afford to
lose that kind of money. Utah, Montana, and North Dakota received tens
of millions in mineral payments last year as well. These are royalties
that New Mexico and the States are entitled to.
In New Mexico we mainly use this money for public schools. Other
States use it for vital government programs like healthcare, roads, and
police.
Our State legislature has struggled the last couple of years to
balance the budget. The chair and vice chair of the New Mexico
Legislative Finance Committee wrote just this week to our entire
delegation. They warn that losing so much revenue ``would have a
devastating impact on the State's budget and would wipe out the
reserves our State has struggled to rebuild.''
New Mexico school kids just can't afford to take a $437 million hit.
I know it is possible for Congress to pass legislation sometime in the
future to take mineral royalties out of sequestration, but there is no
guarantee at all of that ever happening, and I am not willing to take
chances with the education of New Mexico's school children.
The Republicans' tax cuts will also hit Medicare hard. That is also
another
[[Page S7522]]
concern for New Mexico families. Tax cuts for the superwealthy and big
corporations will mean New Mexico could lose out on about $178 million
of Federal Medicare payments every year. I am opposed to trading off
seniors' health just so the rich can get richer, but the Republicans
seem bound and determined to take away America's healthcare, even
though the American people have spoken loud and clear. They want their
current healthcare rights fully protected. Republicans want to do away
with the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act. But we also
know that will mean millions of Americans will lose coverage, and we
know that premiums will go up because the insurance companies will be
covering a sicker population. I am opposed to trading off the American
people's health just so the rich can get richer.
The majority's bill is a bad idea for basically everyone in New
Mexico and across the country, except for the very wealthy individuals,
multinational corporations, private equity and hedge funds. These are
the folks who are being helped--the very wealthy, multinational
corporations, private equity and hedge funds.
Let's instead get down to the business of governing on behalf of the
American people, not just the top 1 percent
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
If you look at the United States of America today compared to when my
dad grew up, we have seen very disturbing trends in our economy. In
fact, right now, we do not have the same economy--the same bargain--
that we had in my parents' generation.
Someone who had a minimum wage job back in the fifties or sixties
made the equivalent of over $20 an hour today. The bargain in the
United States of America was that if you were willing to work hard,
willing to sweat, struggle, and sacrifice, you could make ends meet,
and you could make it work.
What we have seen, disturbingly, over the last few decades is that
economy twist and contort. We have seen massive disparities in income
come about in our Nation, with the wealthy getting wealthier and
wealthier, doing better and better, compounding and doubling down on
their privilege, but we have seen the middle class shrinking in the
United States of America and the poverty trap, where people are playing
by the rules, where people are working hard. They see their wages
stagnate while the cost of everything is going up, such as prescription
drug costs, the cost of food and child care, the cost of college. The
bargain in our country is not working now, and we need to do something
to change this.
At a time when American families are feeling the burn and the
challenge of high taxes, low incomes, and high costs, we could be
targeting middle-class Americans, and we could be targeting low-income
earners in a bipartisan tax bill that would not only help those who are
struggling in America, but when we give a tax break to those folks,
that money gets reinvested in our economy because people spend that
money, and we literally have a turbocharge boost to our overall
economy. But that is not what we are seeing right now.
As the Republicans scramble for votes, we are on the verge tonight of
doing something completely counter to what evidence, facts, and logic
would tell us to do if we were going to devise a tax plan to truly help
the middle class, truly help working Americans, truly help those
struggling, wondering why they are not doing as well as their parents
did.
Understand this: 90 percent of baby boomers in America, by the time
they turned 30, were doing better than their parents economically. That
has now been cut in half in the United States of America. If you are a
millennial, born in the eighties, it is now half who are doing better
than their parents because of the challenges I am describing, because
of the economic hardships. The bargain isn't working. Everything is
going up, but wages are stagnant.
We know factually that for the past 40 years, while workers' wages
have failed to rise alongside increased productivity--workers are
getting more and more productive, but for 40 years now, workers' wages
have failed to rise alongside of that increase in productivity. What we
have seen is that corporations' profits have reached a 60-year high.
In our country, it is disturbing when we see indices of social
mobility--the ability for someone born poor to make it out of poverty--
we see other nations, from Canada to classist England, doing better
than we are in increasing social mobility. We see other countries
``out-Americaning'' us, taking what is the very idea of the American
dream--that every generation should do better than the one before--and
showing more progress toward that dream than we are.
Social mobility, which is integral to our country, is disappearing.
Wages are stagnating. Corporate profits are at an alltime high. Costs
are skyrocketing. Everyone here knows it. I live in the Central Ward of
Newark, NJ. I see it in the faces of families at grocery stores, hard-
working families who are working full-time jobs, sometimes dual
earners, finding it hard to make their money stretch to meet their
families' needs, often finding themselves with more month at the end of
their money than money at the end of the month. Families all across
America, sitting at their kitchen tables, are finding it hard to
balance their budgets. Parents who are working two jobs are trying to
figure out how their kids are going to get to college and come out
without tens of thousands--over $100,000 worth of debt.
The bargain is not working, and we should be working in this body to
figure out a way to empower the overall economy and empower middle-
class workers. We are not doing enough to help American workers'
incomes grow. We are not doing enough to make the bargain work. We are
not doing enough.
I will tell you this: The tax plan that seems to be moving to the
floor today will not help restore that American bargain. It will not
help reinstate the American progress. It won't get us back to those
days. It won't help American workers. It will actually make things
worse over the long term.
We can debate philosophies about tax codes all we want, but we cannot
debate facts. The fact is that this plan is not pro-growth; it is anti-
middle class. It is not pro-worker; it is an even more severe violation
of that bargain between American workers and this Nation that created
our modern economy. It is an affront to the idea of hard work and
earning a living wage in America.
This plan is not investing in the success of American workers. It is
not a plan to give hard workers a break or a boost. It isn't going to
make our economy more fair. The bill is poorly designed and devised by
the President of the United States and by Republicans in Congress to
give a tax cut to those who need it least, on the backs of those
Americans who need it and deserve it most.
Again, this is not partisan rhetoric. A recent nonpartisan report
from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that, on
average, Americans earning less than $75,000 will face a tax increase
over the next 10 years under this plan. Remember, adding insult to that
injury, the corporate tax provisions of this plan are permanent, but
the individual tax provisions are not. In other words, this plan
actively targets the folks who are struggling the most. It targets them
with a tax increase and a sunsetting of the provisions that were
intended to help them.
Meanwhile, on the other hand, the biggest corporations and the
wealthiest individuals will receive a massive tax cut, and they will
receive that tax cut--this is not free money. This is borrowed money.
The $1.5 trillion added to our deficit is borrowed money that we will
have to pay for over the long term. It is a massive giveaway to the
wealthiest of people in our country and corporations, all under the
theory that somehow this is going to benefit the average American
worker. It will blow up the deficit and pump more money to the
wealthiest in our country at a time that wealth disparities are already
greater than they have been in a century.
Some of my colleagues are going to argue that this bill giving $1
trillion to corporations will somehow result in a trickling down of
things like raises for workers and somehow create new jobs, but that is
a fantasy. I am a believer that you look at facts and you look at
[[Page S7523]]
history, and we don't have to look that far. This fantasy has been
disproved, this idea of giving it to the wealthiest and it somehow
trickling down, of giving it to corporations and it somehow trickling
down to job creation. This has been disproved time and time again by
economic data, historical data, and by the words of corporate leaders
themselves.
Listen to the facts. A new survey found that the majority of small
business owners--these are the people who are the backbone of our
economy, who create jobs--oppose this plan. Six in ten think it
benefits wealthy corporations the most. Well, that is not just them
thinking that; those are actually the facts of this plan.
Take the word of leading economists. The University of Chicago's IGM
Forum--a collection of many of the top economists in this country from
a range and a spectrum of political philosophies--recently surveyed its
members, asking ``If we pass a bill similar to the one being considered
by Congress, will the U.S. GDP be substantially higher a decade from
now than it is currently under the status quo?'' Will this bill help
our economy grow? Of the 42 respondents, 41 said: No, it will not.
There was only one dissenter.
These are some of the world's preeminent economists. We didn't invite
them to the Senate to hear their opinions. We didn't have hearings. We
didn't have an open process where we brought in the best economic minds
from both sides of the political aisle, from both sides of the
political spectrum. We did not have a process that brought in the best
and the brightest to inform the investments we are making--$1.5
trillion. And what they are saying now is that this will not do what
Republican leaders say it will do.
Senate Republicans wrote a budget to free up $1.5 trillion--that is
what this will do to our deficit--to create these tax cuts. They can
distribute these resources any way they see fit, and somehow they have
managed to create, astonishingly, a tax bill that will increase taxes
on low-income and middle-income people, especially in States like New
Jersey, by getting rid of the State and local taxes provisions. This is
why Republican Congresspeople in my State are against this, because
this plan has been devised to hurt middle-income families, doubling
down in States like mine.
They have created a bill that small businesses don't like because
they know that the benefits are largely going to the wealthiest and the
biggest corporations, and the kicker is that economists say it won't
even spur economic growth. Then when major corporations see their
earnings go higher or get an influx of capital, what is going to
happen? Well, it is far more likely that their executives and
shareholders--not their frontline workers--will benefit.
Don't take my word for it; look at what has happened over the last
decade. We have seen record corporate profits, and what is happening
with those profits? Eighty, ninety percent of those profits are not
being invested in hiring more people or increasing pay; the
overwhelming majority of the profits that corporations are seeing are
going to paying dividends and doing stock buybacks. That is what
happens when corporations get more resources.
Don't take my word for it; look at what corporate leaders themselves
are saying. They have made it clear time and time again that increases
in profits will not trickle down to workers. Major American companies
have said point blank that they will not use their huge tax windfalls
to raise wages for workers. Companies from Cisco, to Pfizer, to Coca-
Cola, to Vanguard have said that their tax breaks will go to dividends
for shareholders, not wages for workers. According to Bloomberg, on an
earnings call in reference to the tax plan, one CEO said: ``We'll be
able to get much more aggressive on the share buyback.'' That is where
corporate profits have been going for a decade or more, creating more
wealth for the wealthiest and not for the average American worker, who
has seen decade after decade of stagnant wages. This shouldn't be
surprising. Corporate profits are at a record high right now, and we
see wages at a record low. That is a fact. And to double down on what
we know is not factual, that we know is not happening now--it is just a
fantasy.
Corporations are making more money today than they have in over 80
years, but the average worker's wages are at their lowest point in six
decades. This plan gives more wealth to corporations and not direct tax
relief to middle-class workers and low-income workers.
We could have gotten rid of carried interest--something even the
President of the United States talked about on the campaign trail--and
targeted the child tax credit or the earned-income tax credit, but that
is not what this plan does. This tax plan is a fundamental and costly
misdiagnosis of the problems facing American workers across the
country, and the right way to go about addressing them is not being
done.
So here is an idea: Instead of giving massive tax breaks to
corporations and hoping it somehow gets to workers, let's just give the
money directly to workers by giving the lion's share of this tax break
to middle-class, working-class, and low-wage earners. This is not
complicated. We don't need some fancy system of hoping things will
trickle down. Let's cut out the corporate middleman. That is a bill I
would support.
We should have been discussing in bipartisan meetings and hearings
how we can empower American workers and the middle class, because the
problem with the economy today is not that the rich are not getting
richer, it is that middle-class workers are not seeing their wages
grow. We should be discussing what we can do to break up this culture
amongst financial institutions across the country that prioritizes
short-term returns over long-term worker investments, that is making
CEO after CEO focus on stock buybacks that manipulate their stock
prices up and increase their incentivized pay but are doing nothing for
the corporation's long-term strength or the workers who are on the
frontlines doing the work and actually earning the profits.
Right now, despite record profits, investing in the long-term success
of their companies and employees through things like pay raises,
pathways to promotion, innovation--that has become the exception in
American society and not the rule for too many corporations.
We have a problem, and this tax bill doesn't address it. It will make
it worse.
There is no evidence that suggests that the Senate tax plan, which
hands 80 percent of that $1.5 trillion borrowed from the Chinese and
other countries that own our Treasury bonds--80 percent of that $1.5
trillion is going to corporations and business owners and the top 0.1
percent of the wealthiest estates. There is no evidence to suggest that
this will somehow reverse the trend and increase wages for workers.
This is insanity. This is folly. This is fiction being foisted upon the
American people.
Too many employers are failing to hold up their end of the bargain
when it comes to fair wages, safe workplaces, and workforce
investments, and now Republicans in Congress want to reward them with
$1 trillion and more. This is bad policy. This is unfair. This is bad
faith. This is going to worsen the erosion of the American dream and
the American bargain that people who play by the rules, who work hard,
who sacrifice for their families can get ahead. It is not going to stop
the trend of stagnating wages. It is not going to stop the trends of
everything going up but our salaries. It is not going to be the change
that we need.
No matter how it is disguised, trickle-down economics doesn't work,
and Republicans' attempts to camouflage it as tax reform is offensive
and won't work for American workers. We have proven that we are a
country and a society that can create wealth. We have that covered.
What we haven't proven and what this tax bill fails to do is to show
that we can be a society that creates great wealth and great
opportunity for all.
We have gotten off the tracks from where we have been generations
before. We have to get this train back moving in a direction that takes
all of its cars--all of the American people--to the promised land where
this country needs to be, must be, and was designed to be. This is the
challenge before us right now--to stop a tax bill that will make our
problems and the disturbing
[[Page S7524]]
trends worse and design one that is directly targeting middle-class
Americans, working-class Americans with enlightened policies that will
help our Nation to be one that fulfills its promise and its dream.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if I have time at the end of my remarks,
I would like to yield to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii. I will
try to be prompt.
Soon, this Senate will take a historic vote that will impact every
American. These votes do not come very often. The last was decades ago.
I think we all understand--or at least most of us understand--how
critical tax reform is. All of us in the Senate, on both sides of the
aisle, are familiar with the burdens and the complexity and the lack of
competitiveness associated with our current tax system.
It is abundantly clear that this complexity and our antiquated
corporate tax system acts as a brake on our economy. It is equally
clear that in recent years our economic growth rate--our gross domestic
product--has been stuck at a historic low level of 1.9 percent or less.
There are many opinions as to why our economy has been so stagnant,
causing American job loss, unemployment, and more reliance on
government programs. I want to underscore what the people of Kansas
have told me repeatedly as to why, at least in part, this has happened.
Small business owners, manufacturers, our community bankers, other
lending institutions, individual workers laid off or workers hanging on
paycheck to paycheck, and virtually everybody in rural America--
farmers, ranchers, and growers--at every townhall meeting have told me
that the No. 1 issue of concern is the crushing weight of Federal
regulation.
That was summed up by one Western Kansas rancher who said: ``Pat, I
feel ruled, not governed.''
But we are unwinding right now this regulatory overkill. Today we are
making government a partner, not a regulatory adversary. How on Earth
did we reach this sad state of affairs? Well, there are many factors--
administrative policies that seem to mimic or compare to the European
Union monetary policy, government agendas, and central control. But
with this tax bill that can change, and it will change if only we
recognize and take this important opportunity--an opportunity that many
Members in this body have never had to truly make a difference. This
time we can.
Can America get back to a place to make history and, once again, to
experience the power of the American dream?
I am confident that we can. We have before us now a comprehensive
plan to address these issues, cleaning up and modernizing the Tax Code
to help generate more growth in our economy. The bill before the Senate
does exactly that, providing meaningful tax relief for families, small
businesses, farmers, ranchers, and growers. I am especially pleased
with the rates and bracket structure the legislation would put into
place on the individual side.
We have done a good job pushing these rate reductions down to lower
and middle-income families. This would provide a net tax cut for
families in Kansas of about $2,500 and over 10,000 new jobs.
As many have pointed out today, we accomplish this by reducing
individual tax rates, raising the standard deduction, and increasing
the child credits in the Tax Code.
Let's be clear, these are consensus, bipartisan ideas and proposals
that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have, in the
past, at least--now not now, because of the legislative standoff we
have been going through--regularly proposed and supported.
Let me also comment on concerns raised by some of my colleagues that
we simply cannot afford this bill and that it will worsen the country's
financial condition.
In putting this bill together, we have used very modest economic
growth estimates, below the historic post-World War II norm of 3
percent. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office is currently
projecting 1.9 percent growth over the next 10 years, and we learned
today that the Joint Committee on Taxation says the Senate bill will
create only modest economic growth.
Now, notwithstanding the fact that I have never seen a CBO or Joint
Taxation Committee projection that has been really accurate, I think
these estimates are far too low. It is hard to believe. It is simply
unacceptable.
I refuse to accept that we cannot return to a more robust economic
growth. I think we will achieve better growth rates, and observe that
we are well on our way. Recent economic activity bears this out.
The economy is now growing at a solid pace with low unemployment and
low inflation. Real GDP growth during the first two quarters of the
year averaged 2.1 percent at an annual rate, and since January, the
unemployment rate fell 0.6 percentage points to 4.2 percent in
September. That is the lowest rate in about 16 years. Overall growth is
poised to average about 3 percent over the second half of this year--3
percent in the second half of this year.
While these are positive trends, my colleagues, we can do more. We
need even stronger growth. Stronger growth leads to higher living
standards, less dependence on governmental support, and a lower need
for spending on entitlement and other programs.
How do we get there? We have a tax bill--a tax bill to maximize
growth, to create jobs, and to increase wages. This is not what we have
just heard from many on the other side--trickle-down economics or any
other name that they want to call this. This is commonsense economics,
which I have yet to see be refuted by any mainstream economist.
Increase the supply of capital in the economy, and you expand the
productivity of the economy. This result is more business investment,
leading to worker productivity gains--workers who can then earn more,
increase their after-tax income, and, in the end, raise their living
standards.
I want to turn to an essential sector of our national economy--
agriculture, those who are responsible for feeding America in a
troubled and hungry world. I am very pleased that the bill reflects the
importance of production agriculture to our economy. It is important to
keep in mind that few other sectors of the economy face the multiple
uncertainties of production agriculture. We are talking about weather,
storms, fires, volatility in our global commodity prices, trade
disputes, and transportation issues, and the list goes on.
When we pass this bill, the agriculture industry will have a number
of provisions in the Tax Code that recognize the uncertainty and the
volatile nature of the income and expense associated with agriculture
operations.
These provisions--and we are talking about 34, 35 of them at last
count--include accounting rules that allow farmers to manage their
income and expenses.
For example, in the year when our commodity prices are low--and, yes,
this year they are low--they can account for costs in a way that keeps
them in operation.
There are also specific inventory rules to help manage costs
associated with the livestock and dairy operations and to handle items
needed for other basic operations, such as fertilizer and also crop
treatments. There are unique rules for timber operations.
Now, if you want to get down into specifics and just how far we drill
down to be of help to agriculture, even baby chickens have their own
inventory rule--which, by the way, differs from the rules for ostriches
and emus. I would imagine nobody would even think of drilling down to
that extend.
There are rules set for how to handle damaged stocks and livestock
disasters. They are certainly important as of today. I can tell you
that these disaster rules provided a critical boost to ranchers in my
State, enabling them to begin to recover from the devastating prairie
fires in Western Kansas earlier this year.
Turning to the new provisions in the bill, we have developed it with
agriculture in mind. I would be remiss here not to mention the strong
input and advice I have received on these matters from Senator
Grassley, Senator Thune, Senator Scott, and my other colleagues who
also share a strong interest in the agriculture economy.
The bill, for example, liberalizes the depreciation rules for
agriculture operations, giving farmers and ranchers 5-
[[Page S7525]]
year property depreciation, and permitting full expensing of plant and
equipment purchases.
The bill would greatly improve the ability of the agricultural
community to use the cash method of accounting, which provides
complexity in managing cash flow, which is essential to providing
certainty in operations.
There are significant provisions in the legislation that establish a
new income tax rate for passthrough organizations. This is a very
important issue for the agricultural community. The majority of farms
and ranchers are set up as passthroughs, and most of the income earned
by farmers flow through these structures.
The bill also includes new rules for farmer cooperatives, which are a
very important part of production agriculture. We work very hard to
ensure that the benefits of cooperative farming are held whole in this
tax reform plan.
The bill also doubles the exemptions for the estate and gift taxes up
to $22 million per couple. I know this sounds like a lot to some of my
colleagues, but for landowning, cash-constrained farmers, they can hit
this exemption amount quickly, especially in my State of Kansas. Even
when they do not, many farmers and ranchers spend thousands of dollars
a year on lawyers and accountants' fees to plan for the best way to
pass their life's work on to their children--something very special in
rural and smalltown America.
While I will continue to press for a permanent repeal of the death
tax, for now, let's modify it so we reduce its damaging reach.
Finally, and above all, the legislation will provide farmers and
ranchers with certainty during a very difficult time that we are going
through, certainty that they will be not taxed out of business on a
down year, certainty that they will have cash available to fund their
own operations, certainty that their hard-earned income, farm, or ranch
will not have to be sold off just because someone has died, certainty
that the Federal Government recognizes their irreplaceable role in
meeting the challenges of a very fractured and hungry world.
I am very pleased, to say the least, that the Senate bill keeps the
ag tax provisions but will also help our farmers by creating a much
more pro-growth tax system, lowering their tax burden and simplifying
the tax provisions relating to the ag sector.
We have an opportunity to experience a renaissance in our American
economy. It seems to me that for too long we have had a sort of copycat
kind of economic policy based on the European Union. We are talking
about a lot of government control. We are talking about more taxes. We
are talking about a lot of things that simply have enabled us to tread
water.
I know we are in a difficult time in the Senate with regard to
partisan differences. It reminds me a little bit of a country western
song that obviously my staff would hope that I would not mention, but
it was: ``The bridge washed out, I can't swim, and my baby's on the
other side.''
Well, the bridge is not washed out, and the tax bill is on the other
side, along with an American renaissance that will make America enjoy
even more economic growth and get us back to that historic 3-percent
growth rate and even more. That bridge is open.
I urge my colleagues to consider it as we go forward in this debate.
Hopefully, we have the votes. Then, if we have the votes--and I think
we do--hopefully, some of my colleagues across the aisle will join us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, the Republican tax plan we are debating
today is a sham. It is a solution in search of a problem.
The President and his allies in Congress are bound and determined to
give the richest people in our country and large corporations huge tax
cuts that will magically trickle down to create a fantastic,
incredible, wonderful economy. Why? Why do we even need this?
Corporations and the richest 1 percent of people in our country are
doing just fine, thank you very much. They certainly don't need any
more goodies. Over the past 10 years, corporate profits have grown
exponentially. More wealth is concentrated in the hands of the top 1
percent than at any time since the Great Depression.
Groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claim this bill will spur
new investment and help workers. What world are they living in?
Corporations have sheltered over $2.6 trillion offshore to avoid
paying taxes. This is money they could already be using to create jobs,
build factories, or raise employee wages. It is not happening, and it
will not happen.
These people and corporations do not need more money and profits. On
the other hand, middle-class families have been seeing stagnant wages
for nearly 20 years. Healthcare continues to be a political football,
with the President sabotaging the Affordable Care Act and congressional
efforts to repeal the healthcare law. The cost of a college education
is increasingly out of the reach of middle-class families.
The list goes on.
Rather than crafting a tax plan that would actually help middle-class
families, Donald Trump and the Republican Party have decided to screw
them over instead--all to give rich people and corporations huge tax
cuts they do not need.
In Hawaii we have a word to describe what is happening here. The word
is ``shibai'' or B.S.
We have had little time to debate the devastating impact of this
massive bill, but even in the short amount of time we have had, it is
clear how many of the major provisions in this bill would harm middle-
class families. For example, this bill eliminates the individual
mandate for healthcare, which is just another way to repeal the
Affordable Care Act. How many bites out of this repeal apple are the
Republicans going to take? Thirteen million people will lose their
health insurance. Premiums for everyone else will increase
significantly every year as a result of this yet another bite out of
the ACA apple. Do they think these millions of people who will be hurt
will not notice what is happening to them and their healthcare? I don't
think so.
The devastating impact of this bill is not limited to the parts we
have all heard about. The Republican tax scam has a number of obscure
provisions that are already having or will cause real harm.
The House bill, for example, eliminates the ability of State and
local governments to issue something called private activity bonds.
This kind of bond is certainly not something you hear being discussed
on ``Morning Joe'' or Wolf Blitzer, but they are critical to our
communities. Through private activity bonds, the Federal Government
allows State and local governments to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance
certain kinds of projects that help our communities. State and local
governments routinely issue these kinds of bonds to construct schools,
hospitals, et cetera.
Although this bill hasn't even passed Congress yet, it is already
having a devastating impact. Let me give a concrete example. Residents
of West Maui have been waiting for a hospital for decades. Right now,
on their side of the island, if there is a medical emergency, the only
way an ambulance can get to West Maui to Maui Memorial--the island's
only hospital--is on a two-lane highway. One lane winds around the side
of a cliff, making it susceptible to falling rocks and flash floods.
The other lane is being eaten away by coastal erosion. So on a normal
day, when nothing goes wrong, it will take over an hour to reach Maui
Memorial from West Maui, but if there is traffic or an accident on the
highway, you can forget about it. For serious injuries, even an hour is
too long to wait for lifesaving medical care.
Construction of the West Maui Medical Center is clearly important and
needed. When the project is completed, West Maui will have, for the
first time, a dedicated emergency room and will offer essential
surgical and radiological services. It will save lives. Although
initial work on this project has begun, construction has stalled. Why?
Because the financing for the project is being held up out of fear that
Republicans in Congress will eliminate the private activity bonds this
project needs for completion.
[[Page S7526]]
Other hospitals in Hawaii have used these kinds of activity bonds.
Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawaii that offers
prenatal care and services for women has expanded their facilities and
their ability to treat literally thousands of new people.
I have visited this hospital. I have heard from them. They cannot
understand why Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress
could, in good conscience, cut a program that saves lives, all to
finance tax cuts--not needed--for the richest people and corporations
in our country.
