Mr. President, we are going to vote here real soon on a bill that has been worked on for many, many months. I want to start by thanking the staff on the committees, the relevant committees, the floor staff--everybody who has been around…
Mr. President, we are going to vote here real soon on a bill that has been worked on for many, many months. I want to start by thanking the staff on the committees, the relevant committees, the floor staff--everybody who has been around who has to put in the hours and get us to where we are today. They are extraordinary people who are very dedicated to their jobs and the public service, and we are grateful for that.
I will say, too, we went through the reading of the bill--which the Democratic leader just pointed out was important for people to hear-- through the middle of the night. I don't think there was a big American audience for that. I think a lot of people were at their jobs, working their shifts--people like nurses and firefighters who are going to benefit under this bill. To think that they were sitting there in their jobs watching the bill be read on the floor for endless hours in the middle of the night--I am not sure what that achieved; but I will tell you what the Senator said, the Democrat leader, back in 2021, when a Republican Senator required that to be done. He said this:
It will accomplish little more than a few sore throats for
the Senate clerks who work very hard day in, day out to help
the Senate function.
Those clerks are here today. And one of the reasons that we tried to give them a break last night is because they had to stay here the night before to read through the bill. In the dead of the night, nobody watching, but they did it. So, hopefully, they got a little bit of rest last night so we can start this off.
Mr. President, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was one of the most successful economic policy pieces of legislation in history, and the data bears it out. Look at what happened. After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed, unemployment hit a 50-year low, poverty levels at record- level lows, and incomes grew. Incomes and wages increased most among lower income Americans. We started to narrow the wage gap as a result of the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
So what is this about? This is about extending that tax relief so the same people who benefited from it back in 2017 and for the last 8 years don't end up having a colossal, massive tax increase hitting them in the face come January 1.
Now, who are those people? It is people, it is families making less than $400,000 a year on whom the bulk of this would fall; $2.6 trillion of this tax hike that they are supporting would hit families making less than $400,000 a year.
It would hit small businesses to the tune of $600 billion in tax increases. These are passthrough businesses, the businesses that are out there creating the jobs every day. If we don't do this, they are going to face a $600 billion tax increase. That is what we are talking about.
If you want to put it in plain terms, if you are one of those families making less than $400,000 a year, the child tax credit would be cut in half, the standard deduction would be cut in half, and you wouldn't get the benefit that many taxpayers are going to get under the legislation that we are going to be debating today, which would allow tips to go untaxed, allow overtime to go untaxed. Those nurses, those firefighters who are working the long shifts, not watching the bill be read here on the Senate floor, actually get something out of this that makes their families more able to cope with the challenges that they face every day. So the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was a massive--by any stretch of the imagination--success.
There is probably no better evidence of that than the fact that the Congressional Budget Office, which has been quoted a lot here in the last few hours, actually underestimated the amount of revenue that would come into the Federal Government by $1.5 trillion, underestimated the amount of growth in the economy by 5.4 percent--dramatically underestimated what it would generate in terms of revenue and what it would generate in terms of growth. So let's just say what this is.
And, by the way, billionaires next year will pay the same tax rate they are paying this year. The people who are going to get hit with a tax increase if we don't do something are those families making less than $400,000 a year, who are going to see their child tax credit cut in half, their standard deduction cut in half, and their rates go back up to what they were in 2017. In my State of South Dakota, the average family is going to pay $2,500 more if we don't do something to extend the tax relief that was passed in 2017.
The other thing that the Democrat leader got up and talked about is: Oh, they are going to be cutting Medicaid. There are a lot of government programs that haven't been looked at in a long time. We all acknowledge that 75 percent now of Federal spending is what we call mandatory spending, entitlement programs, things that Congress doesn't annually appropriate for. And it continues to grow at an uncontrollable rate.
In fact, the growth and the rate of Medicaid spending in the last 5 years has been 50 percent. That is not sustainable. We know that is not sustainable.
In the time I have been here, we have never, ever done anything to reform and improve and strengthen these programs that are growing at an unsustainable rate that will wreck our economy and wreck our country if we don't start making some changes.
So, yes, there are some improvements and reforms to Medicaid to make it more efficient, to make sure that the people who are supposed to benefit from Medicaid do, and that it doesn't go to people who shouldn't benefit from Medicaid.
Now, most of the increase in spending in Medicaid has been at what we call the expansion population