The theory, certainly not reality, is that these huge tax cuts will
magically trickle down to create a fantastic, incredible, tremendous
economy. The fact that this theory has been thoroughly discredited and
in reality shown to be false is of little concern to them.
What exactly, then, is the problem this bill is supposed to address?
Over the past 10 years, corporate profits have grown exponentially.
This bill eliminates the State and local tax deduction that thousands
of taxpayers in Hawaii count on. These tax giveaways to the rich will
force States to make huge and painful cuts to public education,
essential social services, and infrastructure investment.
When the project is completed, West Maui will have a dedicated
emergency room and will offer essential surgical and radiological
services. It will save lives.
Brian Hoyle, the president of Newport Hospital Corporation, which is
building the West Maui Hospital, said, ``We're waiting to see what
Congress does. All of the health care community does not like this
bill. It's a very bad bill for the state of Hawaii.''
Other hospitals across Hawaii have used private activity bonds to
finance much-needed expansions of service.
With the help of private activity bonds, Kapiolani Medical Center for
Women and Children in Honolulu recently finished construction on its
Diamond Head Tower, which houses some of the hospital's most important
neonatal functions.
Last year, I visited the new 40,000-square-foot Neonatal Intensive
Care Unit, NICU. The NICU is five times larger than its former facility
and can better serve the more than 1,000 of the most vulnerable babies
born at the hospital every year.
In only a few days, Kapiolani will open its new emergency room, which
is twice the size of its old one, to the nearly 125 patients who come
through their doors every day.
I heard from Michael Robinson, Kapiolani's vice president of
government relations and community affairs, on how private activity
bonds could literally mean the difference between life and death for
Hawaii residents.
He wrote to me, saying:
Private activity bonds were critical in the construction of
Kapiolani Medical Center's Diamond Head Tower, enabling us to
expand our bed capacity and meet the needs of the most
critically ill children and their families throughout Hawaii.
It's difficult to understand why Congress is considering
eliminating private activity bonds when this method of
financing has been essential in providing non-profit
hospitals the resources to provide care to the patients they
serve.
As Michael said, it is hard to understand how Donald Trump and his
Republican allies in Congress could in good conscience cut a program
that saves lives to finance tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
If this bill passes before the end of this calendar year, it could
trigger $136 billion in mandatory cuts to essential programs, including
$25 billion in cuts to Medicare. Senator Booker, Senator Murray, and I
have submitted an amendment that would automatically undo the corporate
tax cut if these cuts to Medicare happen.
If we are serious about a tax plan that will truly help middle-class
families in a meaningful way, we need to kill this terrible bill and
start over.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today we are debating legislation that
will dramatically reshape the American economy. It was written, and
continues to be rewritten, in secret by only one party.
It didn't have to be this way. Done right, this process could have
had broad bipartisan support. We could have passed tax legislation that
is fair, simpler, and fiscally responsible. We could have passed tax
legislation that is truly focused on middle-class families and raising
their wages. Instead, we have a bill that fails dramatically on every
single one of these principles.
This bill fails in so many different ways that I think it is helpful
for us to talk about each myth that is being told. First, let's
dispense with the myth that this is a middle-class tax cut. The bill
makes dramatic, permanent cuts to corporate taxes while making very
small, temporary changes to the taxes middle-class families pay.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, for many working
families, the tax changes are less than $100 per year or, more simply
put, about $2 a week. That is not a middle-class tax cut. That is a
myth.
The second myth we hear is that corporate tax cuts in the bill will
trickle down and raise wages for average workers. If that were true, we
would probably hear some of the CEOs delivering the good news to their
hard-working employees, but it is not. It is not true. It is a myth. We
know this because the CEOs themselves are telling us what they will do.
Yes, they are actually telling us--and it isn't raising wages. They
have been clear. They are going to use the money this bill gives them
to buy back shares of their own company's stock, and they are going to
increase payments to wealthy shareholders.
CEOs are telling the White House this directly. At a November 14 CEO
gathering, Gary Cohn, the White House's top economic adviser, was in a
room full of executives that were asked what they would do with the
money from the tax cuts. Would they put it back into their business?
Would they grow their business? Would they increase wages? Only a
couple of hands went up in a very large room.
Their hands weren't up because they have no reason to lie. Their
intentions have always been clear. They are going to take the money
this tax bill hands them and reward their executives and their wealthy
shareholders.
Again, we know this is going to happen because CEOs are telling us--
and the bill keeps getting worse. We are hearing this myth that these
tax cuts will pay for themselves. Well, they will not. After years of
telling the American public how important it is to address the debt and
deficit, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are now going to
pass a bill that dramatically increases deficits.
Nonpartisan analysis shows that this bill will inject $1.5 trillion
of new debt--debt my Republican colleagues should be prepared to accept
as their own creation if this bill passes--and $1.5 trillion in new
debt for our children is not fiscally conservative, it is fiscally
irresponsible.
It didn't need to be this way. We could work together to build a tax
code that lets working families in Michigan keep more of their hard-
earned money, levels the playing field for our small businesses, and
keeps good jobs in the United States. Michiganders and all Americans
deserve a tax code that is fair, simpler, and more responsible, not
more multinational corporate giveaways and massive new debt.
This bill clearly fails on all of these points, and I urge my
colleagues to vote no.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, this motion is pretty simple. If
corporations get a windfall because of a corporate tax break, the
workers should benefit as well. Worker wages should go up.
Let me read directly from the motion itself. We want to ensure that
``any tax windfall to profitable corporations . . . goes to . . .
worker wages.'' Aggregate worker wages would increase by an amount
equal to the increases in executive compensation, stock buy backs, and
dividends to shareholders.
It is that simple.
[[Page S7527]]
I urge a ``yes'' vote. I wish to thank my colleagues for their
support: Senators Stabenow, Whitehouse, Van Hollen, Udall, and Baldwin.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Casey
motion to commit.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, 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. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 287 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 Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask
unanimous consent that Senator King now be recognized to offer a motion
to commit, which is at the desk; that the time until 4 p.m. be equally
divided in the usual form for debate on the motion; that at 4 p.m., the
Senate vote in relation to the motion with no intervening action or
debate. I further ask that following disposition of the motion, the
majority leader or his designee be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maine.
Motion to Commit
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Mr. KING] 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) cause the bill to not increase the deficit for the
period of fiscal years 2018 through 2027.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 4 p.m. will be equally divided
for debate on the motion.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Honoring our Armed Forces
Airman Matthew Chialastri
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I would like to take a short break from
talking about the tax bill to talking about something equally as
important and much more poignant.
I will first recognize and honor fellow Americans serving overseas in
our military--men and women dedicating their time and effort to keep
our country safe. Working far from home and often in danger, every day
they risk their lives to defend our freedoms.
Today, I will talk about one in particular, U.S. Naval Airman Matthew
Chialastri, who not only risked his life but gave his life.
Matthew was born and raised in Louisiana. He graduated as the
valedictorian from Woodlawn High School in Baton Rouge, class of 2013.
There, he was a member of the JROTC Program, and after graduating, he
chose to enlist in the Navy.
After completing his training, he began his Active-Duty service with
Patrol Squadron 30, a P-8 training squadron. Then he served aboard the
aircraft carrier USS America, from December 2015 to October of this
year. He was then sent to Commander Fleet Activities in Japan to begin
preparing to join the USS Ronald Reagan. During the course of his
service, he earned the National Defense Ribbon and the Navy Battle
``E'' Ribbon.
Sadly, on November 22, during a transport flight to the USS Ronald
Reagan, Matthew's cargo plane was forced to make an emergency landing
in the Philippine Sea. Eight survived. Three did not. Matthew and two
of his fellow Navy servicemen lost their lives in service to our
country.
This is a terrible tragedy. Our hearts go out to Matthew's family--
his mother, Marty, and father, Phillip, his fellow sailors, and his
friends in Louisiana. We grieve with them.
As one of his former high school classmates said, Matthew could have
had any scholarship he ever wanted to any school. He could have gone
anywhere he wanted. He just believed that serving our country was
first. That was his everything. Others who knew him described Matthew
as smart, dedicated, and a strong leader. They said he could always
make those around him laugh with his dry sense of humor and smile.
As Americans, we mourn the loss of Naval Airman Matthew Chialastri.
As folks from Louisiana, we mourn the loss of one of our own, but we
honor his memory and the example he set for those of us who benefited
from his willingness to sacrifice. We thank him for choosing to serve,
for his sacrifice. We are forever grateful.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Motion to Commit
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I called my motion up that is now on the
floor of the U.S. Senate. It is a very simple one. It may be one of the
most straightforward, short motions to be offered in the course of this
debate. The motion is very simple. It refers this bill back to the
committee with instructions to bring back a bill which is deficit-
neutral. I believe that can be done, and I think it can be done in a
very short period of time. I think it is important, and I am going to
outline why.
Before I get to that, I will mention that Senators Tester,
Whitehouse, Harris, Van Hollen, Kaine, Warner, Bennet, Udall, Heitkamp,
Manchin, Coons, Feinstein, and Donnelly are all announced supporters of
this motion. I offer my thanks and appreciation to them for their
assistance.
Again, the motion is very simple. Recommit the bill. Have the
committee work it once more, and come back to the Senate floor with a
bill that does not bust the deficit.
This is one of the most important votes any of us will take in this
body. I think it may be the most important. This is a bill that will
affect America and Americans for a generation. If past history is any
guide, this will be the major tax reform bill for the next 20 to 30
years. It will affect every business, every citizen, and our entire
economy. The stakes, in other words, are incredibly high, and it is my
assumption that when the stakes are high, the bar for the process will
also be high. If you are doing something with such enormous
ramifications, it is common sense that you take a great deal of care to
thoroughly understand the provisions of the bill, its implications, its
impacts, its possible unintended consequences and be as careful as
possible in order to determine how this bill will affect our country
and our economy.
Instead, we have the worst possible process. In other words, we have
the highest stakes and the lowest process. It is the worst process, I
think, I have ever seen in a public body. The Bangor City Council would
not amend the leash law using this process. We are talking about one of
the most important bills that any of us will ever vote on that has had
zero hearings before the U.S. Senate. It has had no input from the
citizenry, no input from outside the community of this body--in fact,
outside the committee that has brought the bill to the floor. There has
been no outside expert analysis. There are bound to be mistakes in this
bill.
[[Page S7528]]
In fact, I have a new rule I am proposing today. I am calling it,
modestly, King's law. King's law is: The faster a bill goes through
this body, the worse it will be. That is what we are talking about
today. We are talking about bringing something through the U.S.
Senate--supposedly the world's most deliberative body--with little or
no deliberation, and the impacts are going to be enormous. I just
believe we can slow down and do this right.
The last time there was major tax reform in this country was 1986. It
is very instructive to look back and watch and look and see how they
did it.
No. 1, it was bipartisan from the beginning, and the Senate Finance
Committee had 33 hearings on the bill--33 as compared to 0. Have we
really fallen that far in this institution that we cannot even have a
series of hearings to understand what it is we are doing? It took 10
months to consider that bill, come to a conclusion, and have a vote on
the Senate floor--10 months. We are talking about a matter of days for
the consideration of this bill. The final point about the 1986 bill is
that it had passed the Senate with 90 votes.
That could happen here. Two days ago, I was on a stage with 16
colleagues--Members of the Democratic caucus--all of whom were
prepared, ready, anxious, and able to support tax reform, including
cutting the corporate tax rate to make our businesses more competitive,
but there has been no process to let them in, to allow them to talk.
The point I am trying to make here is, the vote we take tonight or
tomorrow morning--or whenever it is--does not have to be the end of
this process. It can be the beginning of a real process, which is what
it should be.
Now, one of my concerns--there are a lot of problems with this bill,
but the concern I want to focus on today and is the background of my
amendment which recommits and asks that the committee come back with a
deficit-neutral bill--is the debt and deficit itself.
This is a chart that should strike fear into the heart of every
American. This is basically the history of our national debt as a
percentage of the gross domestic product. This isn't dollars because
that can be misleading. Dollars, of course, are worth less now than
they were in 1930 or in 1850.
This is a percentage of the gross domestic product. It started back
in 1790, when the early Americans were paying off the debt from the
Revolutionary War. If you will notice, there is a pattern here that
stops right here. The pattern is, when we get into major catastrophes,
including wars, that is when we have to borrow money, and that is what
we did. Here is the Civil War, but it was paid down in 1910. Then there
was World War I--another huge expenditure. This is why you preserve
your borrowing power for when you actually need it. Then there was
World War II. Now, this line that goes down right here is of the
``greatest generation.'' The ``greatest generation'' not only fought
World War II, but they paid for it. They paid down the debt, and it
goes down into the 1970s. Then we have a bump up and then down.
Look at where we are headed. We are headed to a place where we are
not going to be able to sustain this debt. Everybody knows that. Yet
the bill we are voting on today expands the deficit by somewhere
between a half trillion dollars and two and a half trillion dollars,
depending upon how it is all sorted out. Of course, there is a little
bit of fake bookkeeping, where the personal changes to the Tax Code
expire in order to not bump up the cost within the budget window, but
everybody knows, and the people in the majority who are supporting this
bill are winking and nodding and saying: Of course, those will be
extended. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say they are going
to be extended and take credit for that and then turn around and say
but don't worry about the deficit.
This is the ``greatest generation.'' This is the ``me too''
generation that is not paying for things, and it is shameful. It is
going to come back to haunt us. Here is why.
We are now in a kind of ``Alice in Wonderland'' of interest rates--
the lowest interest rates that we have had in my lifetime. Around 2
percent is what we are paying on our Federal debt. The problem is, the
average for interest rates on our Federal debt over the last 50 years
has been about 5.5 percent. It is a really easy calculation when the
debt is $20 trillion, for 1 percent on the debt is $200 billion a year.
If you go to 5.5 percent, just interest on the debt is $1.1 trillion.
Now, if that number rings a bell for anyone in this room, that is
because that is the size of the entire current Federal discretionary
budget, defense and nondefense--$1.1 trillion just in interest.
Interest rates are already starting to creep up. This is not an
abstract fear; this is a high likelihood.
I have been around public life and politics for a long time, and I
have heard a lot about deficits. People have been concerned about
deficits until today. The deficit doesn't seem to be a big deal
anymore. I predict that after this bill passes, within a couple of
years when the deficits start to mount up, the same people who are
voting for this bill today are going to say: Oh, my goodness. We have
these huge deficits. What are we going to do? I think we have to cut
entitlements; we have to cut Social Security; we have to cut Medicare;
and, certainly, we have to cut all of those domestic programs. I do not
think that is right.
We had a hearing this morning in the Armed Services Committee with a
group of people who were talking about our national defense strategy.
Virtually everyone at that table--I think there were five or six--
agreed that the cost of rebuilding our defense capability over the next
10 years will be about $1 trillion. That is over and above the current
defense budget. We are talking about an additional $1 trillion. That
happens to be the amount that this tax bill will suck out of the
revenues of this country and be unavailable for any purpose, including
defense.
Those who are concerned in this body about national security should
be very concerned about this bill. I believe it will make it impossible
to do the kind of restoration of the national security apparatus in
this country that is necessary because we are not going to have the
money.
What we are doing is simply borrowing money from our children to give
ourselves tax cuts. That is really the essence of what is going on
here. If we were cutting taxes on a revenue-neutral basis, that would
make sense. I think you could make an argument for broadening the base
and lowering the rates. All of those kinds of things could be done, and
you could get the stimulative effect. Instead, all we are doing is
shifting the tax to our kids. If you are already in a deficit situation
and you cut taxes further, it makes a hole. You fill the hole with
borrowed money, and that borrowed money is going to have to be paid
back by these young people who are sitting in this room today.
If 5-year-olds knew what we were doing and could vote, none of us
would have jobs because we are spending their money. It is as if you
are lying on your deathbed, you call your children over to hear your
last words, and your last words are: Here is the credit card. We had a
great vacation, your mother and I. You pay the bill. That is what we
are doing. It is wrong. It is unethical. We are passing the bill on to
our children.
I know that the purpose is to stimulate economic growth, and I am all
for it. I believe, and said earlier on, that I can see where a
reduction of corporate tax rates and offshore rates is called for to
make us competitive in the world economy, but the idea that these tax
cuts are going to pay for themselves--it has never happened. It has
never happened. It hasn't happened. It didn't happen with the Bush tax
cuts. It hasn't happened in Kansas. It just hasn't happened.
We are talking about a dramatic increase in the Federal deficit on
top of what is already coming. That is what is really bothersome about
this. We can't talk about this bill in isolation without acknowledging
we are already spending half a trillion dollars per year more than we
are taking in--in relatively good times. These are the times when we
should be paying back this debt, not making it worse.
No rational business would be taking on debt when they are doing
well. When you are doing well, you pay down your debt, and then you
have a reserve for when you need it. We have no reserve. We are using
up our cushion. We are using up whatever cushion we might need for
disasters, for some kind of, heaven forbid, conflict, or simply for a
recession.
[[Page S7529]]
This is an incredibly destructive bill, and it doesn't have to be
that way. It doesn't have to be that way.
This is a place where I believe we can work together. This isn't a
yes-or-no issue. I understand the healthcare debate was a yes-or-no
issue: Do you want to repeal the Affordable Care Act or not? Yes or no?
This, however, is about numbers. Should the corporate rate be 25, 22,
28, or 20? Or how do we deal with the AMT or the estate tax or the
personal exemption? All of those dials can be changed in order to
achieve a targeted growth, which is what we all want. I realize growth
is the best way to solve this problem without, at the same time,
exacerbating this really serious deficit problem that we are headed
into.
There are provisions of this bill that have nothing to do with
economic growth. The estate tax--what does that have to do with it?
Eliminating the AMT--what does that have to do with economic growth?
There are provisions in this bill that don't meet the theory of the
bill, yet significantly aggravate its fiscal effect.
My motion is straightforward: Recommit the bill and come back with a
deficit-neutral bill, which I think can be done. It wouldn't take a
month. We can have some hearings that will give us some information
about what the impacts of this bill will be, and we will have a much
better bill. It will be a bipartisan bill, and we can meet the
responsibilities we have to the American people. I believe we owe the
people no less.
As I said at the beginning, there will be no more important bill we
can vote on in this body in our careers, and we owe it to the American
people to, No. 1, understand fully what we are voting on and, No. 2, to
do it in the most careful possible way to be the most targeted and most
effective and most responsible change that we can make in order to help
our economy and also to help all the people of this country.
There are many other issues with the bill, but I chose today to focus
my remarks and also my motion on the effects on the deficit because I
think it is one of the most long-term threats. In fact, the former head
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the national debt is the most
serious threat to our national security in the long run, and to
aggravate it unnecessarily, as this bill would do, I think is
irresponsible.
We can do better, I am sure, if we will slow down, listen to one
another, and do what the American people expect of us.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for
his kind courtesy in agreeing to let me take 2 minutes to reply to my
friend and colleague from Maine.
If this legislation is signed into law, we are going to have a
smaller deficit in future years than we are on a path to have now, and
I want to explain why. Fundamentally, I think most of us agree that tax
reform done properly generates more economic growth than a terrible tax
code. The right incentives lead to stronger growth. This is not a
simple tax cut; this is a complete overhaul.
We have $5.5 trillion worth of tax reductions, mostly offset with
$4.1 trillion of base broadeners. It is a net of about $1.4 trillion.
The effect is to fundamentally change the incentives--incentives to
invest, buy new capital equipment, bring money back from overseas,
start new businesses. They are powerful.
The question becomes this: How much more economic growth do we need
to generate in order to have additional Federal revenue that will
offset the static score at which this bill is scored?
We know the answer to that; Joint Tax has given us the answer to
that. What we need is a mere four-tenths of 1 percent of extra economic
growth on average over the next 10 years. If we get that--less than
one-half of 1 percent of economic growth--then we will fully fill in
this hole and, relative to current policy, have a smaller deficit than
we are on track for. We are talking about going from 1.9 percent
economic growth, which is the current CBO's term projection, to 2.3.
This year we are running at 3 percent, even before we do this.
I strongly urge my colleagues: If we pass this--if you care as much
as I know the Senator from Maine does about our budget situation, if
you care about our deficits, if you would like to have smaller deficits
and less debt, pass this legislation. Let's have the economic growth
that is going to swamp this really modest score as a percentage of the
revenue that we are forecasted to take in.
Again, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his kind courtesy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion of the Senator from
Maine. He is sitting right at the heart of this issue, and that is that
this is nothing more than a con game by the Republicans to give tax
breaks to the wealthiest people and the wealthiest corporations in
America and then, ultimately, to wind up with a huge addition to the
Federal deficit.
I thought I would take this time just to explain to the American
public what this whole concept of a reconciliation process is. It
sounds like a very fancy word, ``reconciliation.'' What does it mean,
though, in the legislative context?
You have to take it for what it is, and the key part of the words
``reconciliation plan,'' when we are dealing with the Republicans, is
the word ``con'' because the whole thing is a con job that they are
trying to pull on the American people.
Step No. 1 is for them to argue that they are going to give huge tax
breaks to the wealthiest corporations and the wealthiest individuals in
America. The vast, overwhelming percentage of it goes to them. Pennies
on the dollar go to average working families as tax breaks.
Then they begin to argue that there is going to be a huge increase in
economic growth in the United States, although they made the same
argument in 1981 with the Reagan tax breaks, and it turned out it
exploded the deficits. Then they made the same argument with the Bush
tax breaks, and it exploded the Federal deficit. The economic growth,
which they said was going to happen, never happened. Now they are just
bringing it all back again--deja vu all over again--hoping that
everyone will just buy the same, exact, now-debunked economic argument
for the third time in our history.
So the key is, first, we provide the tax giveaways to the
wealthiest--the wealthy corporations. That then results in exploding
deficits. Then they say: Well, there may be some additions to it, but
that is just a side impact. That is where they are extremely deceptive
because, in fact, that is a feature of their tax breaks. A feature of
their tax breaks is to create exploding deficits. How do we know that?
Well, because the Republicans have already called for, in their budget,
cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. They have already called for a $450
billion cut in Medicare. They have already called for a $1 trillion cut
in Medicaid.
The beauty of the Republican plan, to give all of these huge tax
breaks to the wealthiest in America, is that it creates such a huge
deficit that their elephant symbol is shedding crocodile tears about
how big the deficit is going to become. Of course, that will be next
year, when they are shocked at how needed it is to cut Medicare and
Medicaid. But they have already given us the preview of coming
attractions by putting it in their budget this year. This
reconciliation game, this con job, tries to separate the tax breaks for
the wealthiest from their brutal, vicious cuts to programs for the
poorest, the sickest, the elderly, the neediest in our country. That is
the game. That is the con game, the reconciliation game that they are
playing with the American public. By trying to divide this story line,
they seek to have it sneak through without any full understanding of
the ramifications for the American people or the implications for their
families.
Make no mistake about it, as they give the tax giveaways to the
wealthiest, that will result in exploding deficits, which will result
in the Republicans, once again, really caring about deficits. I will
tell you an amazing thing about the Republican Party. They care
passionately, deeply, about deficits when the Democrats are in
[[Page S7530]]
charge. But when they are in charge, oh no, oh no. Do they care about
deficits? Somehow they can turn a blind eye to their own actions, which
lead to exploding deficits. There it is, ladies and gentlemen, the
tribute that hypocrisy has to pay for virtue.
They have to say the right things about investment. They have to say
that this will not lead to exploding additional debt for our country.
But every single economic analysis of this bill, going back to the 1981
tax breaks, shows it is all the same play--a Trojan horse to give tax
breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. That is what David
Stockman actually said in 1985, in his famous book, ``The Triumph of
Politics.'' When he looked back at the 1981 huge tax break for
corporations and the wealthy, he said that actually the whole thing was
a Trojan horse to get tax breaks for the upper 1 percentile. He was
honest about it.
He also said another thing. He also said that ultimately the
Republicans didn't have the nerve then to cut their own special
projects or to stop advocating for massive increases in defense
spending, which runs totally contrary to their ostensible goal of
reducing the debt. So we are going to hear that. We are going to hear
that. We are going to hear a request from Republicans for a massive
increase in defense spending, along with their massive cuts in taxes,
as though somehow or other they can get a balanced budget out of that.
You don't have to be an accountant or an expert on budgetary matters
to figure out that does not add up--unless, ladies and gentlemen, they
are going to cut Medicare, unless they are going to cut Medicaid,
unless they are coming back for it again. If you kick them in the
heart, you are going to break your toe.
That is what this is all about--giving away trillions of dollars to
the wealthiest to create pressure on the programs for the poorest, for
the sickest, for those most in need in nursing homes in our country.
That is what it is all about, and, to boot, in order to get votes for
their bill, they then say to their own Members: We are going to allow
the oil industry to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--this
pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--for oil, even as just 2 years
ago they had advocated for lifting the ban on the exportation of oil
from our country that had been on the books for 40 years and even as we
still import 3 million barrels of oil a day from OPEC. We are now
exporting 1 million barrels of oil a day from our country. Where are
they going to get it so they can send it out of the country to China?
They are going to go to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, this
pristine place.
So here is where the oil companies are right now. They are going to
get huge tax breaks out of this bill. And in order to get even more
votes on their side, they are going to allow for drilling in a pristine
Arctic wildlife refuge.
In both cases, what is happening is that the next generation of
Americans, regular Americans, is the one that is getting shortchanged.
A despoliation of our environment, tax breaks that put inextricable,
inevitable pressure on the social programs that go right to the heart
of the safety net to protect ordinary family in our country--it is a
con game, ladies and gentleman. It is a reconciliation con game that
they are trying to play out here, and they do it time after time to
kind of hide their real agenda.
All I can say is that what the Senator from Maine is proposing is for
there to be just a little bit of honesty in terms of what the real
agenda is here, and what his motion calls for is for the Finance
Committee to ensure that there is no increase in the deficit in the
bill we are going to vote on on the floor. But that will never pass
because the Republicans have a con game going. All of a sudden, they
don't care about deficits anymore. They don't care about debt. They
don't care about the pressure that is going to be put on ordinary
families. Who will be paying back this debt? Well, disproportionately,
it is going to be the regular families in the country. They will be
paying back that debt for the rest of their lives, and the debt is
caused by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest. And to boot, it will
then be the programs for those ordinary families that get slashed in
order to pay for it because that is what is coming out here on the
floor of the Senate in the very near future, this not-so-secret plan to
actually fulfill their promise to the donor class of the Republican
Party. They have a sacred duty that they have pledged to their donor
class to get them these tax breaks and to do so at the expense of
Medicare and Medicaid. That is the simple deal here. That is the con
job they are trying to perpetrate upon the American people.
That is why this vote is one of the most important votes in the
history of the United States of America. There are no votes that are
bigger than this. It goes right to the shape of capitalism. They are
seeking to reshape capitalism as we know it--who gets the incentives to
be productive in our society and who then has to pay for those
incentives that are being created.
So, ladies and gentlemen, this momentous, historic moment is
something that I hope every American reflects upon as we head into next
year because the next stage is their all-out assault on Medicare and
Medicaid and probably Social Security as well, if they are ever going
to fulfill their commitment to their Republican base.
I thank the Senator from Maine for making this motion. I think it
goes right to the heart of the debate that we need to have in this
country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on
the King motion be extended until 4:30 p.m. today, with all other
provisions of the previous consent remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, as an outsider to this process in this
body, when we get to a major issue like this, I really become very
troubled. What we are trying to do today is historic. What we have been
trying to do all year--this process has been under debate all year--is
historic. I agree with my colleagues across the aisle, but I am going
to use another word, a six-letter word, that I believe characterizes it
the best.
We absolutely have a debt crisis. There is no doubt about it. In the
year 2000, the last year under President Clinton, this country had a $6
trillion Federal U.S. debt. At the end of George Bush's Presidency, we
had a $10 trillion debt. Now, at the end of President Obama's
administration--we added $10 trillion to the debt, such that today we
end up with $20 trillion of debt on about a $19 to $20 trillion
economy. Now, Mr. President, there are countries under World Bank
fiscal watch that have stronger balance sheets than we do today.
My concern is this. It is that both sides fight each other over this
issue depending on who is in the White House and who has the majority
in this body. The American people are fed up with it.
But I have to say that this bill, what we are talking about doing
today, is a con on the American people. Let's talk about what a con is.
Over the last 100 years, we have had three political supermajorities.
That is where one party or the other has a 60-vote majority in this
body, where they can do basically what they want. Sixty times they have
had that--I am sorry. We have had three of those in the last 100 years,
all Democratic. The first gave us the New Deal; the second, the Great
Society; and the third, Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare.
Now, I am just a simple business guy, Mr. President. I have run small
businesses. I started working on an hourly wage. I worked my way
through college. I ended up running a pretty big company. So my point
here is that I can lay at the feet of those three supermajorities most
of the responsibility for this financial catastrophe we have in the
United States. It is a full-blown crisis. It didn't just start this
year. The annual deficit--they talk about deficits. I talk about debt.
That is what we owe the rest of the world.
This year, this President, President Trump, inherited a budget that
this year will produce a $666 billion shortfall between revenues and
expenses. Yet we will collect a record sum of tax this year, the
highest in our history. Last year we collected the most we have ever
collected. The year before that, the most. So this has not been a
problem of raising taxes, Mr. President. Our problem is very simple:
The
[[Page S7531]]
size of our Federal Government has exploded.
In the year 2000, the last year under Bill Clinton, the size of this
Federal Government was $2.4 trillion. The size of our government last
year--under two administrations, one Republican, one Democratic--it was
almost $4 trillion. That cannot continue. Yet, since 2009, because of
sequestration and the Budget Control Act, the size of our discretionary
spending has declined from $1.5 trillion a year to $1.1 trillion a
year, and $250 billion of that cutback has been on the back of our U.S.
military at the very time when we face more threats and the world is
more dangerous than at any time during my lifetime.
So I am here today to talk about the con of all cons, and it is the
fact that the Great Society and all those sweeping programs--tens of
trillions of dollars behind the world poverty--have failed. Today, the
poverty rate in the United States is exactly the same as it was in the
late sixties when that was signed into law.
Mr. President, doing nothing--the proposal to do nothing is the con
of all cons. The con that bigger government has the solution for the
American people has been proven over and over again to fail.
Look at ObamaCare. Both sides are now agreeing that it has failed.
Now what we do about it is the issue. The Veterans' Administration was
a cesspool of performance. Obama's $1 trillion stimulus package back in
2010 and 2011 gave us nothing in terms of economic development.
As a matter of fact, the con of all cons is that we are coming out of
the slowest, lowest economic growth in the United States history--230
years. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are bankrupt. The U.S. Postal Service
is another bastion of success. Amtrak is bankrupt.
I think the greatest thing that we have to do today is get past all
that. There are no innocent parties up here. Both sides are guilty when
it comes to the $20 trillion problem. The $20 trillion is a
manifestation of Washington's unwillingness to get its fiscal house in
order and do what every other American has to do; that is, to live
within their means.
Doing nothing is simply not an option.
In the last 8 years under President Obama, we borrowed as a Federal
Government 35 percent of everything we spent. What that means is that
every dime we spent on our military, on our Veterans' Administration,
and on all domestic discretionary programs is borrowed because every
dime of the $3.5 trillion that we got in last year was spent on
mandatory expenses.
Doing nothing is not an option.
When President Trump took office, though, he said that job one was to
grow the economy. Why? Why is growing the economy important? Well,
growing the economy is important because it is one of the several steps
you have to employ to get at this debt crisis. Yes, there are going to
be some tax cuts for individuals--we will get to that in a second--but
primarily this is to be a stimulative package to get the economy
growing.
There are three pieces to it. One, lower the corporate tax rate. I am
sorry, anybody can debate this and win. We have to become competitive
with the rest of the world. In Asia, the corporate tax rate is 18
percent. In Europe, it is in the low twenties. Getting to 20 percent in
a dynamic situation where everybody is going down, like the UK--which
next year will go to 17 percent, Mr. President--this is the least we
can do. Getting our passthroughs to have parity is also critical. But
we have to first roll back Federal regulations. That is the first
piece.
The second piece is, we have to then push out our energy potential.
We just talked about a few of those. The Keystone Pipeline this year,
the Clean Power Plan, and ANWR are all moving along.
But the three pieces of this--lowering the corporate tax rate,
eliminating the repatriation tax, and then a tax cut for working
Americans--will actually get this economy going.
The other side says: Well, wait a minute. You are going to add $1.5
trillion to the debt.
OK. I look at it as an investment. As we just heard from my good
friend from Pennsylvania, four-tenths of 1 percent will more than pay
for that. Well, let's look at history. History says that over the last
100 years, 3.5 percent is our average on GDP. But more important than
that, in the last seven decades that we have enjoyed this economic
growth in America, only one decade have we had lower growth than 2.5
percent and that was one decade where we had 2.3 percent. At 2.3
percent, we more than pay for what we are talking about now. My
projection is that we will do a lot better than this, and there are
many other people out there, including noted economists, who say the
same thing.
Remember, we have $7 trillion not at work in this economy today
because of fiscal policy, not monetary policy. At the very time that
the Fed added $4.5 trillion to the balance sheet--the largest in
history--we got 1.9 percent GDP growth over the last 8 years. Mr.
President, you can only look at one place--and that is fiscal policy--
that would generate that kind of anemic growth in our history. So what
I am looking at right now is freeing up that $7 trillion, and this tax
package is one of several steps we need to employ that will begin to
unleash that capital power.
We have several trillion dollars on the bank balance sheets of
smaller and regional banks. We have a couple trillion dollars on the
balance sheets of the Russell 1000 because of uncertainty coming out of
Washington. And we have almost $3 trillion overseas in unrepatriated
U.S. profits because of our archaic repatriation tax.
Changing this Tax Code is not only necessary, the rest of the world
needs us to do this.
I will say this: Under President Trump's leadership and driving
force, I believe things are already beginning to happen, and that is
why we see reflections in the bond market and the stock market that
reflect a moving economy. This economy wants to move. I have watched
consumer confidence my entire career.
Right now, this is what is happening: So far this year, 2 million
jobs have been created. Some 860 rules and regulations have been
reversed, and most of these are onerous things that are sucking the
very life out of this free enterprise system. Illegal border crossings
are down 60 percent. Five hundred people--we voted 97 to 2 in this
body, in the U.S. Senate, where people say nothing is happening--in a
bipartisan vote, we voted 97 to 2 to allow the head of the Veterans'
Administration to deal with it like any other entity in the country;
that is, to be able to fire people for performance. Since that time,
over 500 people have been removed from the Veterans' Administration
because of lack of performance. Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the
Supreme Court. Consumer confidence is at a 16-year high.
Things are moving, but this body is still gridlocked, and that is
what we have to break through. What we have here is a historic
opportunity to change the direction of our country. This is why I ran
for the Senate--to be a part of trying to add some influence into a
future direction for our children and grandchildren.
Mr. President, do you realize that our children--this next generation
is the first generation in the history of our country that faces a
lower economic prospect than their predecessors? That is unacceptable.
We are the richest country in the history of the world. We have the
most dynamic worker base in the history of the world. We have a growing
economy again. This is not necessary.
So these changes that we are talking about--and I have heard all the
rhetoric today, even just in the last hour: Oh, this is all going to
the rich. This is all going to those mean old greedy corporations, and
by the way, nothing is going to the little guy. Well, let's talk about
the reality.
A family of four--this is a real-world example--earning a median
income of $73,000, in this bill, will get a 60-percent tax cut. A
single mom with one child, making $41,000 a year--which is a median
individual income--will get a 75-percent tax cut. I don't consider
those rich. I don't consider those big corporations. Those are
individual examples of what this tax bill is intended to do.
But more than that, for 6 million people who pay taxes today, under
this bill, next year, their tax rate will go to zero. Six million
Americans will find
[[Page S7532]]
that they will not be paying Federal income tax next year. But the
person who gets the biggest benefit from this entire plan is that
person who gets a job. That is not the half of it.
Our 35 percent nominal tax rate, the top rate for corporations, is
the most onerous penalty on the American worker that has been
perpetrated by politicians in Washington over the last 50 years by both
Republicans and Democrats. This is insanity. The other side talks about
insanity. When the rest of the world is almost at half of what our
corporate rate is, how in the world are we going to defend foreign
companies from coming and buying U.S. companies, and using the tax
arbitrage to pay for it? That is what is happening now. We can end
that.
This repatriation tax will free up almost $3 trillion. This is
extremely stimulative in the market. It will improve capital again. I
believe that on the back of an aggressive trade policy, we will get
exports growing again.
There is no good reason not to be for this bill today. All the false
accusations from the other side are simply just not true. Yes, there is
an investment here, but every time I bought a piece of equipment in
business, I had to pay for it. I paid for it upfront, and I got a
benefit from it. It is called a return on investment. That is exactly
what this is. For the American worker and the American people, this is
an investment, and I expect a return on investment from which they will
benefit.
This Tax Code is so archaic that it is embarrassing to talk about. I
will not even get into it because it is 2.4 million words. It is so
ridiculous. One of the intents here is to simplify that for the average
taxpayer. I believe we have accomplished that.
There are clear problems with this current plan--with this Tax Code
and its problems today--and this plan takes clear steps to address
those. It is an investment in our future. It is a rejection of the idea
that 1.9 percent is the new norm.
The other side, a few years ago, tried to convince us that was the
case. If we do nothing from today forward with the current budget under
which we are operating--which is the last budget President Obama left
with us--we are both guilty. This is not a partisan comment. But if
nothing is done, $11 trillion will be added to a $20 trillion debt.
That is unacceptable. That is not an option. It is not possible.
This issue is bigger than partisan politics. It is bigger than self-
interest. It is bigger than anyone in this body. This is about our
children and our grandchildren. This new tax direction will allow
workers to compete again on a level playing field with the rest of the
world and win.
Not only is our economic security at risk, but I believe our national
security is definitely in danger because of this debt. Both sides are
commenting on that today. Don't take my word for it. Almost 200 outside
groups have come out in support of this bill. That is historic in its
own right, when you do something that is this big, to have that many
people support it. I believe that what both sides of the aisle need to
do is to back up and look at what is best for the American people long
term.
There are two ideologies at war here. One side believes we need to
give more money to the Federal Government, have more big programs like
the Veterans' Administration, the Postal Service, and all those things,
instead of putting it back in people's pockets and investing in our
economy.
This is a historic moment of opportunity for us this week to change
the Tax Code and finally to help American families and businesses
compete with the competitors around the world. This standard of living
that we have taken for granted for 70 years is the greatest expansion
of economic exercise in the history of humankind. We can turn this
around, but only by getting back to the fundamentals of economic
opportunity for everybody--fiscal responsibility, limited government,
and individual liberty.
I believe we will do it. I believe the American people want us to do
it. This President's agenda will work. He comes from the business
world. I come from the business world. That is what this is about. We
have an understanding of what it takes to compete globally, and that is
what this bill does, finally, for the American workers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to go back to what this motion
does. This is to remand the bill back to the Finance Committee so it
can come back without adding nearly $1.5 trillion to the national
debt--maybe a heck of a lot more than that.
I am in business too. I will tell you that if I ran my business and
did the things in my business that this bill is doing, I would go out
of business. Why? Because my kids wouldn't be able to afford to stay
farming because I would have acquired too much debt. That is why this
is so important. It is why I applaud Senator King for bringing this
motion forward.
I sat on this floor, and I listened to folks talk about the threat
from North Korea, which is absolutely real. The money it is going to
take to deal with that threat is not going to be cheap.
I come to the floor, and I listen to people talk about the national
security interests of this country and how there are people who want to
do bad things to our country. We have to keep our country safe, but it
comes with a cost.
I heard Senator King talk earlier today about rebuilding our
military. We have been at war for 16 years, and there is a cost it is
going to take to rebuild our military. All of those things take money.
They are expenses of what we have to do here to keep this country
secure.
It is absolutely incredible to me that we have people walk to the
floor and talk about a 38-percent effective rate. Everybody on this
floor that is in business knows that is not the rate that corporations
pay in this country. By the time you do your deductions, your effective
rate is far less than that. In fact, some people feel it is about 20
percent.
But nonetheless, I will agree--I think both sides of the aisle can
agree--that we need to do tax reform. We need to modernize our code. It
hasn't been done in 30 years, but it can't be done in a way that adds
$1.5 trillion on to our kids.
Right now, we have a $20 trillion debt. There is no doubt about that.
That is $63,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. When I
sat in that chair that the Presiding Officer is sitting in now, when I
first got elected some 11 years ago, I heard folks from that side of
the aisle talk about the debt every single day. After the 2014
election, it has been crickets on that side of the aisle when it comes
to the debt. The debt is still real.
When we had the biggest meltdown in this country since the Dirty
Thirties, we had to make an investment into this country. I had people
in the construction business in my office with tears in their eyes
saying: There is no work in the private sector. You have to do
something to help stimulate this economy or things are going to go to
heck.
Times were tough. The debt increased. We had to get the economy
turned around.
Now, times are good. For all the folks who are in business--or at
least claim that they are in business--in good times, what do you do?
You pay down your debt. You save. You make a rainy day fund because you
know it is not always going to be like this.
Instead, in this body, we say times are good, but we are going to add
another $1.5 trillion on the debt. Just do it. Our kids can worry about
it. Hell, we will be dead and gone.
That is why this motion is so critically important--so we can send it
back to finance; so that there can be a true bipartisan discussion in
committee about what needs to happen with this bill and to have it come
back so it is revenue neutral. We can do that. We can help push the
economy forward, and we can help have a bright future for our kids, but
we are not going to do it with this bill. We are not going to do it
with a partisan bill like this is right now.
So I want to commend Senator King for pushing this motion forward to
remand this bill back to the Finance Committee so that they can bring
it back in a revenue-neutral position. We can cut taxes. We can broaden
that base without adding to the debt, and we need to do it. We need to
do it for our kids--the same reason that most of us claim we are here.
We are here to make sure we have a better future for our kids and our
grandkids. Let's do it with this bill. Let's walk the walk, not just
talk the talk.
[[Page S7533]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1720, and ask
unanimous consent that Senators Franken, Wyden, and Nelson be added as
cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not in order.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I do not ask for the unanimous consent,
but I would like to speak on an amendment that I will be offering
later.
Mr. President, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, and
the Republican leadership are busy every day telling the American
people how this piece of tax legislation is going to help the middle
class and how it was written for the middle class.
We see President Trump going to Missouri and saying: This bill is not
going to help me, who is a billionaire; it is really designed for the
middle class. I trust that I will not shock too many people when I
suggest that what President Trump is saying is not accurate, is not
truthful.
This legislation, according to numerous independent studies, will
provide 62 percent of the tax benefits to the top 1 percent. So 62
percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent, while it increases
taxes on 87 million middle-class households by the end of the decade.
Here we are, as every American knows, living at a time of massive
income and wealth inequality. The middle class is shrinking, millions
of people are working longer hours for lower wages, and 40 million
people are living in poverty. But over the last 40 years, the people on
the top have been doing phenomenally well, and today we have more
income and wealth inequality than at any time since the late 1920s.
Given that reality, who in their right mind believes that it makes
sense to give huge tax breaks for the people on top, while raising
taxes for the middle class? Do you know what? My Republican colleagues
here may think that makes sense. That is not what the American people
believe. Poll after poll after poll suggests--as it did with their
disastrous healthcare legislation--that the American people do not want
this legislation.
If you can believe it, the Joint Committee on Taxation told us just
last night that by the year 2027, 150 million households in America
making $200,000 a year or less will see their taxes go up, not down,
under this disastrous bill. Why? Because the tax cuts for middle-class
families expire by the end of 2025, while--surprise of all surprises--
the tax breaks for large corporations are made permanent.
The benefits for the middle class expire. They are temporary. The
benefits for the corporate world are permanent. The leadership of the
Republican Party is telling 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
bring in so much revenue that, magically, it will pay for itself. Just
give tax breaks for billionaires and large corporations, and those tax
breaks will pay for themselves.
But here is the reality. The reality is that trickle-down economics
is a fraudulent theory. When Ronald Reagan slashed taxes for the rich
in 1981, economic growth went down by 1.9 percent the following year,
and the unemployment rate increased from 7.5 percent to 10.8 percent.
The 1981 tax cut was so successful that Reagan had to increase taxes
eleven times after that.
After President George W. Bush cut taxes for the wealthy and large
corporations, we lost nearly 500,000 private sector jobs, the national
debt almost doubled, poverty increased, and median income went down.
After the rightwing Republican leadership in Kansas--the last example
of the theory of trickle-down economics--cut taxes for the wealthy,
revenue declined so much that they had to make savage cuts in
education, healthcare, transportation, and infrastructure.
Trickle-down economics did not work under Reagan, did not work under
George W. Bush, and did not work in the State of Kansas. It is a
fraudulent theory cooked up by think tanks funded by billionaires and
the wealthy.
Every independent expert who has taken a look at this tax bill has
said that it will substantially increase the deficit even after
accounting for economic growth.
The Joint Committee on Taxation has told us that this bill will
increase the deficit by $1.4 trillion over the next decade.
I want to make this point because it has not been made enough. Mark
my words. If this legislation is passed, if the deficit goes up by $1.4
trillion, I believe without any doubt, that the Republican Party will
come down here to the Senate and go to the House and say: My goodness,
we have raised the deficit, and in order to deal with that, we have to
cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition, education,
affordable housing, and every program that is important.
Mr. WYDEN. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. SANDERS. Yes.
Mr. WYDEN. I think my colleague is making an extremely important
point. I think what is important in his projection is that we have seen
this movie before. Isn't this what happened in the Bush tax cuts and so
many of these other projections? They get the sugar high by running the
big deficits up by the breaks to the multinationals and the donors and
the like. Then, they don't get the jobs. Then, they get these big
deficits. I think what the Senator is talking about is that, then, they
come back and go after the hunger programs, Medicaid, and Social
Security.
Is that what my colleague is talking about?
Mr. SANDERS. Absolutely, but it is not just an idea I have. It is not
just a theory I have. These numbers were put right into the budget
passed by the Senate, which called for a trillion-dollar cut in
Medicaid, then a $470 billion cut in Medicare, and massive cuts to
other programs.
Let's not even talk about the budget of several months ago. Let's
just talk about what our colleague Senator Marco Rubio yesterday--
yesterday--told a group of Wall Street lobbyists.
Let me quote Senator Rubio. He said:
Many argue that you can't cut taxes because it will drive
up the deficit. But we have to do two things. We have to
generate economic growth which generates revenue, while
reducing spending. That will mean instituting structural
changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future.
That was what Senator Rubio said yesterday.
Well, let me translate what Senator Rubio said yesterday and what
Speaker Paul Ryan has been saying. It is not theoretical. What they are
saying is exactly what will happen. I hope that the senior citizens all
over this country, people who are trying to get by on $13,000 a year on
Social Security, people who are trying to get by on disability, people
who are dependent on Medicaid for their insurance to help them stay
alive when they combat life-threatening diseases like cancer or heart
disease, people in America who are struggling today to put food on the
table, and working families who are trying to figure out how possibly
they might be able to send their kids to college will listen up because
they are virtually admitting--they are telling us--that they are going
to come back and cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Yesterday, I made a challenge. I said to my Republican colleagues: If
I am wrong, and it is not your intention to come back here and cut
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and education, please come down to
the floor and tell me I am wrong. Tell me you have no intention to do
that. I will apologize to you.
Well, we have not heard any Senators come down to the floor to tell
us they will not cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other
programs. In fact, off the floor Senator Rubio indicated that that is
exactly what they intend to do.
Let's be clear. We are not just talking here about a tax bill. That
is a disaster unto itself. That is a massive--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic time has expired.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. THUNE. I reserve the right to object, Mr. President.
Let me just clarify. I think the ranking member of the Committee, who
is managing the bill, also wanted some time. Is that correct?
Mr. WYDEN. We can see if we can work this out. Senator Thune has been
very gracious. Would it cause great
[[Page S7534]]
consternation over there to give Senator Sanders 3 minutes, myself 5
minutes, and then go right to Senator Thune?
Mr. THUNE. All right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Thank you.
I will wind it up, actually, in less than 3 minutes.
Here is the bottom line. The bill that these Republicans are going to
vote on would create massive tax breaks for the rich, raising taxes for
the middle class, raising the deficit by $1.4 trillion, creating a
situation where 13 million lose their health insurance and premiums go
up by 10 percent. That is only half of the story. The other half of the
story is that they are going to come back, and they are going to pay
for the tax breaks for the rich and large corporations by slashing
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
This legislation is an assault on the middle class and working
families of this country. It must be defeated.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I brought with me to the floor a copy of
the just-released analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation. These
folks are the independent tax referees for the Congress. I pushed very
hard for several weeks in order to get this dynamic score for the
Republican tax bill because, as the ranking Democrat on the Finance
Committee, I have heard my colleague say week after week that all we
need to do is to get the dynamic score, and people will see the value
of our bill. So we got the score.
The score ends the fantasy about magical growth, about unicorns and
growth fairies, suddenly showing that tax cuts pay for themselves.
In fact, this report showed that this bill would lose more than $1
trillion even with the dynamic score. It slows the growth of the
American economy after 2025. It is the total opposite of what was
promised. Even with the dynamic score, what we are seeing is that the
sponsors of this bill are spending $1 trillion and not helping those
who need the help.
The numbers are now in. This is the hard evidence that this bill
basically isn't much more than a holiday bonanza for multinational
corporations and powerful interests.
I have heard a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
already criticizing the analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation. I
am sure they are unhappy because this certainly unravels all of their
projections, and they continue, despite the fact that the hard evidence
is in. They are still saying that their tax plan is going to produce a
magical unicorn and rainbow fantasy of economic growth.
The facts are now in. The Republican plan loses $1 trillion. This
Republican plan slows economic growth. The growth fantasy is over. It
is over--
Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WYDEN. As soon as I have a chance to finish my statement.
Mr. CORNYN. Thank you very much.
Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to extend the courtesy that sometimes I don't
get from the Senator, but I am happy to do it.
The growth fantasy is over with this projection.
I am happy to yield to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the Finance
Committee. I know we have other Senators who are ready to speak. Since
the Senator believes that the Joint Committee on Taxation's dynamic
score of our tax bill is entirely accurate, would he agree with me that
the score demonstrates that there is economic growth generated by tax
cuts and, really, what we are just talking about is how much economic
growth is generated?
Mr. WYDEN. What I would say is this. Sure, there is what amounts to
negligible growth, but this slows the growth of our economy after 2025.
That is not what we were promised.
In fact, let me just recap a little bit the Republican promise.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said this bill would generate so much
growth that it would take care of the $1.5 trillion and generate $1
trillion on top of it.
What a difference between Steve Mnuchin's projection of $2.5 trillion
and the number that I have on this sheet from the Joint Committee on
Taxation--$407 billion worth of revenue.
I appreciate my colleague asking that. It helps us to clear up a
little bit more of what is at issue.
I appreciate Senator Thune being so gracious and giving me the extra
time.
Mr. President, I have a UC request, if I could.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Franken, myself,
and Senator Nelson be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 1720.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. I want to thank the Senator from South Dakota for
indulging me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, a lot of our colleagues on the other side
have come to the floor today and have talked about why they don't like
our tax reform bill. Many of those arguments have been focused on who
benefits from it. Of course, as is usually the case when you start
talking about any kind of an attempt to reduce taxes on the American
people so they can keep more of what they earn, keep more dollars in
their pockets so they can decide how to spend it rather than send it to
Washington, DC, Democrats complain that it is tax cuts for the rich.
Well, again, I want to point out--and this, of course, is based upon
the Joint Committee on Taxation, which was just alluded to--where they
find the benefits of the tax relief goal. As you can see from this
chart, these represent different income groups. The highest percentage
tax cuts actually go to those in the lower and middle-income groups. If
you look at who benefits from this, every income group gets a
significant tax cut, but middle-income Americans do particularly well
percentagewise under this tax reform proposal.
So the argument, again, that this is somehow simply a tax cut for the
rich just doesn't pass the smell test. It doesn't comport with reality.
Clearly, the numbers tell a very different story.
The other point I wish to make is that if we look at what we tried to
accomplish in the design of this tax bill, we see that we tried to
maintain the existing progressivity in the tax bill. We have one of the
most progressive tax codes in the world. We have a lot of people in
this country who don't have any income tax liability and some who
benefit from refundable tax credits that help to eliminate or partially
eliminate their payroll tax liability as well. But this chart shows
who, under our bill, when it is all said and done, bears the tax burden
in this country--in other words, the percentage of the tax liability
paid by each different group in different income groups.
When we look at this, we can see that those in the $20,000 to $50,000
range--this is their tax burden as a percentage of the entire tax
burden levied on Americans around the country--the rate drops from 4.3
percent to 4.1 percent. So those in the $20,000 to $50,000 income
group, as a percentage of tax burden in the country, pay less under our
proposal than they do today.
If we look at the group from $50,000 to $100,000, that income group
also, as a percentage of the entire tax burden borne by Americans, pays
less under our proposal than they do today. They pay 16.9 percent
today, and under our proposal they will pay 16.7 percent of total taxes
in this country.
Those, on the other hand, making $100,000 or more will pay slightly
more of the overall tax burden. Today they pay 78.7 percent, and under
our proposal they will pay 78.9 percent.
So people under $100,000 are going to be paying less as a share of
the overall tax burden than they currently do today. I don't know how
anyone can, with a straight face, argue that somehow this is a tax bill
that benefits those in the upper end.
With respect to the arguments that are being made right now regarding
the Joint Committee on Taxation release of the dynamic score, I would
say the same thing that my colleague from Texas said. I think the good
news in all of this is what it demonstrates is that what we are trying
to do actually generates economic growth. It actually generates
additional revenue for the Federal Treasury. We can argue about how
much.
[[Page S7535]]
We happen to think that the assumptions used by the Joint Committee
on Taxation are not accurate because they assume that we are going to
continue to grow for the next decade--our economy--at 1.9 percent.
Historical averages in the American economy going back to the end of
World War II show that we have averaged somewhere between 3 and 3.5
percent growth. So if we take the assumption that we are never going to
do any better than 1.9 percent growth in the economy, then perhaps
their estimate could be accurate. We happen to believe we are going to
do a whole lot better than that. We believe that if we put the right
policies in place and we make America an attractive place in which to
invest, we are going to see considerably higher growth than 1.9
percent.
So what does it take to cover the number that we created in this tax
bill that would have to be paid for with additional growth in the
economy? Well, it takes about four-tenths of 1 percent of growth--
increase in average annual growth--over the next decade. What does that
mean? That means that instead of growing at 1.9 percent a year for the
next decade, we are going to have to grow at 2.2, 2.3 percent--
somewhere in that ballpark--to not only cover this but actually start
generating revenue above and beyond what the impact of the tax cut
would be on the Federal budget.
What I would simply say to my colleagues is that when we look at
these various models that are done and the assumptions that are made,
remember that the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget
Office--the numbers they are using assume 1.9 percent economic growth.
I can't believe that we wouldn't have more confidence in the American
economy that we could generate higher than 1.9 percent economic growth.
That is the straitjacket that constrains their models.
There are other models out there that have looked at the same
information, the same data, looked at the same tax bill, considered the
behavioral effects of that, how it would affect the entire economy, and
come to a different conclusion. In fact, the Tax Foundation has
suggested that the tax bill we have in front of us today would generate
an additional $1.26 trillion in revenue over that same time period
because of the additional growth that would come with it.
What we tried to do is design a tax bill that not only delivers tax
relief to middle-income families--I think the two charts I just showed
demonstrate that we do--but secondly to put policies in place that will
create conditions that are favorable to economic growth so we can get
growth back up to a more historic level. When the economy is growing at
a faster rate, it means that companies and businesses are creating
better paying jobs. And if there is a competition for labor in this
country, and I believe there will be--when companies start to expand,
start to grow their operations, it increases the demand for labor, and
the price for labor goes up, and wages go up. That is what we want to
see.
That is the other thing about this bill that doesn't get talked about
enough. The reduction in rates on businesses means that they have more
to invest in their businesses, and one of the byproducts of that is
that it goes into higher wages for their employees. The President's
Council of Economic Advisers suggests that that impact would be about
$4,000 a year in additional income for average households in this
country. There is another study done by Boston University in which they
have concluded that it would result in $3,500 a year in additional
income per household in this country.
So the impact of the tax cuts is really twofold. One is that American
families would have more in their pockets. Why? Because we double the
standard deduction. In our bill, we double the child tax credit. We
lower rates. All of those actions impact lower and middle-income
families in this country. Those are all features they can take
advantage of that generate additional benefits to them.
Those benefits, by the way, if you are an average family in this
country--a typical family of four with a combined annual income of
$73,000--result in a $2,200 tax cut. That is a 60-percent tax cut over
what they would pay under current law. So that is $2,200 in that
family's pocket that they will be able to spend on themselves and their
families instead of sending that to Washington, DC, and having somebody
decide how to spend it here. We happen to have a lot of confidence that
the American people are better prepared and better equipped to decide
how to spend their own money rather than the Federal Government. So
that is a direct benefit, No. 1.
Secondly, as I said earlier, if you give the benefit of not only a
tax cut that comes to middle-income families but also the additional
growth in the economy that generates better-paying jobs and generates
higher wages, that increases your overall household income. That is how
American families benefit directly from the legislation we are
considering today.
My colleague from Ohio is here, and he pays a lot of attention to
economic trends. I think it is interesting to note that the
Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Tax Committee, which, in their
analysis, assume 1.9 percent growth in the economy for the next
decade--we think we can do a lot better.
I ask my colleague from Ohio, aren't we already starting to do better
economically? I think we have seen a significant improvement in growth
in the economy just in the last couple of quarters. If we continue to
stay on that track or a similar track, which I think this tax reform
legislation helps enable, we might be able to get to a point where we
are growing at a more historic rate.
What was the growth rate, for example, just in the last couple of
quarters that we have seen in this country?
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I think the Senator makes a great point.
We have had a debate here this afternoon about economic growth. One of
the realities now on which both sides of the aisle can agree is that
the tax relief we are putting out there, which is helping middle-class
families to have a little healthier family budget, is also helping
workers with regard to the international competition. Right now, our
workers are competing with one hand tied behind their back. All of this
is going to generate more economic growth. It is going to come from
more investment, more productivity.
In fact, the number that the Joint Committee on Taxation put out
today, although it is significantly lower than other numbers, is over
$400 billion in more revenue coming in. That is enough growth to
generate that much more revenue coming into the Federal Government.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, that is based upon an assumption that the
growth rate in the economy for the next decade is going to be 1.9
percent.
Mr. PORTMAN. Exactly. So that is the number--let's say roughly $400
billion--that they have.
By the way, there are 137 economists who tell us that it will be not
$400 billion, but it will be $1 trillion. This is their quote. Their
letter came out yesterday. ``Economic growth will accelerate, if the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passes, leading to more jobs, higher wages, and a
better standard of living for the American people.'' This is 137
economists who say that actually it is going to be more than twice as
much as Joint Tax says. There are other studies that the Senator from
South Dakota talked about that indicate there will be even more
economic growth.
Mr. THUNE. We are already seeing that, right? The economy is already
starting to pick up.
Mr. PORTMAN. That is one part of the debate: How much economic growth
is going to come out of these tax reforms that we are putting forward?
We know there will be a lot; the question is, How much? But this is all
based on a Congressional Budget Office estimate of growth over the next
10 years, the GDP growth, the economic growth. So we are sort of in a
straitjacket. Although we believe this tax reform proposal will help in
terms of that growth, we have to go by this number of 1.9 percent. So
1.9 percent is anemic growth. That is sad. If we can't do better than
1.9 percent, we have real problems in this country, and that is over
the next 10 years, projected.
As the Senator has said, it is kind of interesting that they are
projecting 1.9 percent and others are projecting higher numbers. In the
context of us having just finished a quarter that was 3.3 percent--it
was adjusted yesterday to 3.3 percent--and then the quarter before, the
second quarter of this year, was 3
[[Page S7536]]
percent. So 3 percent, 3.3 percent over the last two quarters, yet they
say 1.9 percent. There is a private forecast that indicates there will
be between 3 and 4 percent growth next year. The average, as Senator
Thune said, even with a lot of things happening, such as a recession
and hurricanes and other natural disasters, is 2.5 percent or more. So
this is not normal. In other words, this is a relatively low rate.
I know we can do better. I don't say, as some do, that this is
somehow the new normal. We have to do better. If we don't do better, we
can't begin to get wages back up again, which have been flat really for
the last couple of decades when you take inflation into account. We
know we can do better. That is why this tax bill is so important, to
give the economy that shot in the arm.
But let's assume for a minute that it will be only 1.9 percent--
dismal growth. Let's assume this tax proposal passes. Let's assume we
get the benefit of the increased revenue from that.
By the way, what we say in the tax proposal is that about $1.4
trillion to $1.5 trillion of tax relief will be part of this, and that
is out of $44 trillion over the next 10 years. That will provide a
little bit of a tax relief because we know the growth will come from
that. So let's assume that this is true. Let's assume you use the right
policy baseline, assuming that we are going to continue with the
current extenders, which we always do. We end up--stick with me here--
with about a $533 billion deficit over the next 10 years if we assume
this really low rate of growth.
If you assume that instead of 1.9 percent, we go not to 3 percent,
not to 2.5 percent, not even to 2.4, 2.3, 2.2, but let's just say 2.1
percent growth--again, very conservative, and I sure hope we will do
better, and I believe we will--but let's assume it is 2.1 percent. That
will generate enough revenue, because it is up to $270 billion per
every 0.1 percent, to have this tax reform proposal actually result in
money going back into the Treasury--in other words, reducing the
deficit.
So I think this is very fiscally responsible. I think it is very
conservative. I think 2.1 percent growth is not something that is at
all out of bounds. In fact, I think it is going to be far higher than
that based on the growth we have already had recently and the growth
that has been projected by outside forecasters.
So I would just say to folks who are hearing that this is somehow
blowing a hole in the deficit, I think it is the opposite. I think it
is going to actually result in more money going into the Federal
Treasury to get the deficit down.
Let me say something else. This is a debate we can have, but we have
to deal with the growth side if we are going to get the deficit under
control, there is no question about it, not just the spending side. We
have to get it under control. But even to do the important work we have
to do on a bipartisan basis with restrained growth, it is much more
likely that we will do it when we have higher growth. If it is 1.9
percent, we are not going to get there.
So let's get some pro-growth tax reform. Let's get the economy
moving. Let's give people the sense that we can tackle these problems.
Let's do something about the debt and deficit. We can do that by very
meager growth--2.1 percent versus 1.9 percent--and actually take money
that is currently in the economy at 1.9 percent--not moving much. Let's
get it moving more. Let's create more economic activity. Let's do that
to get that growth rate up a little bit through this tax reform, and
then let's actually begin to reduce that debt and deficit.
I just wanted to make that point. When we hear that this is somehow
fiscally irresponsible--I think it is very responsible fiscally, very
conservative. I think we will do better than the numbers we have seen
here of 1.9 percent growth. Certainly just 2.1 percent growth actually
reduces the deficit, and I think that ought to be brought into the
debate.
Mr. THUNE. And, too, some of our colleagues--and I count myself, and
I am sure the Senator from Ohio does as well, among those of us who
consider ourselves fiscal conservatives--realize that in order to deal
with debt and deficits, yes, we have to get our arms around out-of-
control Washington spending, and we have to do something to make those
programs that are driving that out-of-control spending more sustainable
in the long run. We also have to do the other side of this, which is to
restrain spending. But in order to deal with debt and deficits, we
really need that growth in the economy because higher growth, the
economy growing at a faster rate, means people are working, people are
paying taxes, people are taking realizations and paying taxes, and
government revenues go up. So we need growth, and that is what this
bill will accomplish.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the King motion to commit.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 288 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--52
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
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blunt). The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Stabenow now be recognized to offer a motion to commit, which is at the
desk; that the time until 7 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form
for debate on the motion; that there be no amendments in order to the
instructions; and that at 7 p.m., the Senate vote in relation to the
motion with no intervening action or debate. I further ask that
following disposition of the motion, the majority leader or his
designee be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, thank you very much. I feel like we
should be talking about the deficit, which is of concern to us and wish
it were of more concern to----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to call up her motion?
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, yes, I do. I absolutely do.
Motion to Commit
Mr. President, I call up my motion to commit, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Ms. STABENOW] 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) to revert the corporate tax rates to 35 percent in the
event that real average household wages do not increase by at
least $4,000 by 2020.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this would put in place a guarantee that
middle-class families would receive the benefits they are being
promised in this bill. I am offering this motion to
[[Page S7537]]
commit with the support of Senators Casey, Van Hollen, Udall, Cardin,
Booker, Wyden, Menendez, Harris, and Brown.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, there is no question
we need tax reform. We need tax reform that creates jobs, incentivizes
companies to bring back jobs from overseas, protects our farmers, helps
small businesses, and puts more money in the pocket of middle-class
families in Michigan and across the country. That is what we need, and
that is what I would vote for and I know other colleagues on our side
would vote for, but that is not what this bill does. That is not what
this Republican bill does.
We know our friends across the aisle are in a hurry to pass this
legislation as quickly as possible before the American people discover
what a bad deal it is. Unfortunately, for Republicans, we keep
uncovering new ways that this tax legislation is a huge giveaway for
the wealthiest 1 percent. Now we know, from the latest scoring, it
blows a huge hole in our Nation's debt, expanding our Nation's debt.
Here are just a few ways this legislation hurts middle-class
families. It keeps a loophole that lets corporations write off their
expenses, their moving expenses, when they move jobs overseas. However,
a family moving across the country to Michigan for a new job could no
longer deduct their moving expenses. Big businesses could keep on
deducting their State and local taxes, but middle-class families,
sorry, no State and local tax deduction for you. Oil companies would
enjoy a brandnew $4 billion offshore tax loophole. Merry Christmas.
Meanwhile, 87 million American households who earn less than $200,000 a
year get a tax increase. Let me repeat that. Eighty-seven million
American households who earn less than $200,000 a year will get a tax
increase under the bill in front of us, and health insurance premiums
will go up by 10 percent, and continue to go up, while 13 million fewer
people would have healthcare coverage.
President Trump has called this bill, in his words, a ``great, big,
beautiful Christmas present'' for the American people. Well, I
certainly hope the American people remember to keep the gift
certificate. This bill is a disaster for the middle class and a
disaster for our future.
President Trump isn't the only person who has made big promises about
this legislation. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, one of the bill's
biggest salesmen, has said: ``On the personal tax side, middle-income
people are getting cuts and rich people are getting very little cuts.''
I would like to highlight his first words ``on the personal tax
side''--very sneaky language. Once all the proposals that actually help
the wealthy are taken into account, all of them, it is clear that those
in Secretary Mnuchin's personal income category are the real winners.
White House budget director Mick Mulvaney is making promises too. He
said, ``The White House, the President, is not going to sign a bill
that raises taxes on the middle class, period.'' I would assume, based
on that statement, he wouldn't sign this bill. The nonpartisan Tax
Policy Center found that 87 million middle-class and working families
will see their taxes go up.
Perhaps the biggest promise of them all came directly from the White
House. ``The average American family would get a $4,000 raise under the
President's tax cut plan.''
Republicans have promised hard-working, middle-class families in
Michigan and across the country that by giving the top 1 percent and
large corporations a huge tax giveaway--you know the trickle-down
economic approach--that magically they will receive $4,000, $7,000,
even $9,000 in extra income. By giving this big supply-side tax cut,
magically, families will receive $4,000, $7,000, or even $9,000 in
their income.
Well, the proof is in their paychecks. That is what is going to
happen for the American people. They are going to take a look at their
paychecks to find out whether this is true, and that is why I am
offering a motion that will ensure that the benefits of these tax cuts
go to the middle class and that the promises being made to the families
in Michigan and across the country will be kept. This motion would send
the bill back to the Finance Committee with instructions to include a
trigger to return the corporate rate to its current level if the
average household wage doesn't go up at least $4,000 in the next 2
years. That seems only fair to me. People are being told over and over
again they are going to get money directly in their pocket. The
President said a minimum of $4,000. Well, the proof is in your
paycheck. That is what the American people are going to be looking at.
This motion simply makes sure the American people get the raise the
Trump administration is promising them. If my Republican colleagues are
serious about putting more money in the pockets of the middle class, I
urge you to support this motion.
You know Michigan families could certainly use an extra $4,000 in
their paycheck. What they don't need are broken promises--the kind of
promises they have heard before too many times. Just think back to the
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Colleagues from across the aisle came
to the floor and said the 2003 Bush tax cuts would ``allow us to grow
our way out of our current economic doldrums.'' What did we get?
Massive debt. And the Bush tax cuts ``will aid the people and
businesses who make up our economic machine and get it moving down the
tracks at full speed again.'' We got massive debt, and wages did not go
up. The train derailed, growth was anemic, and middle-class families
saw very little lasting benefit. If this approach worked, if trickle-
down economics worked, I would be supporting this. There is no evidence
that this has ever worked.
A new analysis of the tax bill is even more skewed to the top than
the Bush tax cuts. Economist Bruce Bartlett served as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan and
George H.W. Bush administrations. Last month, when asked if tax cuts
pay for themselves through greater economic growth, Mr. Bartlett said:
That's a lie. It's always been a lie. . . . There's not one
iota of evidence that will support this argument.
In fact, he added that wages actually fell--actually fell--for 10
years after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was enacted.
The Bush tax cuts didn't benefit middle-income families in the long
term. The Reagan tax cuts didn't benefit middle-income families in the
long term. What they did was cause the deficit to explode. That is a
fact. We all know what happened next. Republican colleagues pointed to
the huge deficits. President Bush said that now we need to privatize
Social Security, cut Medicare because, oh, my gosh, we have big
deficits. Thankfully, Democrats put an end to that plan. Well, another
distinguished Republican President once said: ``There you go again,''
and that is true.
The recently passed Republican budget resolution makes it clear that
their next step after this is to cut Medicare and Medicaid. In fact,
their budget already allows almost $1.5 trillion to be cut from these
programs. But don't take my word for it. Take their word for it.
Earlier this month, Speaker Paul Ryan made the Republican plan very
clear. He said: The next thing we are doing is going to entitlements--
Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, after the numbers that just came out
and the fact that even with dynamic scoring--what many would call
``voodoo scoring''--it doesn't solve the problem on deficits. So it
means cutting Medicare and Medicaid may be suggested even sooner.
You have huge tax giveaways to the wealthy 1 percent, which causes
the deficit to explode and causes them to cut crucial programs like
Medicare and Medicaid. That is the scenario that is in front of us.
I hope people will remember this. This is only step one. When folks
come back and say: Oh, my gosh, there is a huge deficit; we have to cut
Medicare and Medicaid, they will remember this debate and this time.
Middle-class families see their taxes go up. They see their
healthcare costs go up, and they see Medicare, Social Security, and
Medicaid cut. This is worse than a one-two punch. It is a one-two-three
punch, and middle-class families will feel every blow.
Michigan families deserve better than this. American families deserve
better than this. American families deserve real tax reform that
creates jobs and incentivizes companies to bring
[[Page S7538]]
jobs back to America by closing loopholes, not creating new ones; that
protects our farmers, helps our small businesses, and puts more money
in their pocket. That is what I support.
They deserve to be told the truth about the end goal of this
Republican tax plan. If Republicans mean it when they say middle-class
families will get at least $4,000 more in wages, well then, everybody
should be voting for my motion to commit because American working men
and women know the proof is in their paycheck. The proof is in your
paycheck. The proof is in your paycheck. That is what every single man
and woman working today is going to look at--their paycheck.
All I am saying is that, if you are going to tell them there is
$4,000 more, then we are going to measure that in the next 2 years. If
there is, that is terrific, and if there isn't, this tax scheme should
stop.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, many people are asking the question: What
is the difference? I believe my good friend from Michigan is sincere in
her desire to see the middle class succeed under any tax reform
package, and I agree.
The fact of the matter is that we are not talking about Republicans
versus Democrats when it comes to tax reform. We are talking about the
American people. I wanted to make a list of those benefits that will go
directly to the middle class--to every single tax bracket we have.
Every bracket gets a tax cut.
The typical American family makes around $73,000 a year. They will
see their taxes come down about 60 percent. If you are a single head of
household--a single mom like mine--raising a couple of kids, making
around $41,000 a year, your taxes under the new tax reform plan comes
down about 75 percent.
We are actually going to help by nearly doubling the standard
deduction. If you are a single person, your current deduction is
$6,300. Under our plan, it goes to $12,000.
If you are a single head of household, it is $9,300 now. It goes to
$18,000 under our proposal.
If you are in a dual-income household, the current deduction is
around $12,000. We double it to $24,000.
We double the child tax credit to $2,000.
I will tell you that there is a lot being said on the floor, and much
of it is hard to follow. I like to keep things simple. If you are a
single head of household with $41,000, put simply, there is a 75-
percent cut in your taxes. If you are the typical American family
earning around $73,000, the average tax cut is around 60 percent. We
are doubling your standard deduction. We are doubling the child tax
credit. There is a whole lot in this bill that benefits hard-working,
everyday Americans.
I am glad that my friends on the left are finally concerned about the
debt. This is a good thing. Under the last 8 years in the previous
administration, our debt climbed from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. So
it is good news that we will finally have an opportunity to address
that debt.
If we are going to address the debt, we are going to have to grow our
economy. Growing our economy requires us to do a couple of things. No.
1, we have to make sure that our Tax Code is competitive in a global
economy. Today, 35 percent is the highest in the industrialized world.
Our competition is around 23 percent. We have to be in a competitive
position so we grow our economy here at home. We do that with a 20-
percent rate.
If we want to make sure that the economy of the future is built here
at home, we also have to be able to bring home overseas profits, also
known as repatriating those dollars--$2.5 trillion--and build factories
and build opportunities with that $2.5 trillion here at home, creating
hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
Our tax reform package focuses specifically where America lives.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that I am able to
follow my colleague from South Carolina, who has, I think, described
and encapsulated in pretty simple terms this proposal before us.
This tax proposal is good for the country. It is good for American
families. It is good for Alaskan families and South Carolina families.
I am pleased to be able to join my colleagues this afternoon in support
of the reconciliation legislation that we have pending before us.
I happen to believe that the tax reform title will help our families
keep more of their hard-earned dollars. I think it will make American
businesses more competitive. I am also proud to be the author of the
energy title contained within this measure that works to strengthen our
long-term energy security. I think it is important that we recognize
the magnitude of the moment. Once in a generation we have an
opportunity to really take a hard look at our economy, the role that
Congress can play in encouraging new growth, and then take the action
that we need to get the economy back on track.
Our historic tax reform effort will grow Alaska and the Nation's
economy. When you look at it from the broader view--from a thousand-
foot view--the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is pro-economy, and it is pro-
growth. It is a pro-jobs proposal that reduces taxes and puts dollars
in the pockets of hard-working Americans at every income level.
Think about all that it does in terms of boosting the economy to
create jobs--jobs that feed our families and that help put our kids
through college, jobs that allow you to save for the unexpected events,
to be able to retire with peace of mind, and the flexibility to be the
great innovators that we are in this country.
What we see in this proposal are meaningful developments in the tax
code to provide substantive relief to Americans across the economic
spectrum.
In Alaska, if you take a family of four with two kids, earning
$50,000, that uses the standard deduction, they are going to see a tax
decrease of $1,400. If the same family earns about $75,000, that tax
liability would be reduced by $2,000. The child tax credit benefit that
we see from doubling or nearly doubling that tax credit is from $1,000
to $2,000--$1,000 of which is refundable. It also expands the
eligibility of children under 18, providing significant assistance to
the 22 million Americans who use the child tax credit.
In terms of simplifying the tax code, how often do we hear our
constituents say: Just make it simpler for us? By making it a simpler,
fairer tax treatment for individuals in every income bracket, again,
this is a proposal that delivers.
Most Americans take advantage of the standard deduction, and this act
doubles the standard deduction, resulting in a $12,000 deduction for
single filers, and $24,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly.
I focus a lot on the families in Alaska. We don't happen to have a
lot of large corporations, but when you look to the benefits contained
within this proposal and the impact they will have on our larger
businesses and our corporations, they are significant. Recognizing the
steps that we are taking to lower the corporate rates to allow us to be
more competitive, not only in this country, but globally, all we need
to do is really to look to what we are seeing already with the uptick
in businesses and how we can be doing more to help further incent that.
I think we recognize that lower corporate tax rates will allow our
businesses to compete against our foreign competitors and make the
investments in American operations. It will bring the jobs--the
economic growth that has alluded us for so many years.
In Alaska, it is over 99 percent. Actually, 99.6 percent of our
businesses are small businesses. They are taxed at the individual rate.
So the discussion that we have had with regard to allowing owners of
passthrough small businesses to be able to deduct an additional percent
of their business income from their taxes is a significant benefit for
our entrepreneurs, and one I certainly endorse.
Some of the other provisions that help our businesses are these: the
100 percent immediate full business expensing for the next five years
and the expansion of the Section 179 small business expensing. These
incentivize the kind of foundational investments that implement long-
term plans. They help to expand operations and encourage
[[Page S7539]]
businesses to take that risk that is needed when we are talking about
creating lasting economic growth.
The bill also helps our smaller businesses protect what they built.
When someone passes on, they have the ability to be able to pass it to
that next generation. What we have done with the doubling of the
exemption for the estate tax is important. There has been a lot of
discussion about the benefits that is seen with this particular
provision for our farmers. In Alaska, we don't have a big agriculture
section of our State, but we view our fishermen, really, as the farmers
or the ranchers of the sea--truly small businessmen. When you think
about the investment that a fishing family makes in a vessel, in the
gear, in the permits, in the quota, you can have a significant
investment totaling millions of dollars--$7 or $8 million. It is about
a million dollars when you think about the quota and the permits there.
So we are recognizing how we are able to provide just a little bit of
relief to those smaller families. I don't think they would consider
themselves millionaires in the sense of having that disposable income,
but being able to pass on that hard work that you have built as a small
family operator in a fishing business is important, and it is
significant.
The bottom line is that this is a proposal that does work. It does
work for Alaska families. It does work for our families. It gets
dollars into their pockets and relief to our families, and it will help
to restore competition in the global marketplace and, certainly, for
job creators and also in the confidence that now is the time to invest
in America.
I thank the members of the Finance Committee and the good work done
by Chairman Hatch for the work they have done on tax reform.
I would also like to thank the members of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee who worked with me to report the second title of
this legislation and to report it on a bipartisan basis.
We have very straightforward text. It is just six pages in total,
which is pretty impressive in this day and age, but this small package
offers a tremendous opportunity for Alaska, for the Gulf Coast, and
really for all of our Nation.
Within this title, we authorize responsible energy development in the
1002 area. This covers 1.57 million acres of land in the non-wilderness
portion of ANWR in the northeastern corner of the State. We require the
program to be managed in a manner similar to the environmentally
protective framework that is used for other Federal lands on Alaska's
North Slope. It also provides for two lease sales to be conducted over
the next 10 years.
In terms of how the revenues are shared, we split the revenues from
development evenly between the Federal Government and the State of
Alaska. We have limited surface development to just 2,000 Federal acres
within the 1002 area. This is just one ten-thousandth of all of ANWR.
Again, we are talking about a very limited surface development to just
2,000 Federal acres within the 1002 area.
Many have raised concerns, asking, what about the environmental
process? Do you sidestep that? Not at all. We have not preempted the
environmental review process. We have not limited the consultation
process with Alaska Natives in any way. All the relevant laws,
regulations, and Executive Orders will apply under our language.
I think it is important to recognize that this is not something that
just kind of appeared. Our title is the result of a regular order
process here in the Senate. It will include a regular order
environmental process, with laws like NEPA fully applied after we pass
it. So we have a regular order process before as well as after.
We also strengthened our bipartisan title in committee during our
regular order markup by adding a bipartisan amendment that was
sponsored by Senators Cassidy, Strange, and King. Their provision will
increase revenue sharing in the Gulf Coast to be used for priorities
like coastal restoration and hurricane protection. I think, as we have
seen, given the hurricanes they have endured in the gulf region this
year, there is certainly need for this critical investment.
The 1002 area in the northeast corner of Alaska is a long way from
the Gulf Coast, but it will bring substantial benefits to every part of
our Nation. With this provision, we will generate substantial revenues
for long-term deficit reduction--well over $100 billion over the life
of the fields. I think it is important to keep it in context. We are
not just talking about the short term within this 10-year window but
what will come our way over the life of the field in terms of revenues
to the country.
We are going to create thousands of jobs, not just in Alaska but
really all over the country. We will reduce our foreign oil dependence.
This is important because we are projected to remain a net importer
long into the future. In States like California, our foreign dependence
has actually deepened as we have seen Alaska's oil production decline.
So this means jobs and revenues for them as well.
Of course, you cannot talk about energy security without recognizing
the benefits to our country's national security and what this yields.
We are also taking a major step to make energy more affordable. The
fact is, the world is using more oil, not less. Our prices are rising.
OPEC would like to keep it that way, regardless of the consequences for
America. Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency, among others, is
warning of a looming shortfall in global supply. We have seen the price
spikes and the disorders that result when we fail to respond and to be
prepared.
I think we recognize that these are all significant benefits--jobs,
revenues, national security, affordability--but we should be equally
confident that this will not come at the expense of our environment
simply because we have the technologies, the new developments that
really have worked to dramatically reduce the footprint of
development--smaller than ever. The size of development pads on
Alaska's North Slope has decreased by roughly 80 percent since we began
operations in the 1970s. New technologies have expanded the subsurface
reach of the new rigs by more than 4,000 percent.
Folks have seen the various charts that we have had here on the floor
that show just how far we are able to reach below the surface from one
single well. If you were to drill down from below the Capitol here,
expanded-reach technology can take you all the way out to the National
Harbor, just to kind of put things in context. So the technologies
allow us to have a much smaller footprint.
Many exploration wells are now being built using ice roads and ice
pads that melt when the spring thaw comes, leaving no impact to the
tundra.
Making sure that we are being environmentally conscious at every turn
is what we do and is a priority for us in Alaska.
We hear the baseless claims of destruction and devastation, but the
reality is that is not our experience in Alaska. That is not how we do
business. We need less land to access more resources than ever before.
That is the reality in Alaska today. Alaskans understand this, and that
is why there are so many of us who so strongly support this
development--our entire congressional delegation, our Independent
Governor, our Democratic Lieutenant Governor, our Alaska Natives who
live on the North Slope, including in Kaktovik, which is actually in
the 1002 area.
Some people say this is an area that is untouched and unspoiled.
Well, you need to talk to people who live in Kaktovik who fly in on the
airstrip there, whose children attend the school, who work in the
clinic. These are people who also support the development.
The Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, the North Slope Borough, dozens of
our State legislators, and hundreds of Alaskans have called and written
in support of this effort. That is no surprise because 70 percent of
Alaskans support responsible energy development in the non-wilderness
1002 area. They are joined by many national stakeholders. We have the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers,
Americans for Prosperity, Securing America's Future Energy, North
America's Building Trades, the Laborers' International Union of North
America, and the International Union of Operating Engineers, just to
name a few.
There are some who worry about the potential impacts of development
in the 1002 area, and I would be the first
[[Page S7540]]
to agree that the environment and local wildlife will always be a
concern, always be a priority. That is why we did not waive NEPA or any
other environmental laws. That is why the consultation requirements
with our Alaska Native people still apply. That is why surface
development will cover up to, but no more, than 2,000 Federal acres.
The fact is, we will not sacrifice wildlife or the environment for
the sake of development, but we also recognize that is not a choice we
face. This is not an either/or proposition. This has not been the
experience in Prudhoe Bay, where we have seen the Central Arctic
caribou herd grow more than sevenfold since development began, and it
comes because we are taking care of our lands as we seek to develop.
If we are allowed to move forward with development, we will do it
right. We will take care of our lands. We will take care of our
wildlife. We will take care of our people.
I wouldn't support development if I were not convinced that it can be
done safely and responsibly. I was born in Alaska. I know I am the
first Senator serving who was born in Alaska, actually in the territory
of Alaska. It will always be my home. My husband and I have raised our
boys there, and we hope they lead a long and a healthy life in this
amazing and beautiful place. We know there is no one who cares more
about our place, these spaces, than those who call it home. We love
this place, and we will not risk its future for the sake of
development. But, again, we know that is not the case here. We know
that is not the trade-off. We know this is not an either/or
proposition.
The 1002 area was created by congressional compromise decades ago,
and we always knew that its future would require another compromise.
Today, we have it before us. We are not asking to develop all of the
1002 area. We are asking instead for 2,000 Federal acres--about one
ten-thousandth of all of ANWR. We have waited nearly 40 years for the
right technologies to come along so that the footprint of development
is small enough to ensure that the environment is protected going
forward.
I encourage Members to recognize the tremendous opportunity we have
before us. It is clear from my words today and those leading up to it
that I support this legislation, and I would encourage every Member to
follow suit.
I thank the Chair.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we have seen a number of battles here
recently that involve the question of, is our country going to make
laws by and for the powerful or by and for the people?
We saw a healthcare debate where my colleagues across the aisle
wanted to rip healthcare from 20 to 30 million hard-working Americans
in order to deliver tax benefits to the very richest among us.
Fortunately, we were able to stop that.
We have heard conversation here on the floor about the arbitration
fairness regulation, which said that nobody should be forced into an
arbitration when the other side gets to hire the judge, gets to promise
the judge future business, and gets to determine the outcome of the
decision. Yet my colleagues across the aisle voted for the powerful to
be able to have this fixed system to cheat the consumers of America.
Then most recently we had this question on the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau. The people of the United States love the fact that
we finally have an organization that fights for them in fairness and
financial deals so that predatory lending would be brought to a halt.
But my colleagues on the other side of this spectrum said: No. Let's
support the appointment of someone to run this who wants to tear down
that organization so there will no longer be the protection for people.
Time and time again, within just a few weeks, my colleagues across
the aisle have said: We are for the powerful to crush the people. Well,
we are fighting for the people, and now we are fighting for the people
on this horrendous tax legislation.
I have come to the floor to be with my colleague from Minnesota to
point out some of the worst provisions of this bill, and I turn to her
for her opening comments.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Merkley for his
leadership.
Mr. President, this current Tax Code--I would love to see tax reform.
I have long advocated for it. I actually would like to see the business
rates go down. I would like to see the money come in from overseas and
some incentives put in place. But this bill is extreme. This bill puts
a $1.4 trillion hole in the debt. That is what it does--additional
debt.
In fact, just yesterday, the congressional Joint Committee on
Taxation said that even when you account for any economic growth--and
this is the umpire here--that would add $1 trillion to the Federal
budget deficit over the next decade.
So what I would like to see--and what I thought we were talking about
at the beginning of the year--is a bipartisan effort. Seventeen of us
who are willing to cross the aisle and who have had a track record of
working on bipartisan bills stood up just this week and said: Work with
us. Instead, what we have is a partisan bill that blows up the debt. We
have a partisan bill that would be devastating to our economy. No one
has even had a hearing. No one has even looked at what the consequences
would be in this bill. Literally, on the hour, we are getting calls in
my office from small businesses, from regular people, from Main Street
businesses that have no idea what is going to happen to them under this
bill. All they know right now for sure is that it adds over $1 trillion
to the debt.
Where is the transportation funding we thought we could do with this
bill? We brought the money back from overseas and tied that into
infrastructure funding. That didn't happen. What is missing from the
bill? Where is getting rid of the oil giveaways? Where is implementing
the Buffett rule? Where is getting rid of something the President said
he wanted to change; that is, the carried interest rule. None of that
is in there. Instead, what we have, what our constituents are going to
get here at Christmas, is a stocking full of a big lump of debt.
One of the things that we know is an issue with this bill is the
double taxation we see in the bill.
Mr. MERKLEY. In fact, that is indeed one of the big lumps of coal
Americans are getting. One in three American taxpayers utilizes this
deduction, as should anyone who pays State and local taxes. How fair is
it that on the money people have already paid out in taxes--taxes to
one government organization--they get taxed on by the Federal
Government? It is double taxation. The Republicans, in this bill, are
standing for the unfair double taxation of Americans. It is absolutely
wrong, and it is a big deal.
The average deduction in Oregon among those who use the SALT
deduction is about $12,000. That is a very significant factor. That
means their taxes are going to go up. The Republicans, with this bill,
are saying yes to unfair double taxation, and we are saying no.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, another troubling aspect of this bill
is the inclusion of a provision to repeal a key part of the Affordable
Care Act that would kick 13 million--13 million--people off of their
insurance by 2027 and increase the individual market premiums by 10
percent. We should be helping with the premiums, not increasing the
premiums. This means less money in the pockets of American middle-class
families--less money to save for retirement, less money for college.
That is what we are talking about here.
The American people, in fact, want us to work together to make fixes
to the Affordable Care Act. That is what we did just about a month and
a half ago. The Alexander-Murray bill--12 Republicans, 12 Democratic
cosponsors, and I am one of them--that bill is sitting out there. Yet,
without even considering that, what does this bill do? It gets rid of
the individual mandate.
Senators Alexander and Murray held a series of hearings and
discussions on commonsense solutions. They actually had a hearing on
their committee. They had Governors come in, Democrats and Republicans
together, and that is how they put that product together. It is a model
for how we can put a bill together.
[[Page S7541]]
Instead of that kind of bipartisan approach, this tax bill not only
repeals an important part of the Affordable Care Act, but it would lead
to hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid,
hurting our seniors. Both Minnesota and Oregon have significant rural
populations, and those hospitals are just hanging on the edge as it is.
Now, what do we do? We sock them with this: getting rid of the
individual mandate which will, in the end, raise rates and hurt the
Affordable Care Act as opposed to making some commonsense changes.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, yet another terrible provision in this
bill is the dynasty loophole.
Now, in a bill that the Republicans are saying is targeted at the
middle class, why would you give $269 billion to the richest 0.2
percent of Americans? Envision a room with 1,000 people in it, pick out
the 2 richest people, and give them $269 billion. That is what this
bill does.
Now, this dynasty loophole is a way for the richest Americans to
bypass ever paying capital gains, as they pass their wealth from one
generation to the next. It is an enormous tax dodge, but if you or I
sell a property while we are alive, we have to pay capital gains on it.
The rich don't need to sell property over the course of their lives;
they can simply hold it to the end of their life and pass it on to the
next generation, never paying capital gains, and the next generation
gets it marked up to market rate so that can never be recovered.
What we are talking about here is a principle that the early American
Founders really detested. They had seen in Europe that very rich
families could pass on wealth from one generation to the next and could
control power in the country. That was the vision of government by and
for the powerful, accentuated by the passage of vast wealth from one
generation to the next. The Americans said: No. We want a different
form of government, one which empowers decisions to make every family
thrive; give them a chance, every family, to succeed.
That is the vision of ``We the People,'' and that is the opposite of
this dynasty loophole.
I dare a single Republican to come to this floor and explain how
giving $269 billion to the richest 0.2 percent of Americans has
anything to do with helping the middle class.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, this bill, as Senator Merkley has
pointed out, is really a bait and switch. How? Under this bill,
millions of middle-class Americans would end up paying more in taxes in
the long run. It is a bait and switch: Get a little reduction, a few
crumbs in your stocking in the short term, but in the long run, many of
the tax cuts they receive, if they receive a tax cut at all, would only
be temporary.
In 10 years, most Americans earning $75,000 or less would pay more in
taxes, while people earning more than $100,000 a year would continue to
pay less.
According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic
Policy, 644,000 Minnesotans with incomes below $153,800 would see a tax
hike in 2027. Yes, that is almost 650,000 Minnesotans who would see a
tax hike if they make below about $153,000.
I want to highlight again what Senator Merkley already discussed with
the elimination of the State and the local tax deduction. Many middle-
class families rely on these. In my State, we have both an income tax
and State property taxes. Over 900,000 households claim the State and
local income tax deduction, and over 850,000 claim the property tax
deduction. We have a lot of homeowners in Minnesota. Both of these
deductions are important for our middle-class Minnesota families. We
want people to own homes. We want to make it easier for middle-class
people to own homes.
For example, a policeman and a teacher with two children, with a
mortgage, could see their taxes go up under this bill by $250 to $500 a
year. Maybe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't think
that is a lot. Well, that is a lot for a middle-class family in my
State. Once these cuts disappear in 2027, their tax bill would be
$3,000 higher. Why is that? Because it is not offset by the fact that
they can no longer deduct their State and local taxes.
That is one example. Senator Merkley has others.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, not only do we have the dynasty loophole,
we also have a sweetheart deal for very well-off LLCs--the type of LLCs
President Trump has. He is rumored to have hundreds. I keep hearing the
number 500. We don't actually have a document that tells us how many.
These high-end LLCs already get a big advantage over C corporations
because C corporations pay a tax at the corporate level, and then they
pay a tax at the individual level when the dividends are received. Here
we have it: a sweetheart deal that would create a windfall of $362
billion with almost 90 percent of that going to the richest 1 percent
of Americans.
Time after time after time, what we see are not benefits to the
middle class; what we see are sweetheart deals for the very rich.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the Senate bill also allows companies
to blend the tax rate for income that is earned overseas, which may
give companies incentives to move jobs to foreign countries, which
creates a whole new tax avoidance scheme. I wanted to bring that rate
down, to bring jobs here, to make sure that money is invested here, and
to bring home some of the trillions of dollars that are overseas. That
was a good idea. The only question was where was the rate, but not only
did they change the rate, they actually changed the way we did those
taxes.
Bob Pozen, the former chairman of the oldest mutual fund company in
the United States, has noted that the system that is contained in this
bill, which includes this new average minimum U.S. tax, is ``like Swiss
cheese. It has so many holes that it would rarely be paid by U.S.
firms.''
He goes on to say that, in fact, this proposal would encourage U.S.
companies to relocate to foreign countries a lot of their intellectual
property. A minimum tax would be effective only if it applied, he says,
to the foreign taxes paid by U.S. companies on a country-by-country
basis, rather than on an aggregate basis across all foreign countries.
Nevertheless, both the House and the Senate bill allow these companies
to utilize this aggregate approach.
Yet we have not had one hearing to look at this new system. Not only
did we not have a hearing to look at what the new rate is, we didn't
look at the effect of this global minimum tax which encourages
companies to place jobs in countries that have no taxes so they are
offset by the ones that have higher taxes.
This bill would allow a one-time opportunity to bring back some of
the trillions of dollars. That is what we wanted to see in a bill, but
that is not what we saw in this bill.
I have always said that if we could bring back that money from
overseas, we should at least put a percentage of it in infrastructure.
That was going to be a gain from this bill. Democrats and Republicans
talked about this as a way of financing infrastructure.
The American Society of Civil Engineers' 2017 report card gave our
Nation's infrastructure an overall D-plus grade, but is there any
incentive for infrastructure in this bill? No. Is there any financing
authority like we have discussed to put bills forward on a bipartisan
basis? No. Is there any chance to put any of this funding, when we are
building up over $1 trillion in debt, into the highway fund? No. This
money is not going to infrastructure for Americans, and it is not going
to middle-class Americans.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we now go to the rapid round because we
have 4 minutes left to cover our remaining topics.
This provision is an attack on renewable energy. What does the Senate
bill do? It undermines the integrity of the usefulness of the solar and
wind energy credits, and then it proceeds to fail to address expiring
credits or the credits that need to be renewed in geothermal and in
biomass and in charging infrastructure and in microhydropower. Then the
House side makes it worse by proceeding to get rid of the credit for
electric vehicles.
What we have here is an effort to hand over the leadership on the
next big vision for power in the world to the Chinese. Republicans are
trying to help the Chinese take the lead and put America behind. That
is not America first, that is America behind, and it is wrong and we
oppose it.
[[Page S7542]]
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Again, I conclude by asking our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to work with us. Eighteen Democratic Senators
stood together with a track record of working across the aisle, asked
them to join us to work on a bill that would actually help the American
people, that wouldn't add this big lump of debt into Americans'
stockings, but that is not what this bill is. This bill is about debt,
it is about special interests, and it doesn't help the middle class.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the last loophole I will point out is the
Trump loophole. We know, from the one tax return we have from President
Trump, the only reason he paid taxes was the alternative minimum tax.
In fact, he paid $38 million in taxes that year, and we were told he
would have only paid about $5 million if it wasn't for the alternative
minimum tax. So there we have it, another big provision for the richest
of America.
This is not a bill that helps the middle class. It raises the taxes
on millions and millions of middle-class Americans, while provision
after provision after provision is targeted at the very richest
Americans. We need to stop this bill.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Vermont is next
up, and he has graciously agreed to let me take 2 minutes of time out
of our side now, before he speaks, so I appreciate that. I thank
Senator Sanders.
Our colleagues were talking about a number of topics. One that they
brought up was the SALT controversy, and the other was the individual
mandate. I am going to very briefly touch on these and hopefully have a
chance to expand on these at another time.
Let's be very clear about what SALT is. This is an acronym for the
State and local tax deduction. This is a provision in the Federal Tax
Code that allows taxpayers to deduct from their Federal return the
State and local taxes that they pay.
Some States have very high State and local taxes, and others have
relatively low ones. So what we have now in the current law is a
mechanism by which low-tax States are required to subsidize high-tax
States. It is not only States, by the way; it is also within a given
State. But I don't know how it could possibly be fair to force my
constituents who live in, say, Dauphin County, PA, and have relatively
modest services and pay a modest amount of taxes--why they should pay
more in income taxes to subsidize someone who gets to live in a
multimillion dollar condo in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, but that
is exactly what happens.
What we are doing is neutralizing this. We are saying: No, you are
not going to be able to have this subsidy. Everyone is going to pay
their own State and local taxes, and we will have a lower rate of
Federal income tax as a result.
Let's be very clear. This benefits the wealthiest taxpayers. It is
the wealthiest taxpayers who take the State and local tax deduction. A
big majority of ordinary taxpayers take the standard deduction. They
don't itemize. They don't take the State and local tax deduction. This
is a blow for fairness among the States, but also within a State where
you have varying tax jurisdictions.
The second thing I want to point out is the individual mandate
repeal. That is what we call it. In honesty, as we all know, what we
have done is--we are zeroing out the penalty, the tax imposed on people
who cannot afford or do not wish to purchase an ObamaCare plan. That is
all we are doing here. Not a single person is disqualified. Not a
single person loses the benefit. There is no reduction in
reimbursements to any healthcare providers. There is no spending. There
is no reduction in spending. The word ``Medicare'' doesn't come up;
``Medicaid'' doesn't come up.
What we are simply saying is this: If you find that these ObamaCare
plans are not suitable for you and your family or you can't afford
them, we are no longer going to hit you with a tax penalty for the fact
that you can't afford this plan that is not well suited for you. That
is all.
Again, let's be clear about who this affects. This terrible tax hits
low-income people the hardest. In Pennsylvania, 83 percent of the
people who pay the individual mandate tax make less than $50,000.
What a terrible offense to our sense of freedom--the idea that the
Federal Government would force someone to purchase a product or a
service that they don't want to buy, a service or product that doesn't
meet their needs, and then hit them with a tax if they don't purchase
it. It was always a very bad idea. This is a blow for freedom, and it
is a tax relief measure, especially for low-income people.
I thank the Senator from Vermont for giving me this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am so happy that my colleague, my
friend from Pennsylvania, is concerned about fairness, which, no doubt,
is why 62 percent of the benefits in this tax proposal are going to go
to the top 1 percent, and after 10 years we are going to see over 80
million middle-class families pay more in taxes while the richest
people in this country get huge tax breaks. If that is the definition
of fairness, then I don't quite know what unfairness is about.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Blumenthal,
Merkley, and Warren be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 1720, which
I am offering.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering with Senators
Leahy, Brown, Harris, Baldwin, Udall, Reed, Markey, Heinrich, and
Hirono is very simple and straightforward, and I am glad that a number
of my Republican colleagues are on the floor because they can help me
as we go forward on this amendment.
What my amendment would do is establish a point of order to prevent
cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, which could
be waived only by two-thirds of the Senate. In other words, what we are
trying to do here is make it harder for there to be cuts to Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
I want everyone in America to know that this tax proposal is more
than a tax proposal. It is my absolute belief that as soon as this tax
proposal is completed and drives the deficit up by $1.4 trillion--I
have zero doubt that my Republican colleagues are going to come back to
the floor of the Senate and suddenly say: Oh, my goodness, the deficit
has gone up. We have to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
I happen to see my friend from Pennsylvania here on the floor--a
friend. I say to him, and I say to the leader of the Senate, Mr.
McConnell: I will withdraw this amendment if you can assure the
American people tonight that you are not going to come back to the
Senate and cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Can I have that
assurance?
Mr. TOOMEY. Sure.
Mr. SANDERS. I would yield time--good. I would yield time to my
friend from Pennsylvania to assure--now, I see Senator Rubio down here
as well. He just the other day--correct me if I am wrong, Senator
Rubio. I know you have just walked in, and I have gotten you into this
debate. But correct me if I am wrong, if you did not say yesterday that
the Senate would now proceed to an ``entitlement reform,'' which, in
fact, will mean cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
I will yield to my friend from Florida to tell me whether I am
accurately portraying what he said just the other day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, it would surprise my friend to know that in
Florida we have a lot of people on Medicare and Social Security.
Mr. SANDERS. I know that.
Mr. RUBIO. One of them is my mother. If I were to cut her Medicare
and Social Security, sir, I probably would never be able to see her
again or go home. So the answer to your question is no.
As I have been clear time and again, I believe that for future
generations, like mine, there need to be adjustments made.
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time.
Let me quote you, Senator Rubio, and tell me if this is right. This
is a quote that you just made yesterday,
[[Page S7543]]
and if I am wrong, I apologize. But as I understand it, you spoke to a
group of Wall Street lobbyists, and this is what you said:
Many argue that you can't cut taxes because it will drive
up the deficit. But we have to do two things. We have to
generate economic growth which generates revenue, while
reducing spending. That will mean instituting structural
changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future.
Let me help define what my Republican colleagues mean when they talk
about structural changes to Social Security and Medicare. It will mean
that at a time when senior citizens are splitting their pills in half,
Republicans will go forward with massive cuts to Medicare.
Maybe their idea will be to raise the retirement age to 70, forcing
older workers in terms of Social Security to work more before they can
get their benefits. Maybe it will be privatizing Medicare and giving
people a voucher. When my Republican friends talk about saving Social
Security and Medicare, what they are talking about is cutting it.
Mr. TOOMEY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I will yield.
Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you.
Mr. SANDERS. I will yield 1 minute.
Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the Senator.
I just want to make a quick point. The Senator from Vermont is
concerned that we are going to cut Medicare or Medicaid. Neither word
appears in the bill.
Furthermore, if that were our plan, this would be the perfect vehicle
to do it. It is reconciliation instruction. We could do it without
requiring a single Democratic vote. We could do it. We could finish it.
We have control of the House. If we had any intention of doing that,
this would be the vehicle. But the words don't even appear.
Mr. SANDERS. OK, and I did not say the words do appear. What I did
say is that when this legislation is passed and you add $1.4 trillion
to the deficit, then you are going to come back and cut Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
So is my friend from Pennsylvania now--and that is interesting--are
you guaranteeing the American people that you will not be cutting
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?
Don't use the word ``save'' because what ``save'' means is a cut.
Will you guarantee the American people now that there will be zero cuts
to benefits in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and that you are
not--excuse me. It is my time. I will yield to you. I will yield to
you, but let me finish. I yielded to you before.
Will you guarantee the people of this country that after this bill
passes, you will not come back, raise the retirement age, voucherize
Medicare, raise the retirement age for Medicare, or cut cost-of-living
increases by instituting a so-called Chained CPI? Do I have your word
on that?
Mr. TOOMEY. I have to disappoint the Senator from Vermont by
informing him that there is no secret plan to do any of the above. We
are not in some process to spring something. If we wanted to make these
changes in Medicare and Medicaid, this would be the vehicle because we
have reconciliation protection.
Mr. SANDERS. Let me be very clear. Do I have your word now that you
as a Senator--I know you can't speak for everybody--that as a Senator,
after this bill is passed--and I suspect it will--you will not support
any cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Do I have that
word from you?
Mr. TOOMEY. I am not going to support any cuts for people who are on
the program and need----
Mr. SANDERS. Oh, there it is.
Mr. TOOMEY. Those benefits.
Mr. SANDERS. I am reclaiming my time--reclaiming my time.
Mr. TOOMEY. We need this program for the next generation too.
Mr. SANDERS. He just let the cat out of the box--or whatever the
phrase is. He just told you he is going to cut Social Security. That is
it, my friends. He will not cut it--what he just said is that he will
not cut it for people on Social Security right now. I hear that. But if
you are 50 years of age or if you are 55 years of age, they just told
you--my friend from Pennsylvania just told you that they may go forward
to raise the retirement age; they may cut your cost-of-living
adjustment. That is what he just said.
So there is a plan, and that is exactly what they intend to do. That
is why I hope we can get strong support for this amendment, which will
require a two-thirds vote to prevent any cuts to Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 14 minutes.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, just for clarification for the Senator from
Vermont, I didn't speak to a group of people from Wall Street. I spoke
at a POLITICO breakfast--POLITICO magazine, newspaper, whatever it is.
I didn't know it had anything to do with Wall Street.
The second point that I would raise on this topic is, this is not a
debate on Social Security or Medicaid--which I am happy to have. It is
an important program. I think if you are 50 years of age or older and
near retirement or in retirement, there are not going to be any changes
to that program. I think if you are 46 or 36 or 26, you should be
worried that there won't be Social Security or Medicaid if it continues
on its current track. That is an important debate, and I hope we will
have it.
But I want to talk today about something different, and that is the
child tax credit. Yesterday, Senator Lee and I announced a plan that
would expand it and make it fully refundable against payroll tax to
help working families across this country, and it has been the subject
of pretty significant criticism from some, including--the Senator from
Vermont would be interested in hearing this--the Wall Street Journal,
which editorialized against it today. So I want to address some of
those criticisms because I think many of them are just not valid. They
are all invalid, but a couple are actually disrespectful to American
workers.
Here is the first one that is not valid: We have already expanded the
child tax credit to $2,000, and that is enough.
Well, it is not enough, and here is why. Most families who make
between $20,000 and $50,000 don't really benefit from that expansion.
They don't make a lot of money, so they don't owe a lot in income tax,
which is what the additional expansion in the child tax credit applies
against. Since most of the $2,000 child credit applies only to income
tax and their primary liability is payroll tax, they get nowhere near
the $2,000 benefit.
The cost of raising a child is not any cheaper for a family making
$40,000 than it is for a family making $200,000, and I would argue the
family making $40,000 needs the credit more than the family making
$200,000. Yet somehow we have a provision in which the family making
more gets more for their children than the family making less. That
makes no sense.
The second thing I heard today--and I hadn't heard this one before--
is that this is actually a negative tax; that people aren't just
getting their taxes phased out, they are actually getting money on top
of it. That is false because our plan is limited to your tax
liability. You can't get any more credit than what you paid in taxes.
If you owe $1,200 in taxes, the most your credit can be is $1,200. It
can't be above and beyond your tax liability.
The third one I have heard from a number of people is that this is
welfare. This one is false. To call the child tax credit welfare is
downright disrespectful to the American worker. Who are the people who
would benefit from this? Let me tell you who they are: truckdrivers
making $36,000 a year, welders making $39,000 a year, construction
workers making $43,000 a year, firefighters making $48,000 a year.
These are not freeloaders. This is not welfare. This is their money.
These are people who are working and make too much to get welfare from
the government, but they aren't paid enough to afford many things in
life. This would be, for example, about 8.5 million working families
who make between $20,000 and $50,000--if this graph lines up--of an
average cut of $800, which is not a lot of money, but it is $800 more
than what they have now if we were to expand it in this way.
I alluded to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal that I
generally agree with on most topics. They have never liked this child
tax credit debate or idea. They claimed this provision is anti-work.
That isn't just false, it is ridiculous. You can't get the child credit
[[Page S7544]]
if you are not working. You can't apply it against payroll tax unless
you have payroll taxes off your paycheck. How can a tax credit that you
can only get if you are working be anti-work? That is not just false,
it is ridiculous.
The fifth argument is about the corporate rate. Our corporate rate is
35 percent. We proposed to cut it to 22 percent. Somehow, unless it is
20 percent, it is going to be a catastrophe for the American economy.
That wasn't the case a few years ago. I campaigned for President and
for U.S. Senate on a 25-percent corporate tax rate, and everybody said
that would lead to growth.
In 2014, Americans for Tax Reform, the group led by Grover Norquist,
called for a 25-percent rate. It said a corporate income tax rate from
35 to 25 is badly needed. It moves the U.S. rate closer to the
developed nation average, and it would help with growth. The Senate
Finance Committee international tax bipartisan working group called for
25 percent. The Heritage Foundation in 2010 called for 25 percent. The
National Association of Manufacturers in 2014 called for 25 percent.
Speaker Ryan's Path to Prosperity 2013 budget called for 25 percent.
The Alliance for Competitive Taxation called for 25 percent. I am
saying 22 percent.
By the way, this argument ignores all the other things that are in
place--immediate expense, repatriation, all sorts of other things. It
is not just the 13-percent tax cut or 15-percent tax cut, it is all the
other things that come with it. By the way, if there is a better way to
pay for what we are trying to do, we are open to it.
Mr. COONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. RUBIO. I will yield, as long as it doesn't count against my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. I wanted to briefly ask my friend, the Senator from
Florida, if I correctly heard, as I believe I just did, that an entire
range of economic groups--advocates from the National Association of
Manufacturers, Business Roundtable, even Grover Norquist--as recently
as the last Presidential campaign believed that a corporate rate cut
from 35 to 25 would be significantly stimulative, would accomplish the
goals of improving growth; is that roughly what you were just saying?
Mr. RUBIO. That has been the gold standard for a significant period
of time. That is what I campaigned on. That is a promise I made, and I
want it to be even lower than that, at 22 percent. By the way, if there
is a better way to pay for what I am trying to do here, I am open to
that.
I want to make two more points of criticism. We already have too many
people not paying income tax. This would create even more. In essence,
it narrows the base. First of all, to the extent this credit takes
people off the tax rolls at all, it isn't forever. It is until their
children turn 17.
The second argument--and I actually agree with this--is what we are
doing here is going to make us more competitive in the world, and that
is going to lead to economic growth. That is not just going to create
more jobs, it is going to create pay. We have been told by the White
House economists, by the Finance Committee, by multiple different
experts that we can expect to see real wage growth, on average, up to
$4,000.
If you are going to be raising wages, then you are going to have
people graduating to higher tax brackets or into the income tax range.
In essence, what the people who make this argument are saying is, for
purposes of economic growth and revenue, this is going to be dynamic,
and it is going to grow the economy. I agree with that, but for
purposes of the child tax credit, a bunch of people are not going to
get pay raises. They are going to get stuck where they are today, and
they will never pay income tax.
It can't be both. It is either one or the other. I believe it is
growth. I believe there are people making $50,000 now that one day may
make $55,000 or $60,000 and continue to move up. By the way, once their
kids turn 17, the credit goes away.
The last argument, that it is not pro-growth, it is not stimulative.
I know economists struggle to quantify it. I believe it is stimulus. Do
you know what teaches me that? Not an economist or some book I read,
real life teaches me this. Here is why. If you make $50,000 or $40,000
a year, and you get $800 back in your taxes, do you know what you are
going do with that money? You are not going to put it under your
mattress or in a coffee can and bury it in your backyard. You are going
to spend that money. You are going to buy your kids clothes, shoes, and
Christmas gifts. You may even be able to spend an extra day on
vacation. You are going to spend it at the very businesses and into the
very economy we are going to try to grow.
People making $50,000 a year consume almost all of the money they
make. They are going to spend it on their children, but they are also
going to spend it into the economy. If you believe that leaving more
money in the hands of businesses leads to growth--and I do. I also
believe that leaving more money in the hands of families leads to
economic activity, and that is a positive thing.
The reason I am so passionate about it is--and I will close with
this--I think one of the things we have been missing for too long is
the working men and women of this country who have been hurt badly by
the economic restructuring that we are going through--automation,
outsourcing, and all sorts of changes in the American economy.
I think about my parents who worked in the service sector. Thirty
years ago, as a waitress, as a bartender, and as a maid, my parents
were able to afford to own a home. You know for a fact that at least in
Miami, FL, today, a bartender and a maid will struggle to own a home,
not to mention afford the things that people need to afford living
there.
We need to do something to help people because they are being left
behind. This new economy is great for a lot of people with the right
degrees and the right industry, with the right skills. We are leaving
millions of people stuck, and no one fights for them because they don't
have a lobbyist, they don't have a trade association, and they don't
have a newspaper that editorializes for them. We need to fight for them
too. Leaving them a little bit more of their money that they earned by
working is not too much to ask. We need a pro-growth and a pro-worker
tax reform, and that is what we endeavor to do.
I hope I can get, when the time comes to offer that amendment, the
support of as many of you as possible. This will not make life perfect,
but for hard-working families, firefighters, and construction workers,
whatever little more we can let them keep is more than what they have
now, and it is going to make their lives and their children's lives
better than it is today. Ultimately, isn't that what we are here to do?
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in a few minutes, we are going to be
voting on a motion of mine that actually dovetails with what the
distinguished Senator from Florida was talking about in terms of hard-
working people who have been told there will be a minimum of $4,000 put
into their wages based on what is being done in the Senate with the
Republican tax proposal. We have no evidence of that. In fact, we have
no economic scoring that shows that. We have no evidence in the past
that has ever been done with supply-side economics. If that is true, at
least $4,000 in people's wages is great. I think that is wonderful. We
want to guarantee that. We want to make sure the proof is in somebody's
paycheck.
I am very pleased to have Senators Casey, Van Hollen, Udall, Cardin,
Booker, Wyden, Menendez, Harris, and Brown joining me in a very simple
approach that I would hope everybody would support. If you are
confident that what is being done here in this supply-side tax cut is
going to end up with $4,000 in the pockets of middle-class families,
then let's make sure it is true. Let's make sure that happens.
We are going to measure this in 2 years. If it doesn't happen in the
next 2 years, then the tax cuts stop. Why? Because all they are doing
is blowing a hole in the budget. All they are doing is creating more
deficits and not putting money in people's pockets.
I hope everyone will join me. I agree, we have hard-working folks who
have
[[Page S7545]]
seen their wages flat for years. They have seen not only their wages
flat but their pensions attacked, and they find themselves in a
situation where, yes, they are working, but the wages are down or maybe
it is two jobs now instead of one in order to be able to keep the same
wage, but they feel like they are treading water and not getting ahead.
Folks are talking a lot about that, about wanting to help middle-class
families. Great. I have a lot of folks in Michigan who would love to
have $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 more in their wages. I would love to
support something that does that.
Let me go back and say, it didn't happen under the Bush tax cuts,
even under Reagan tax cuts. Wages were flat for the next 10 years. It
certainly didn't happen in Kansas with what they did, doing the same
kind of supply-side economics. If this could actually work, sign me up.
I think people deserve to make sure that promise will be kept.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. STABENOW. I would urge that we vote to make sure the proof is in
the people's paychecks, and that is what this motion is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, my friend the Senator from Michigan has
offered an instruction that says the corporate tax rate must revert
back to 35 percent in the event that real average household wages do
not increase by at least $4,000 by 2020. In our bill, the corporate
rate goes from 35 down to 20 percent in 2019. On the basis of 1 year of
a competitive corporate rate, we are supposed to believe that
corporations are going to change their behavior and make the kind of
investment that follows from the incentives we have when they know, if
this were adopted, that the rate goes back to 35 1 year later? No. This
is designed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy to guarantee that there
can be no growth, and then we go back to uncompetitive, very high
corporate tax rates that is stipulated right here at 35 percent
Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. TOOMEY. I will yield.
Ms. STABENOW. How many years do you think it will take before folks
get their $4,000--2021, 2022?
Mr. TOOMEY. I will take back my time.
Let me explain how this works. The whole idea behind our bill is to
create the incentives that will encourage the investment that hasn't
been happening. The last 10 years, there has been a collapse, a
collapse in the investment growth of capital stock, a collapse in
productivity growth, and therefore stagnant wages.
What I want to do, and what my colleagues want to do, is see that
wage growth that we have been waiting for that didn't happen under the
last administration. The only way we can encourage that investment is
if the investors know the tax rate is going to be there permanently. If
we tell them you are going to get 1 year of a low rate, who is going to
invest in a new factory for 1 year? No. It will not work that way. The
wage growth will come when investors around the world and domestically
have the confidence they are going to be investing in a competitive
regime.
By the way, the average tax rate of the OECD--the countries that we
compete with--is 22.4 percent. It is amazing that we are able to eke
out even the feeble growth that we have at a 35-percent tax rate. Our
bill takes it to 20 percent and allows us to compete, but you have to
keep it there so that business will actually make those investment
decisions, so that people will decide to launch those new businesses,
and we will have the expansion of existing businesses. That is what our
legislation does, and that is why I urge my colleagues to reject this
motion to commit.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I could just have 15 seconds, the
people in Michigan want to know when they are going to get their
$4,000. That is all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the Stabenow motion to commit.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 289 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--55
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now
be a period for debate only to count against the underlying bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators,
the Senate will continue to debate the bill tonight, but the next
rollcall votes will be at 11 a.m. tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I intend to call up my motion to commit
the bill to the Finance Committee, which is at the desk, and it is
supported by Senator Harris.
Mr. President, while we are working out the consent, the tax bill
before us is not for the middle class. As a matter of fact, this is a
big cut for corporations. This is not a cut for you. It is not a cut
for hard-working families. It is so lopsided as a cut to big
corporations.
The fact is that it is not for the middle class. We need to be frank.
The truth is that the bill treats the corporations much better than
regular people. For example, over a 10-year period, if you make $75,000
or less, you will be hurt by this bill. If you are a small business
owner and your taxes are a passthrough at the individual rate, your
taxes are going to be much higher than large, multinational
corporations. If you buy your health insurance in the individual
market, there is a good chance that you are going to lose access to
affordable health insurance. These are the facts, and it is just plain
and simple.
Sure, there are tax cuts for some of the middle class, but those tax
cuts go away after 8 years. In 2026, they are gone. By contrast, the
tax cuts for big corporations are made permanent, and that is simply
not treating people fairly.
So what I am suggesting is that we send this bill to the Finance
Committee to work out a bipartisan compromise on how to make middle-
class tax cuts permanent. There were 17 of us that stood up in the
press gallery yesterday and said we are for a bipartisan compromise. I
would hope a majority of my colleagues would support that, and I ask
for your support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to inform my colleagues
of a motion that I hope to file tomorrow that would recommit the bill,
and I am going to talk a little bit about it.
First, if I might, let me just point out that yesterday I took to the
floor to emphasize some of the points that Senator Nelson just made--
that this bill, which is advertised to help the middle class, does not
help the middle class. It helps the wealthy. It is business cuts, and
middle-income taxpayers
[[Page S7546]]
get some relief--some, not all--that is temporary in nature.
So the Congressional Budget Office tells us that by 2027, for those
earning under $75,000 a year, the majority will actually pay more taxes
rather than less. In my State of Maryland, it is estimated that 800,000
Marylanders will pay more taxes rather than less. The tax relief to
middle-income families is so much smaller than what is given to the
wealthy and what is given to the business community.
To compound that problem, we now know by the scores of both the Joint
Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office that the bill
will add tremendously to the deficit--over a trillion dollars. I think
it is going to be closer to $2 trillion, but their scoring shows it
over a trillion dollars in deficits.
Guess who is going to pay for those deficits. It is going to be
middle-income families. Then, you put on top of that the repeal of the
mandate under the Affordable Care Act, which is also going to hurt
middle-income families on their ability for affordable healthcare.
So this bill advertised to help middle-income families does not do
that. For my State of Maryland, it is particularly painful because of
the loss of the State and tax local deductions that are used by almost
a majority of our taxpayers. Just about 50 percent of our taxpayers in
Maryland use the State and local tax deductions.
There is another reason why this bill has been advertised not just to
help middle-income families, which it doesn't do, but it is called job
creation. This bill is advertised as a bill that will create jobs in
America. Now, let me go through that because I am for creating more
jobs. We need more jobs in Maryland. We needs more jobs throughout the
country. The number that has been given to us is that this bill will
create 975,000 jobs at a cost of $1.5 trillion. That comes out to
$1,530,000 per job. That is a pretty high cost to create a job. In
fact, it is ridiculous to spend that type of money. We don't know if
that is going to actually happen. That is what the proponents of the
legislation are saying.
Now, we have had Democrats and Republicans who have worked together
to really create jobs. I serve on the Environment and Public Works
Committee. I serve as the ranking member on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee with Senator Inhofe, and we both know if we
put more resources into infrastructure--into roads, bridges, transit
systems--we will, in fact, not only modernize our economy by having a
first-class transportation system and not only make the quality of life
better so we can get to and from work in a reasonable time, but we will
also create real jobs.
So in the last Congress we had a bipartisan group of members from the
Finance Committee who said: Look, we have to do something about
international tax issues, repatriation, and monies parked overseas. We
need to do something to bring this money back. These are American
companies that have their money overseas and don't want to pay the
higher corporate taxes. There is a way of bringing that money back.
Let's do it so we can try to get it into our economy. Democrats and
Republicans agreed, but the one thing we didn't want to do was to use
that money for a permanent type of spending that could increase the
deficit.
So what does H.R. 1 do? What does the underlying bill do? It does
exactly that. It uses this one-time-only money and spends it on a
permanent basis for tax relief for corporations--a permanent tax relief
for corporations. That is not the responsible thing to do.
So what we should be doing with that money--and what the proposal was
that we had in the last Congress--is to use that as seed money for
infrastructure one-time-only expenses. We could, therefore, create
modern infrastructure and create jobs and do it in a responsible way.
It is a win-win-win situation. The House repatriation bill would bring
in approximately $300 billion of one-time-only revenues. It has been
estimated that at $300 billion, we create 4 million jobs. Now, let's
compare that. If we use that $300 billion to create 4 million jobs,
that is about $73,000 a job, as compared to $1.5 million per job under
the underlying bill.
I think we all understand that we need to be more cost effective in
how we do our work around here, and that is why Democrats and
Republicans said: Let's use this one-time-only source for
infrastructure, modernizing our roads, and creating jobs. That brings
me to the motion I hope I will have a chance to offer tomorrow that
would recommit the bill to the committee to return it to the Congress
and to this floor so that we use the repatriation funds for
infrastructure so that we can create the jobs and not create a greater
hole in the deficit.
I am joined in this effort by Senator Feinstein, Senator Blumenthal,
Senator Udall, Senator Casey, and Senator Stabenow. I do think this is
a matter that I hope my colleagues will pay attention to. I hope we can
fix this bill, H.R. 1, and work in a bipartisan manner. It doesn't look
like we are there yet. We want a bill that helps middle-income
families. We want a bill that does not increase the deficit, and the
current bill does exactly that. So I hope my colleagues will work with
us so we can return this bill to the Senate Finance Committee and
return a bill that is worthy of the people of this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I would like to
thank Senator Cardin for his leadership on so many finance issues and
especially for highlighting today, as part of this major debate on tax
reform, the importance of infrastructure. The fact is, you cannot have
big-league quality of life with little-league infrastructure.
My colleague has made the point that repatriation would be a natural
as one of the two bookends for infrastructure. It would ensure that we
would have some funds we could count on, some publicly available funds,
and I think it would be a natural fit with the kind of bonding that
Senator Hoeven and I and others have been interested in.
I am here to talk on another subject, but before he leaves, I would
like to thank my colleague for his comments.
Mr. President and colleagues, it is fair to say that it is throwback
Thursday here in the Senate. It is also a big day for the Treasury
Secretary, Steve Mnuchin--not only because we are dealing with taxes,
not only because there is another glamorous photo shoot with a big
sheet of dollar bills, but this is also the 1-year anniversary of what
has come to be known as the Mnuchin rule.
It was November 30, 2016, when news broke that Mr. Mnuchin was the
likely nominee to head the Department of Treasury, and that morning,
the Secretary-to-be went on TV and delivered what sounded like a very
sweet promise. Here is what he said about the Trump administration's
ideas for the issue we talk about tonight, tax reform. I am going to
quote Steve Mnuchin directly. He said: ``Any reduction we have in
upper-income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will
be no absolute tax cut for the upper class.'' In case anybody missed
that last part of his statement, he said ``no absolute tax cut for the
upper class.'' And he didn't stop there. He went even further in hyping
big plans he had. He said: ``When we work with Congress and we go
through this, it will be very clear: This is a middle-income tax cut.''
This is all part of the anniversary, to kind of refresh everybody's
memory.
After that pledge, I talked about this matter with Mr. Mnuchin during
the Senate Finance Committee. He smiled. He was thrilled that I was
recalling the pledge he made.
When I brought it up, I said: Well, we could just call this the
Mnuchin rule.
Mr. Mnuchin, at that time, thanked me, and he said: There would be
great esteem in having the Mnuchin rule with both the Buffett rule and
the Volcker rule. He said: I take that as a great compliment.
So here we are a year later, and what a difference a year has made.
The Mnuchin rule is now a broken promise for the history books.
This week, Republicans scramble to pass a tax plan that reaches into
the pockets of working people in the middle class and showers trillions
of dollars in handouts to multinational corporations, high-flyers, and
the politically connected.
I think it is also important to remember that the Mnuchin rule was
[[Page S7547]]
just one part of the sales pitch. Now there is a whole lot more to the
con job.
Republicans have said time and again that the tax cuts would pay for
themselves. Time and time again, we heard about the unicorns. We heard
about the growth fairy. The magical growth will be so powerful that new
revenue is going to come pouring in, and the tax cuts are going to be
fully paid for.
In addition to that, I think it is important to recognize this on the
special anniversary. The Secretary went even further. He said that the
tax cuts wouldn't just pay for their $1.4 trillion cost, they would
bring in, on top of the $1.4 trillion, an additional $1 trillion. Well,
today--after pushing and making sure that we could get it before we
actually had the key final votes--we were pleased to receive from the
independent referee on taxation, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the
official dynamic scoring analysis that they did of the Republicans'
plan. Let's be clear, folks. Now that we have heard from the
independent tax umpires, we can say officially that the magical growth
fantasy is over.
I say that also in the context of bipartisanship, because in the
course of writing the two bipartisan bills that I authored--first with
Senator Gregg, second with Senator Coats--I said that I happen to
believe that behavior matters. I believe a good, bipartisan tax reform
bill will generate some revenue. And the Congressional Budget Office
agreed with me. But it is not going to be fantasy land-type growth.
The reality is, after Mr. Mnuchin said that what was going to happen
was that the Republican plan would pay for the $1.4 trillion cost and
generate another $1 trillion on top of it, what we now know as a result
of what I was sent today is that the Republican tax plan, even with
dynamic growth factored in, actually loses more than $1 trillion.
There is other bad news on top of that. The Republican tax plan,
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, slows down economic
growth after 2025.
So you put the kibosh on two major selling points that we heard about
month after month after month from Republicans in selling this plan.
The tax cuts don't pay for themselves, and there is no new wave of
growth headed our way.
The party of Reagan is on a mad dash to run up the deficit by $1
trillion, slow down the economy, and raise taxes on more than half of
the middle class. And the only analysis Republicans can get to back up
their tax plan is either cooked up by the in-house staff at 1600
Pennsylvania or is based on revenue-neutral tax bills that don't even
exist.
By the way, there is more news a year into Mr. Mnuchin's work. The
Secretary promised a comprehensive analysis from the Treasury
Department that would prove his claims, prove that there would be more
growth, more jobs--red, white, and blue opportunities--for our people;
that the tax cuts would pay for themselves or, as he said, would
generate much more revenue than that. The Secretary of Treasury
promised us that. He promised us that repeatedly, that we would get
that analysis of what this bill would do for growth and jobs and
improving the quality of life for our people. Let me tell you, that was
another broken promise, yet one more in a chain of broken promises over
the months and a particularly important one because the Treasury
Secretary made some especially surprising projections, and, in effect,
we asked him to back them up. He said he would, and now we know that
not only is he not going to do it, apparently he had no intention to
ever do it. Based on the news that broke this morning, as far as I can
tell, Secretary Mnuchin never even asked his Department to do the
comprehensive analysis of the bill that he promised. On top of that,
his Treasury Department buried a recent paper that showed that the
overwhelming beneficiaries of corporate tax cuts aren't workers, they
are shareholders. They said it didn't agree with the Department's
current thinking.
Let me be clear. I think it sounds like another part of the coverup
at the Treasury Department.
Colleagues, a year ago, Secretary Mnuchin told the American people
that there would be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. ``It will
be very clear: This is a middle-income tax cut.'' Then he said that the
tax cuts wouldn't just pay for themselves, that a trillion new dollars
of Federal revenue would come pouring in. Not a single word of that has
turned out to be true. The Mnuchin rule is the most expensive lie since
George W. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and said that the mission
in Iraq was accomplished. And the idea that these tax cuts will pay for
themselves isn't just a little off the mark, it is a trillion-dollar
misfire.
What we have here is a con job on the middle class, and Secretary
Mnuchin and his allies have covered it up every single step of the way.
My Democratic colleagues and I have said over and over again that we
agree that the Tax Code is broken. We share our colleagues' view that
there ought to be an opportunity for a bipartisan bill. And every
single time I have spoken on this subject, I made it clear that it
doesn't have to be this way.
In the beginning of the week, I joined 17 moderate Democratic
Senators. Senator Donnelly said it very well--I mean, really an
outpouring of enthusiasm for taking a bipartisan approach to do tax
reform right. A bipartisan approach is not just some kind of pie-in-
the-sky happy-talk; bipartisanship is what gets you the certainty and
the predictability you need to grow private sector jobs that are good-
paying and are driven by innovation. And I know it can be done.
I am glad to see that the Presiding Officer of the Senate here
tonight is from the State of Indiana. One of the two bipartisan bills
that I wrote was with one of his former colleagues, Senator Dan Coats,
who is not just a very well-liked Member but is somebody who believes
deeply in sensible economic policy. He was on the Finance Committee. We
worked on this for a substantial amount of time.
You know what. It is not easy to write a bipartisan tax reform bill.
You have to have some give-and-take. Senator Bradley would fly all over
the country to work with Republicans to try to find common ground.
Right now, we can't get people to even walk down the corridor to help
put together a proposal.
It didn't have to be this way. We had opportunities for
bipartisanship. It is something I feel very strongly about because I
spent literally hundreds of hours with two very fine, very conservative
Republican Senators in order to put together two actual bills--bills
with bill numbers, bills that were proposed in the Senate.
But what a difference between that approach and what we have seen
from Secretary Mnuchin--not a single effort--not one--from Secretary
Mnuchin to talk specifics about what it would take to get a bipartisan
approach.
Then we had, as I have noted tonight, these promises--promises of
making sure the focus would be on the middle class, making sure it
would generate additional revenue. It has been a trail of broken
promises, when it could have been an opportunity to bring everybody
together and to give everybody the opportunity to get ahead.
Well, one of my very favorite phrases is from the late Israeli
diplomat Abba Eban, who said: Americans always get it right. He paused
and said: After they have tried everything else. Well, my hope is that
Secretary Mnuchin will see the error of his ways, see why the policies
I have described aren't right for the American people, see why it is
important for the administration to change course and push for what
Democrats here have called for, a bipartisan approach, which our
moderates eloquently spoke to this week. We have bills that can help
guide us. I hope, in the future, we can break with the kinds of
policies I have had to describe on the 1-year anniversary of the
Mnuchin rule and decide that we are going to change course, have a tax
policy that focuses on the middle class, puts money in their pockets,
gives everybody a chance to get ahead, and that the Secretary will
recognize that his claims about what the Republican tax bill is all
about are not borne out by the facts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order for Senator Nelson and Senator Baldwin or their designee to each
offer a motion to commit, which are at the desk, and that no amendments
to the
[[Page S7548]]
instructions be in order. I further ask consent that following leader
remarks on Friday, December 1, there be up to 20 minutes of debate on
each motion, equally divided in the usual form, and that following the
use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the motions with
no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Motion to Commit
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Ms. BALDWIN] moves to commit
the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance of the Senate
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) support the President's plan to close the carried
interest loophole.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Motion to Commit
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up a motion to commit at the desk on
behalf of Senator Nelson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. WYDEN], for Mr. Nelson, 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) provide permanent tax relief for middle-class Americans
in a deficit-neutral way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I had the privilege of sitting on the floor
and listening to this debate on tax reform. Our friends to the left and
center have done a really good job of painting a picture of
fantasyland, a land that does not exist in America.
Frankly, when I think of fantasyland, I think about the fact that
sugar-free cookies will not help you gain any weight. Anyone who has
had sugar-free cookies and too many of them can attest to the fact that
may not be an accurate picture, but these, they may, in fact, be sugar-
free.
My good friend to the left oftentimes speaks in illustrious language,
compelling words, but they are not necessarily always accurate.
When I think about our tax reform package, it really comes down to
some very simple concepts--families. Too many American families feel
invisible because so often we hear folks talking about people before
they actually talk to people. When you talk to the average American
family, what you will hear, time and time again, is that it is very
difficult for the average family to get their ends together, making
ends meet. Working paycheck to paycheck is too often, in too many
places, the norm.
So when we start talking about helping the average American family,
when we start talking about helping single parents, we are talking
about helping them keep their dollars. In other words, we believe they
know better than government how to spend their money.
If you are an average American household with only one breadwinner,
the fact is, our plan delivers a 75-percent tax cut if you earn around
$41,000. Why do we talk about $41,000 for a single-parent household? It
is because the average single-parent household with a couple of kids
earns around $40,000. So we want to paint a clear picture, not a
picture filled with facts but facts that lead you to the truth. That is
not what we are hearing all the time in this Chamber.
When you think about an average family, a typical American family,
with two earners in the household, the average family in America makes
around $73,000. Our tax cut for that average, typical American family
is 60 percent.
Here is what I struggle with. Why is it not a bipartisan objective to
deliver tax cuts to hard-working families, too often working two jobs
to make their ends meet? Why is there not a bipartisan coalition
working to make sure there is a tax break in every single bracket?
I just can't figure out why doubling the standard deduction for an
individual to $12,000 is not a bipartisan activity. I really can't
appreciate why taking a single-parent household from a standard
deduction of $9,300 to $18,000 is something my friends on the left are
resistant to do.
I cannot explain to you or to the folks back in South Carolina why
almost doubling the standard deduction from $12,700 to $24,000 isn't a
bipartisan exercise.
I can't explain to you why families who are strapped with kids in the
home, why we can't say to them that doubling the child tax credit is a
good thing. Where is the controversy around saying that instead of
getting a $1,000 child tax credit, we are going to make it $2,000?
Where is the controversy?
Why can't our friends on the left be a part of that conversation? Why
is it that our friends on the left have finally come to the conclusion
that after 8 years of running the Nation from the White House and
taking a $10 trillion debt that was accumulated over 230 years and then
doubling it in 8 years--now they want the American people to take them
seriously about the debt.
Let me close by simply suggesting that 4,700 businesses would still
be American businesses, according to an EY study, if we had a 20-
percent corporate tax rate--4,700 businesses are no longer ours. They
have been acquired or inverted because our Tax Code punishes success.
In a global competition, our American workers deserve better. In a
global competition, our workers deserve the opportunity to work for
companies whose tax rates are competitive in a global economy.
If we don't do that, more American companies will invert, and fewer
Americans will work here at home in places like Alaska, South Carolina,
and the Dakotas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to compliment my good friend from
South Carolina who came down here and talked about what this is all
about. I couldn't agree with him more. This is about families. This is
about American families. He has these poster boards up there showing
the American people what this is about. I want to reiterate a couple of
points he mentioned.
First, the most important thing we are doing here, the bulk of the
relief we are providing in this tax bill is to provide middle-class
families with more take-home pay, more money in the pockets of American
citizens. That is what Senator Scott just talked about, and I couldn't
agree more.
So, on average, right now, our bill would bring the average American
middle-class family about a $200 additional amount of money in their
pocket per month--per month. Now, some people watching that might think
it may not seem like a lot, but it is over $2,000 per year. Every tax
bracket that we have right now in the Senate bill would get a
reduction.
So I want to echo the words of my good friend from South Carolina. It
is confounding to me that our friends and colleagues on the other side
of the aisle would deny hard-working Americans that extra money in
their pockets. You don't hear them say that, but that is what they are
doing, and they would spin and twist the facts to make the public
believe the middle class is actually getting a tax increase. The public
is getting spun by them.
This would be a tax cut for these families, a significant amount.
That is a plain fact.
What is so puzzling about this debate is that those who oppose this
bill is trying to deny the Americans who need it--we need it--extra
money in their pockets, particularly right now.
I want to talk a little bit about an article I read last year in the
Atlantic magazine. It still haunts me. The article was titled ``The
Secret Shame of the Middle Class.'' Here is a copy of it, ``The Secret
Shame of the Middle Class.'' It says: ``Nearly half of all Americans
would have trouble finding $400 in a crisis.''
You often talk about families. Forty-seven percent of American
families, according to one Federal study, wouldn't be able to come up
with $400 in case of
[[Page S7549]]
an emergency. This is truly the definition of living paycheck to
paycheck. The bill that we are debating helps to address this
significantly--more money in the pockets of American middle-class
families.
Let me quote from this article. The author says:
It was happening to the soon-to-retire as well as the soon-
to-begin. It was happening to college grads as well as high
school dropouts. It was happening all across the country,
including places where you might least expect to see such
problems. I knew that I wouldn't have $400 in an emergency.
That is the author.
What I hadn't known, couldn't have conceived, was that so
many other Americans wouldn't have that kind of money
available to them, either. My friend and local butcher,
Brian, who is one of the only men I know who talks openly
about his financial struggles, once told me, ``if anyone says
he's sailing through, he's lying.''
That is from this article.
These are our constituents he is writing about. These are the people
whom we see when we go home. These are American citizens who need this
kind of relief. They tell us they are struggling. They tell us they
felt left out of the system and that nobody is listening.
This bill is listening. It is about listening to them. It is about
giving them a voice through more economic security.
The other thing this bill does--the other thing that is so important
to do in this Congress and the other thing that we should have no
issues with bipartisan support for what this bill does--is finally
getting our economy back to traditional levels of economic growth--
growing our economy, which has been stagnant for well over a decade.
The next chart I have is one that I have come to the floor and spoken
about many times. It is an important chart. It shows the levels of
economic growth that have occurred year after year in the United States
since the Eisenhower administration. It shows GDP growth. Let me
explain it a little bit.
It starts with Eisenhower, and then goes to Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon,
Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush 43, and President Obama. These are
the numbers. The green is growth. We have a couple of years of 8, 6, 7
percent growth. But the line I want people to take a look at is this 3
percent GDP growth line--3 percent. Now, that is not a great growth
rate. It is not a bad growth rate. The average since World War II is
closer to 4 percent, but 3 percent is pretty good.
When we look at this chart, and we think about what we are trying to
do on the floor here today, it tells a really important story. It is 3
percent every year. Reagan, Bush, Clinton are 4, 5, and 6, and then we
get to the Obama years. Actually, we get to the last 10 years we have
had, and we never hit it. We had the Bush great recession, and in the
entire 8 years of President Obama, we never hit it.
Now, GDP sounds like some kind of technical economic term, but it is
really a proxy for the health of our economy. It is a proxy for the
American dream. It is a proxy for hope. We have had a sick economy. For
over a decade, we have had a sick economy.
One thing that surprises me is how few of our colleagues talk about
this. As we have debated the tax bill, a lot of my colleagues on this
side of the aisle have been talking about growth--growth, growth,
growth--and how we ought to get back to traditional levels of GDP
growth--3 percent or higher. It is a bit of a surprise to me that in my
little under 3 years in the Senate, I don't know if I have heard any of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle come to the floor to talk
about this--that this number, below 3 percent is not good for the
country. To the contrary, some of them, unfortunately, have bought into
what the Obama administration used to tell us: Listen, we can't hit 3
percent. So guess what, America, this is the new normal. We can't
expect 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 percent growth. We had years of 7 percent GDP
growth during the Reagan era and strong growth during the Clinton era.
Don't expect that anymore. The new normal is about 1.5, maybe 2
percent, if we are lucky.
I asked one of my Democratic colleagues this morning: Do you believe
in the new normal? Do you? Because that is a surrender. That is a
surrender of the American dream.
There has been a lot of talk over the last year about what makes
America great. This is what makes America great--strong economic
growth. We haven't had it in over a decade.
This tax bill, we believe, is going to spur economic growth. That is
another reason why it is so important--families' take-home pay and
finally getting back to traditional levels of strong, robust economic
growth that has enjoyed bipartisan support from every President since
the end of World War II. Yet, somehow, on the other side of the aisle,
they don't want to talk about it. Well, to me, it is the most important
thing we are doing here.
So how do we do it? There is tax reform, certainly, and also energy
policies that unleash our opportunities, infrastructure, and regulatory
reform. But we have to get out of this lost decade.
I want to go back to that ``Atlantic'' article I mentioned. The
author talks about the fact that people don't have the money they once
did because of this--because we are not growing; because the strongest
economy in the world, for the last 10 years, is sick.
The author says: ``In the 1950s and '60s, American economic growth
democratized prosperity.''
Everybody had opportunity with strong economic growth. That is what
he is talking about right here. Then he says: ``But, in the 2010s, we
have managed to democratize financial insecurity.''
We went from democratizing prosperity for families to democratizing
financial insecurity, where almost half of the American people don't
believe they have $400 in an emergency. Yet my colleagues don't want to
provide a tax cut for middle-class families who are struggling.
What we need to do is to end this democratization of financial
insecurity and get back to prosperity and get back to traditional
levels of GDP growth through tax reform, through energy, through
infrastructure, and through permanent reform. We can do it.
Any American watching: Please don't believe this idea of the new
normal, that we will never get back to these strong rates, that somehow
our future is destined to be below this 3 percent line. Don't believe
it. What we need are policies that can get us there.
That is why I am hopeful still that some of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are going to join us in promoting this tax
reform that will do one of the most important things we can do--get the
U.S. economy growing again. Families will benefit, middle-class
families will benefit, hard-working Americans will benefit, our economy
will benefit, and our national security will benefit, but we need to
act. We can't accept this.
I yield the floor for my colleague from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska for
yielding.
I want to begin where he finished--on the need for a bipartisan
approach, one that combines different points of view, one based on
compromise. Compromise should not be a dirty word. Compromise is not a
four-letter word. Neither is bipartisanship. Yet our Republican
colleagues have insisted on a Republican plan--on a plan that they
first rammed and rushed through the House of Representatives and now,
in the same way, have sought to do on their own, without consultation
or compromise with Democrats. That is why the process has reached this
point. It has stalled.
My Republican colleagues are scrambling for a solution to an
overwhelming, oppressive debt that they would force on the American
people--not on ourselves, but on our children and our grandchildren,
generations to come, searching and scrambling for a so-called trigger--
another gimmick--to be inserted in this bill that already
underestimates the additional debt that will be foisted on our Nation.
They have estimated it at $1.3 trillion or $1.5 trillion. In reality,
it is probably larger, but the main point is that they have foisted it
on our children and grandchildren to pay--to shoulder the burden--
simply so that the wealthiest in this country and corporations would
have tax cuts.
The people of Connecticut and our country face a tsunami of economic
[[Page S7550]]
harm. This plan, in fact, is deeply unpopular among my constituents in
Connecticut. I have listened to them. What they tell me is that they
cannot look their children in the eye and show them a chart like this
one, which my colleague Senator King of Maine displayed earlier in the
Chamber, and see how this insurmountable mountain of debt will result
from the Republican plan.
Very simply, Republicans voted for middle-class taxes to rise so that
the President's and other billionaires' taxes can go down. Over the
next decade, this plan will raise taxes on 87 million middle-class
families and half of all taxpayers. This plan is a double standard. It
is a bait and switch because it makes a promise that it fails to
fulfill. It makes a promise of tax cuts that actually will rise over a
10-year period. It sells a false bill of goods.
The promise of middle-class tax cuts is a lie, plain and simple, a
scam.
The President sent the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration, Linda McMahon, to Connecticut to announce: ``Everyone
will experience a tax cut.'' But the fact of the matter is everybody in
certain brackets experiences a tax increase under most circumstances.
Who is harmed? We know who benefits. The wealthiest benefit, and
corporations benefit. But the ones harmed, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, are the majority of people who earn less
than $75,000 a year, and they will be worse off within the next 10
years. 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 Republican tax plan ends State and local tax deductibility, which
means families are going to be taxed twice. It increases the Federal
burden on Connecticut families, who already pay more Federal taxes than
they receive in Federal funding.
Now, what I hear--again, listening to my friends and constituents in
Connecticut--is that they are willing to pay their fair share. They are
willing to pay even more than they may receive back from the Federal
Government, if they feel the system itself is fair--not rigged in favor
of the wealthy or big corporations or special interests. They are the
ones who will benefit from this tax scandal.
State and local taxes paid by my constituents in Connecticut are
vital to supplying communities with resources that pay for essential
local services. We are talking about police and school and, yes,
infrastructure--rebuilding roads, bridges, ports, and airports--vital
services. In Connecticut 723,773 households deduct State and local
taxes. The average deduction is $19,664. Assuming somebody pays a 25-
or 30-percent rate of taxes, apply that to $19,000, and we are talking
about real money.
The bill also abolishes a critical deduction that provides relief for
taxpayers who experience losses on their property, including homeowners
in Connecticut--thousands of them--who have a crumbling foundation and
are uninsured for those repairs--casualty losses that, under current
law, the IRS ruled just last week could be deducted. They will be
robbed of those deductions under this cruel, maligned, malicious,
misguided bill.
The bill also hits working-class families. It expands the child tax
credit, for example, but tips the scales in favor of the wealthiest
families. It values a child, fortunate to be born into a wealthy
family, to be worth a $2,000 tax credit. Meanwhile, an estimated
140,000 military families who have median adjusted gross incomes of
$28,000 will receive a child tax credit worth only $75 or less. If you
are wealthy, it is worth $2,000. If you are less well off, with an
adjusted gross income of $28,000, it is $75 or less. What is fair or
rational about that distinction? In fact, it epitomizes what is wrong
about this bill. It increases inequality. It enhances and heightens the
insecurity that my colleague from Alaska mentioned earlier. It is
wrong. It betrays American values.
First responders are harmed. Earlier this month, the national
president of the Fraternal Order of Police wrote a letter to the House
and Senate leadership urging Members of Congress to protect the State
and local tax deduction as is. If this deduction is eliminated, local
budgets will be strained, which include the salaries and equipment that
support our law enforcement. No wonder the head of the Fraternal Order
of Police objects to eliminating the deduction of State and local
taxes.
Teachers are harmed. 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. Those are middle-class family jobs in a profession that is
profoundly important to our future.
We talk a lot in this Chamber about the importance of skill training
and education to the future of our workforce and making sure that jobs
are filled by people with the right skills, and here we are gutting our
educational system. Those cuts in turn will lead to approximately $250
billion in cuts to public education over the years to come.
Finally, job creators are harmed--the job creators who do the
infrastructure work in construction and in skill training. There is
common ground here on infrastructure. There is bipartisan support for
an infrastructure bank or public financing authority, and a number of
those proposals, in fact, would involve repatriating funds at lower tax
rates so the money parked abroad--trillions of dollars companies have
put there because they want to avoid taxes on those profits--could come
back. The money should come back. The money could come back at lower
tax rates and be invested in infrastructure, but this proposal makes no
such proposal because it is bereft of a realistic view of what is
necessary for infrastructure.
The sick are harmed as well. Illness is not about revenue to a State.
Illness strikes any one of us at any time. The Republican tax plan will
raise insurance premiums and kick 13 million Americans off their health
insurance, all to pay for a massive corporate tax cut, passthroughs
that benefit the wealthiest, and other reductions in taxes that are
giveaways to people who need them the least.
The corporations that today move overseas to evade taxes and benefit
from special interest loopholes to lower their effective tax rates are
going to be rewarded under this tax plan. Let's be very blunt. They
will have increased incentives to move those jobs overseas. The bill
borrows $1.5 trillion to enable them to have lower rates, and those
billions will line the pockets of corporate CEOs. In fact, that $1.5
trillion is equivalent to all veterans healthcare and benefits payments
to every single veteran in America over the next decade.
With $1.5 trillion, you could increase the benefits to our veterans,
enhance the quality of their healthcare, and train them for jobs that
exist now, and, by the way, you could also pay off all the student loan
debt in our Nation. Think of it for a moment. Think of all those young
people whose lives would be different--transformed--if they were
absolved of the worry about paying off those hundreds of millions of
dollars of loans. For each of them, it is tens of thousands that crush
their futures and drive them to jobs that were not their first choices
but which they have to do simply to pay off debt.
Rather than working toward bipartisan tax reform that creates
opportunity for all Americans, this bill divides our Nation, it
increases the division economically and, also, socially and culturally,
and, yes, politically. It drives a division in this body between two
sides of the aisle--literally, physically--between our Republican
colleagues and ourselves.
How wonderful it would be for us to take the time, to use hearings
and real markups, and to do what was done in the 1980s when the last
major tax reform--true tax reform--was done. The time, the
consultation, the discussion, and, yes, the compromise were at the core
of that work. What is at the core of this work and this bill are very
simply blatant partisanship.
There is no question that our Tax Code needs to be reformed. I am
prepared to work on real tax reform, not the lie that we have before us
but real tax reform that supports our middle class, drives our economy
forward, and creates jobs. That would be the right way to do it, and
that would be the way we could do it if we take a step back.
[[Page S7551]]
It is not too late. We could do it tomorrow. It is never too late to
do the right thing. I urge my colleagues to take the time and to engage
in real compromise, legislation that is worthy of the name and a tax
reform measure that truly is reform and benefits all Americans.
I yield the floor for my colleague from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this tax bill is truly astounding. Only
in Washington--only in Washington--could Republicans borrow $1 trillion
from China to fund massive tax cuts for big corporations and still need
to raise taxes on millions of Americans in order to pay for it.
Look, I understand my Republican friends are in a pickle. They need
to give President Trump a win. The problem is that this White House is
asking them to pass a tax plan built on the most unpopular policies in
America, and I think my colleagues know it.
They know that after all the American people have been through--the
financial crisis, the great recession, decades of wage stagnation,
soaring education, housing and healthcare costs--after all of this
hardship, cutting taxes for corporations, taking healthcare away from
13 million people, and raising taxes on the middle class aren't exactly
a recipe for winning the hearts of voters, let alone a strategy for
building a more dynamic, inclusive, and prosperous economy for all
Americans.
So, yes, Republicans are in a tough spot. They know that if we had a
sensible campaign finance system, policies this disastrous would spell
disaster for them in 2018. That is why they designed a tax bill that
has nothing to do with simplifying our Tax Code and nothing to do with
growing the wages of American workers.
I appreciate my friend from Alaska talking about growth. I am all for
growth. But first of all, I want to see growth in American wages, and
it is really hard to have growth when you take $1 trillion, or more,
and add it to the debt of the next generation and think that you are
going to have growth when you are saddling them with greater and
greater debt. This bill has nothing to do with creating jobs and
everything to do with pleasing corporate special interests that fund
their campaigns.
That is what brings us here today. That is how Senate Republicans are
on the verge of trying to pass massive tax cuts for corporations that
will be permanent. They don't have to worry about it. They will be
permanent--paid for, however, by raising taxes on working families and
saddling our children and grandchildren with trillions in debt.
I know some at home might wonder: How does the GOP get away with
parading this bill around as a middle-class tax cut? It is because they
are using smoke and mirrors to dupe you into thinking you are getting
something of a tax cut. These so-called deficit hawks passed a budget
that gives themselves permission to add $1.5 trillion to the national
debt by 2026--only a short 9 years from now--so long, however, as they
don't add a dime to our deficit the year after, in 2027. Isn't it nice
if you can be at home and give yourself permission to go ahead and add
an enormous amount of debt and not worry about it? That is what they
do.
Here is the problem. It is damn near impossible to permanently slash
the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent without hiking
taxes on millions of average people. I call it inconvenient math. That
is why Republicans offer some families tiny, temporary--I underline
``temporary''--tax relief without owning up to the fact that
Cinderella's chariot turns into a pumpkin really fast.
By 2019, Americans who make under $30,000 a year will be financially
worse off under this plan. By 2021, Americans earning $40,000 a year
will be worse off. By 2027, anyone earning less than $75,000 a year
will get hit.
I will admit, they found some pretty clever ways to pull off this con
job. First, they end the State and local tax deduction and force
millions of hard-working middle-class families in States like New
Jersey to pay taxes twice on the same money. These families aren't high
rollers. In fact, 83 percent of New Jerseyans who claim the State and
local tax deduction make under $200,000 a year. As a matter of fact,
nearly half of them make under $100,000 a year. I will say it again.
Ending the State and local tax deduction is like one giant hit job on
middle-class families in States like New Jersey. My constituents can't
afford to subsidize the rest of the country any more than they already
do.
Speaking about some of these comments early, earlier this evening,
the junior Senator from Pennsylvania said on the Senate floor that the
State and local tax deduction is a subsidy to States like New York and
New Jersey. He said: ``I don't know how it could be possibly fair to
force my constituent who lives in, say, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania,
why they should pay more in income taxes to subsidize somebody who gets
to live in a multimillion-dollar condo in the Upper West Side of
Manhattan.'' That hypocrisy is amazing to me. Far from subsidizing
successful States like New Jersey and New York, there are States that
are actually taker States. They get more than they send to the Federal
Treasury. In fact, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, on average,
each resident of Pennsylvania takes nearly $1,500 per year in Federal
benefits more than they pay in Federal taxes.
Even if the Rockefeller Foundation is wrong, let me read part of a
letter sent by some of the very county executives and elected officials
who represent Dauphin County. Here is part of a letter they sent to
their representatives: As county elected executives representing
Pennsylvania's counties, we are writing to express our deep concerns
with proposals to eliminate deductions for State and local taxes as the
primary funding offset for Federal tax reform.
They go on to say: Across the State--meaning Pennsylvania--more than
1.8 million households claimed the State and local tax deduction for a
total of $32.24 billion. We are particularly concerned that the loss of
the State and local tax deduction will harm middle-class homeowners and
overall property values. Without the State and local tax deduction, our
taxpayers, Pennsylvania taxpayers, would be doubly taxed. Such a policy
is contrary--I am reading from their letter--to the intentions of our
Founding Fathers and overturns the precedent set in the Civil War
income tax imposed by President Lincoln and again in the original
Federal Tax Code of 1913. There is strong rationale why the State and
local taxes are included as one of the original six Federal tax
deductions. Simply put, the State and local tax deduction is not a
special loophole but instead a core principle of fiscal federalism that
should be preserved.
That is the letter. There is more. It is signed by a series of
individuals who are elected representatives in Pennsylvania, including
those who represent Dauphin County.
Every year, successful blue-chip States like New Jersey, New York,
and Virginia contribute billions of dollars in tax revenue that goes to
Americans in less productive, lower income States. Now Republicans are
trying to take even more. We are sick and tired of it, and we want our
money back.
In fact, I will make a deal with you. Since you claim to not support
States subsidizing other States, how about you send all of the Federal
tax dollars you receive above and beyond what all of your taxpayers
paid to the Federal Government and you transfer that back to my State
of New Jersey? I will make that deal with you right now. Sound like a
deal? I didn't think so.
Here is another thing that really ticks me off. It is the sneaky,
secret tax hikes Republicans buried in this bill that bilk billions of
dollars from Americans' paychecks in the next two decades. Again, we
know why they have to do it. Even after borrowing $2 trillion from
China, there is no way to pay for permanent corporate tax cuts without
taking a bigger cut from American workers. Boy, have they found a
sneaky way to do it. It is the most complicated, convoluted, boring tax
increase in history, but, boy, it takes $500 billion out of American
paychecks and sends it straight into the coffers of multinational
corporations. That is really something to be proud of. It is called the
Chained CPI. It seems like a tiny tweak to how the government measures
the cost of living. It is something we call inflation.
[[Page S7552]]
Here is the thing about inflation. Ask any American walking down the
street if their wages have kept pace with rising costs, and they will
laugh in your face. They will tell you that their incomes have barely
budged, while everything from the cost of milk to college tuition gets
more expensive every year.
What if the government pretended that the rising costs weren't such a
hardship? That is what we call the Chained CPI tax increase. Don't take
it from me; take it from a Republican tax hero, Grover Norquist. Here
is what he had to say about this very provision, Chained CPI, in 2013.
He said:
This is one of those things invented by people who are
trying to raise taxes and pretend they're not. If you change
the law to get more money, that's a tax increase--doesn't
matter how you do it or what you call it.
We all expect to pay a little more in taxes if we get a big raise at
work. Now Republicans want you to pay more in taxes even if you don't
get a raise. Each year, more of your income, under this provision, will
be taxed in higher brackets, at the very same time your deductions and
tax credits slowly lose their value. It is a clever way for the
government to shave a bit more off your paycheck every year, even if
your income hasn't risen in years. It is a Republican tax on wage
stagnation and a Republican tax on the millennial generation. That is
right--millennials are just now entering their prime earning years, and
apparently they haven't had it hard enough, not after the great
recession, not after drowning them in student loan debt. That is what
Congress really is doing--stick it to the millennials so that the Koch
brothers can get a nice tax cut.
The American people deserve to know the big lie at the heart of the
Trump tax plan. The meager tax cuts for families are written in
disappearing ink, while the sneaky tax hikes are carved into stone. It
is the Republican majority's dirty little secret--the secret that even
after borrowing $2 trillion from China, they can't permanently cut
taxes for corporations without hiking taxes on millions of middle-class
Americans and millions more who dream of becoming middle class. We have
heard this all before--wild claims about tax cuts for the rich
trickling down to working families. The truth is, they never do.
I was in the House of Representatives when Congress passed the Bush
tax cuts. I opposed taking the historic surplus that President Clinton
had created to be used by President Bush--which he inherited and
squandered it on tax cuts, 27 percent of which went to the top 1
percent of Americans. That is chump change compared to the 60-plus
percent that goes to the wealthy in the Trump tax plan.
By 2027, Americans who make $40,000 to $50,000 a year will pay a
combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while those who make millions get
a $5.8 billion cut--pretty close. Americans making $40,000 to $50,000 a
year pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes. Those who make millions
get a $5.8 billion cut. There you have it. Republicans are A-OK with
wealth redistribution so long as it is taking it from working families
and giving it to the richest 1 percent.
That 60-percent number doesn't include the death blow this plan
delivers to the Affordable Care Act, the financial cost to families
when 13 million Americans lose their healthcare coverage and everyone
else gets saddled with higher premiums.
Meanwhile, some Republicans are openly admitting that this tax bill
will be the first shot fired in their race to dismantle Social
Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. In fact, the Congressional Budget
Office--the nonpartisan scoring division for the Congress--already said
that these tax cuts will trigger huge, multibillion-dollar cuts to
Medicare. And that is not the only way this bill screws over America's
seniors. According to the AARP, 5.2 million seniors will face higher
taxes in the next decade. Think about that--asking seniors who have
given this country a lifetime of hard work to pay for corporate tax
cuts.
We know what corporations do with those tax cuts. During the Bush tax
holiday in 2005, the Republicans promised big gains for workers, but
corporations didn't bring the billions of dollars they stashed offshore
back home so they could build new factories or create millions of new
jobs or pay their workers better wages. The lion's share of that
windfall went to just two things: higher pay for CEOs and kickbacks for
their investors on Wall Street.
I am not sure why White House adviser Gary Cohn seemed so surprised
the other day when so few CEOs who were before him said that they used
the tax cuts to invest in American jobs. He asked for a show of hands.
Only a couple raised their hands. Does anyone actually believe things
will be different this time? Of course not.
How do we know? It is because, unlike my Republican friends in
Congress, corporations cannot lie to their shareholders about what they
plan to do with $1 trillion in tax cuts. Their CEOs are openly
admitting this windfall will go straight to Wall Street. That is why I
have been pushing for changes to this tax bill that would take away
these big corporate tax cuts if workers don't see bigger paychecks. Of
course, that is not what Republicans have in mind.
This tax plan has nothing to do with helping hard-working families
get ahead in New Jersey and across America. It is not about helping
folks who have good jobs but still live paycheck to paycheck. It is
about one thing--cutting taxes permanently for big corporations that
are raking in record profits and just straight-out refusing to pay
their workers decent wages. It is about cutting taxes for trust fund
kids who were born on third base and think they hit a triple. It is
about paving the way for massive cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social
Security. It is about bankrupting States of the resources they need to
invest in education, in infrastructure, in public health, and in
creating the growth for opportunity for all.
These are the backward priorities of this legislation--tax cuts for
big corporations and wealthy campaign donors that are paid for by
taking bigger cuts out of workers' paychecks and saddling our
grandchildren, like my granddaughter, Evangelina, with $2 trillion in
debt.
The only people who will come out on top from this legislation are
those who are already sitting at the very top. So much for draining the
swamp. This is about as mucky as it gets. I hope my colleagues come to
their senses and put the brakes on this terrible tax bill.
We can have tax reform--tax reform that is bipartisan, tax reform
that can be permanent, tax reform that creates stability, tax reform
that creates growth not just for companies but growth for American
workers' wages, and that creates a better economy for all. This deal is
a bad deal for the American people, and they deserve much better.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, during Thanksgiving last week, families
across the country came together to give thanks for the blessings of
the past year. One group in particular--corporate CEOs--had a special
reason to be thankful: the Republican tax bill we are considering
today. Rather than engaging in a bipartisan process to develop and
enact meaningful tax reform that will benefit working Americans and
small businesses, Republicans in Congress have spent the last few
weeks. crafting tax cut legislation that will overwhelmingly favor
large corporations and ultrawealthy Americans. Just in time for the
holiday season, this bill delivers everything on the Republican donor
class's wish lis while providing the vast majority of working Americans
with little more than a lump of coal.
This tax bill would have harmful and far-reaching effects, in
countless ways, for our economy, for the budget, for our healthcare
system, for our environment, and for the pocketbooks of middle-income
Americans from coast to coast; yet despite these enormous threats
across the board, rarely, if ever, have I seen such a secretive and
slapdash process and such a shoddy result. Republican leaders purposely
chose a partisan process, not a bipartisan process.
This bill has one clear goal: provide corporations with permanent tax
cuts at any and all costs. Unfortunately, the costs of providing these
unnecessary cuts are high and fall disproportionately on lower and
middle-income Americans, who will only see temporary cuts that will
expire in 2025. The true purpose and slant of this bill are belied by
the fact that huge tax
[[Page S7553]]
cuts for corporations would be permanent, while the meager adjustments
for hard-working Americans are only temporary. Critical deductions
relied upon by many Vermonters, including the State and local tax
deduction, are reduced or eliminated. These changes are likely to
result in higher taxes for many working families. To add insult to
injury, even after targeting the middle class to pay for permanent
corporate tax cuts, the bill will still end up adding more than $1.4
trillion to our deficit and debt over the next 10 years.
This is a bill that cheats our future for the sake of a tax-cut
windfall for the 1 percent. It does absolutely wonderful things for the
wealthiest taxpayers, like the President, his cronies, and his family,
but it does not advance the common good. It offers crumbs to hard-
working Americans, while the wealthiest individuals and corporations
reap the rewards of this bill, with the false promise of trickle-down
benefits to everyone else. The wealthiest are doing just fine, and big
corporations already are pulling in record profits, which they are not
investing but salting away. They don't need more tax cuts. More than
400 millionaires have urgently told Congress that they don't need more
tax cuts.
Even more appallingly, to pay for these tax giveaways for
corporations, Republicans intend to strip health insurance from 13
million Americans, a move that threatens to seriously destabilize the
health insurance market. Americans with health insurance today will
face higher premiums as a result of this bill becoming law. As the
Congressional Budget Office found in its recent analysis, by 2027, the
bill takes away billions of dollars in Federal healthcare support for
Americans making less than $75,000. This needlessly putt innocent lives
at risk. To the extent that working Vermonters see any benefit from the
tax cuts included in this bill, those gains will be more than wiped
away by these changes to our healthcare system.
What is more, this Republican proposal will also cause irreparable
harm to our environment by opening up oil and gas drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR--all to pay for tax breaks for
corporations, including those in the oil and gas industry. Exposing
this breathtaking area of the country to the ravages of oil and gas
drilling would be an environmental tragedy. Even worse, the rationale
for it may be built on a false premise. There is evidence to suggest
that opening this area for development would not even provide the
economic benefits being claimed. Turning ANWR into an oil field is yet
another gift to corporate interests at the expense of the American
people and at the cost of damage to their public lands.
These are just some of the devastating consequences this bill will
have if it is enacted, and we know this isn't even the bill on which we
will ultimately cast a vote. This bill has been written and rewritten
so many times behind closed doors, and we have every reason to believe
Republicans will conclude this arcane reconciliation process by
offering a final amendment, unveiled at the last minute, without the
benefit of thorough review and debate. For an issue this complex that
touches every aspect of our economy, moving at a breakneck, partisan
pace is a dangerous and reckless approach. How many Senators who
support this legislation can look their constituents in the eye and
honestly tell them they know every detail of this bill and how it will
impact them and our country? Can the Senators who support this bill in
good faith promise it won't raise their constituents' taxes, today,
tomorrow, next year, or in a decade? Or that it won't set in motion
slashing cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid?
Remember the promises the Republican majority made just months ago?
They promised their bill would boost the economy and help middle-class
Americans and that it wouldn't explode the debt and the deficits. The
President himself promised that the bill wouldn't benefit him or other
wealthy taxpayers. Now, we know the truth. The independent
Congressional Budget Office and countless economists have made clear
that those promises have been utterly shredded. Further damage is done
by this direct hit on the health insurance that is relied upon by
millions of Americans and by the elimination of the deductibility of
State and local taxes. Blowing a hole in the budget will seed the
ground for rising interest rates that will hit every family and drag
down our economy, and Republican cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid will follow.
Even these huge corporate tax cuts are not structured in a way that
would truly encourage investments here at home and boost workers'
wages. There is no bang, let alone a popgun pop, for shoveling out
these more than 2 million bucks.
We need to go back to the drawing board and start this process over
again. Let Republicans and Democrats work together on real tax reform
that simplifies the Tax Code and provides real benefits to working
Americans. This bill is not tax reform. This is a cartoonish caricature
of what real tax reform should look like. It is dishonest to its core.
It is cynical, and it can only breed more cynicism by the public. It is
not only bad policy, it is horrible policy--and it is wrong.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the so-called
Republican tax reform bill.
When it comes to revising our tax system, I assumed there were two
things my Republican colleagues would agree with me on.
First, that tax reform doesn't increase taxes for middle-class
families and, second, that tax reform wouldn't balloon the deficit.
Unfortunately, I was wrong on both counts. The bill that is before us
does both of those things. Candidly, I'm surprised that anyone can even
call this bill tax reform with a straight face.
I think it is clear to all of us and to the American people that this
bill is nothing more than a windfall tax cut for big corporations and
rich Americans.
There were no hearings on this bill with outside groups. There was no
transparency in the drafting of this bill, and much like the healthcare
debacle, the result is a mess that not even all Republicans are
supporting.
This bill would blow a $1.4 trillion hole in our deficit. This bill
would raise taxes on many working families by gutting important
deductions like for State and local taxes. This bill would leave 13
million Americans without health insurance. This bill even has riders
in it to allow drilling in pristine areas of the Alaskan wilderness.
The bill takes all of these destructive actions just to put more
money in the pockets of corporations and the richest Americans.
This bill is one of the most fiscally irresponsible bills I have seen
in quite some time.
In fact, I don't ever recall a tax bill on the Senate floor that
drives up our deficit this much.
Republicans are trying to convince Americans that these huge tax cuts
for the rich will pay for themselves. Well, that is just not going to
happen.
If you don't believe me, listen to all the economists who agree that
this bill won't accomplish the goals that Republicans are claiming.
While a higher deficit is bad enough on its own, I fear that
Republicans will use this as an excuse to gut vital programs like
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to pay for it.
I can think of better ways to spend $1.4 trillion than cutting taxes
for the rich. Imagine how many jobs would be created if we invested
that money in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure or the jobs
created if we invested in clean energy solutions to reduce our
dependence on fossil fuels. We could invest in education to prepare our
students to compete in the new economy, or we could invest in our
veterans by improving the care they receive at VA hospitals.
Instead, Republicans want to waste that money lining the pockets of
millionaires and billionaires, and it is the middle class who will pay
the price.
Every day I hear from Californians who are worried about this bill
and what it means for their family's budgets.
Here are some of their stories.
Raleigh is a middle-class retiree in Davis, CA. He wrote me to say
that his taxes would go up nearly $4,000 a year. He simply can't afford
such a drastic tax increase on his fixed budget.
Mary lives in Berkeley, CA. She said the effects of this bill will be
higher health insurance premiums because the bill goes after the
individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The increased costs
could mean she will have
[[Page S7554]]
to choose between buying health insurance or paying for her daughter's
college tuition.
Michael is a senior in Los Angeles. He is afraid he will have to sell
his house due to the elimination of the property tax deduction.
Carol, who lives in Sacramento, tells me that her family's taxes
would go up almost $12,000 a year, making it harder for her to save for
retirement.
These are just a few stories about the hardships that Americans will
face because of this bill.
In fact, more than half of American households will pay more in taxes
under the Republican plan. That is appalling.
Californians will be particularly hurt by the elimination of the
State and local tax deduction.
Since the national income tax was created in 1913, Americans have
been able to prevent double taxation by deducting state and local
taxes.
In 2015, more than 6 million California households claimed this
deduction, and the average amount deducted was $18,400.
Even Americans who don't claim the SALT deduction will be hurt by
this proposal.
Funding for critical services like schools, and police and fire
departments would be in jeopardy as communities bear the impact of the
increased tax burden on families.
This bill also renews the Republican's assault on the Affordable Care
Act. The bill would drive up healthcare costs by repealing the
individual mandate.
If this passes, prices in the marketplace would skyrocket, increasing
by almost 10 percent each year, making healthcare unaffordable for many
families. The result would be 13 million fewer people with healthcare.
One group, however, is the clear winner, and that is big
corporations.
The Republican tax bill permanently slashes the corporate tax rate
from 35 percent to 20 percent.
They will get to keep deductions taken away from ordinary people,
allowing companies to drive their executive tax rate down further.
For instance, corporations will still be able to deduct State and
local taxes they pay, while middle-class families won't be allowed to.
Under the Republican plan, corporate tax cuts are made permanent,
keeping their tax rates low. Meanwhile, the lower tax rates for the
middle class would disappear, further shifting the tax burden onto
American families.
The misplaced priorities in this tax cut bill are bad for families
and bad for America. This bill is being rushed through in large part
because it is harmful to families. It clearly skews to benefit big
corporations and the rich. It explodes our deficit, leaving the middle-
class to pay the tab.
I cannot support this bill, and I urge my Republican colleagues to
join me in opposing it.
Scrap this fiscally irresponsible legislation, and work with
Democrats on true tax reform that puts the middle class first.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for our
renewable energy tax incentives. The production tax credit, PTC, for
wind and the investment tax credit, ITC, for solar must remain intact
as agreed to in this Chamber 2 years ago. These two credits are
necessary to continue to create clean energy jobs in Colorado. Although
the Senate tax package does not modify the PCT and ITC, the House
version includes harmful changes to the existing credits.
During the Finance Committee mark up, I asked the majority if they
intend to preserve the ITC and PTC credits in current law during
conference. Senator Grassley stated that, in private conversations with
the administration, it indicated it would preserve the bipartisan
compromise on energy credits. I urge the leadership to retain existing
law on the energy tax credits during conference. I take this
opportunity to ask unanimous consent that our exchange from the Finance
Committee markup be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks so much for
having a second round of questions.
Ms. Acuna, I would like to know if the lack of an energy
title in the Senate markup implies an endorsement of the
House bill which undercuts the permanent extension of the ITC
for solar, it reduces the credit for the wind PTC. Or does
the Committee plan on honoring the ITC, PTC commitment we
made two years ago in a bipartisan way during reconciliation
at conference? Do you expect to maintain that in the
conference and is that our position?
Ms. Acuna. Thank you. I am not at liberty to speak of
whether or not the mark represents an endorsement or a lack
of endorsement of the House bill with respect to the energy
provisions. That rests with our members and I will leave it
at that.
Senator Bennet. So can silence be read to be acquiescence
to the House bill? How should we understand it?
What is the administration's position, Mr. West, on this
question?
Mr. West. I am not here to speak to the administration's
position today, Senator, on that particular provision.
Senator Grassley. If the senator would yield, I can speak
to----
Senator Bennet. Sure, I would yield to my colleague. You
were at the heart of those negotiations.
Senator Grassley. Yeah. From this standpoint, both in the
privacy of my office pre-Mnuchin nomination and at this
hearing, I asked that very question about the
administration's or at least his view on preserving it. I do
not know whether he get into the pros and cons of the tax,
but I brought it up from the standpoint that two years ago we
established a transition rule phasing out the wind energy
credit in 2020. And that is three years through that process.
That transition rule ought to be maintained and he said yes.
Senator Bennet. Well, let me say I am grateful for your
leadership as I always have been.
That is not the position that the House has taken in their
bill.
Senator Grassley. They have done great damage to our
transition rule.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motion to
H.R. 1, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
The motion is supported by Senators Van Hollen and Warner.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Motion To Commit With Instructions
Mr. Carper 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) reduce incentives for companies to shift production and
jobs overseas by enacting a more effective minimum tax on
foreign profits that broadens the applicable income subject
to this tax and that applies this tax on a country-by-country
basis.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I intend to offer the following
motions to H.R. 1, and I ask unanimous consent that they 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. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate 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) both--
(A) make business tax reform revenue-neutral; and
(B) eliminate the perverse incentive created by a delayed
corporate tax cut for companies to make money-losing
investments.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate 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;
(2) make business tax reform revenue-neutral;
(3) eliminate the perverse incentive created by a delayed
corporate tax cut for companies to make money-losing
investments; and
(4) redirect the resulting increase in revenue to provide
tax relief for households with incomes of less than $250,000.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Mr. Van Hollen 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) require the President of the United States to make
available to the public the President's tax returns for not
less than the 3 most recent taxable years, for the purpose of
determining whether the President would receive a personal
financial benefit as a result of the bill.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the
[[Page S7555]]
following motion 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
Ms. Baldwin moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate 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) support the President's plan to close the carried
interest loophole.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I have three motions to commit that I
believe the Senate should consider during our debate of H.R. 1, The Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act.
I ask unanimous consent that my motions to commit be printed in the
Record.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Mr. Merkley moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate 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) raise the Federal corporate income tax rate to 25
percent to pay for K-12 education through block grants to
States.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Mr. Merkley moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate 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) increase the Federal corporate income tax rate to 25
percent and transfer any increase in Federal revenues
resulting from such increase to the Highway Trust Fund under
section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Mr. Merkley moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate 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) provide for a $3,000 refundable income tax credit for
taxpayers earning less than $100,000 and fully pay for the
cost of such credit by eliminating all or a portion of the
corporate income tax rate cuts and the deduction for pass-
through business income, by reinstating completely the
alternative minimum tax, and by repealing the changes to the
Federal estate tax.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my
motion to commit, made with the support of Senator Heinrich, 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. Udall moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 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;
(2) provide for full, permanent, and mandatory funding for
the payment in lieu of taxes program under chapter 69 of
title 31, United States Code; and
(3) provide for the permanent authorization of the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000
(16 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.).
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my
motion to commit, made with the support of Senator Heitkamp, 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. Udall 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) increase revenue by sufficient amounts to provide full
funding levels for all programs administered by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (including public safety and justice,
education, social services, and natural resources programs),
programs administered by the Indian Health Service, and
housing programs carried out pursuant to the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my
motion 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. Udall 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) establish a tax deduction for small businesses on the
first $25,000 in business income for any small business
including C corporations, sole proprietorships, partnerships
and S corporations, accompanied by a phase-out for businesses
beginning at $200,000 in income and ending at $250,000 in
income, or twice that amount for couples filing jointly, to
ensure that the deduction benefits the entities most in need.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
motions to H.R. 1, the Tax Reconciliation Act, 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. Reed moves to commit the bill, H.R. 1, to the committee
on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in three 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) preserve the estate tax at current levels and devote
all revenue generated therefrom equally between military
readiness and the opioid crisis in the United States.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Mr. Reed moves to commit the bill, H.R. 1, to the committee
on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in three 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) secure the long-term integrity of unemployment
compensation and related programs for individuals who become
unemployed during economic downturns, including extended
unemployment compensation, disaster unemployment assistance,
and work sharing.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Mr. Reed moves to commit the bill, H.R. 1, to the committee
on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in three 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) would ensure that the bill does not result in any
reduction in health insurance coverage for children,
including by eliminating any provision that would result in
(A) a reduction in the amount or availability of premium
assistance subsidies for individuals purchasing health
insurance coverage through an Exchange established for or by
a State under title I of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act; or (B) a reduction in Federal spending
on the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social
Security Act.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Mr. Reed moves to commit the bill, H.R. 1, to the committee
on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in three 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) would ensure that the bill does not result in any
reduction in health insurance coverage for seniors, including
by eliminating any provision that would result in (A) a
reduction in the amount or availability of premium assistance
subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance
coverage through an Exchange established for or by a State
under title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act; or (B) a reduction in Federal spending on the Medicaid
program under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Mr. Reed moves to commit the bill, H.R. 1, to the committee
on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in three 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) include a provision requiring the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to negotiate prescription drug costs under
the Medicare program, particularly with inverted
corporations.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Mr. Reed moves to commit the bill, H.R. 1, to the committee
on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in three 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)
provide additional weeks of unemployment insurance, training,
and placement assistance for workers whose jobs are lost due
to automation.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Mr. Reed moves to commit the bill, H.R. 1, to the committee
on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the
Senate
[[Page S7556]]
in three 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)(A) designate a total national bond limitation of
$30,000,000,000 for qualified school infrastructure bonds
($10,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2020)
for upgrades, repair, construction, or replacement of school
buildings, systems, or components; (B) allocate such bond
authority to States based on the proportion of funds received
by the State under part A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965; and (C) require that the
Federal government provide a tax credit of 100 percent of the
interest on any qualified school infrastructure bonds, with
such credit being allowed to be issued as a tax credit to the
bondholder or as a direct payment to the bond issuer; and
(3) expand qualified zone academy bonds to $1,400,000,000
annually and remove the private business contribution
requirement for local education agencies to participate in
the qualified zone academy bond program.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motion
to H.R. 1, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the
Record. The motion is supported by Senators Carper and Warner.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate 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) reduce incentives for companies to shift production and
jobs overseas by enacting a true minimum tax on foreign
profits that does not provide an exemption for a routine
return and applies this tax on a country-by-country basis.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
text of my motion 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
Ms. Cortez Masto 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;
(2) strike provisions in the bill that would harm
individuals ages 50 and older by reducing their access to
affordable health care or limiting coverage or benefits in
the private health insurance market; and
(3) strike provisions in the bill that would increase taxes
for individuals ages 50 and older from the date of the
enactment of the bill until 2037.
Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 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
Ms. Harris 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) help students afford the cost of higher education.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris 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) protect funding for historically Black colleges and
universities.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris 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) support Impact Aid payments to school districts that
have Federal property in their jurisdiction.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris 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) hold for-profit colleges and other institutions of
higher education accountable when they prey on, mislead, and
defraud students.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris 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) protect taxpayers from identity fraud.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris 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) strike provisions that raise taxes on low-income
taxpayers.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris 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) strike provisions that raise taxes on the middle class.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris 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) strike provisions that give tax cuts to the rich.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Rules 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) establish an independent committee to advise the
Federal government on election cybersecurity.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources 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) ensure adequate earthquake disaster assistance funding.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris 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) increase funding for community development block
grants.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris 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) increase funding for affordable housing programs.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris 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) incentivize States to reform their criminal justice
systems, including by encouraging the replacement of the use
of payment of secured money bail as a condition of pretrial
release in criminal cases.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris 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) prepare the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
respond to natural disasters affecting United States
territories and islands.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on the Judiciary of the Senate 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) provide a path to citizenship through comprehensive
immigration reform legislation.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 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) provide funding to ensure that the benefits of clean
air and clean drinking water are
[[Page S7557]]
enjoyed equally by all Americans, regardless of economic
status.
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 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) provide full funding for removal and remediation at
sites on the National Priorities List developed by the
President in accordance with section 105(a)(8)(B) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B)).
Motion to Commit With Instructions
Ms. Harris 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 provide for worker training
programs, such as training programs that target workers that
need advanced skills to progress in their current profession
or apprenticeship or certificate programs that provide
retraining for a new industry.
Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________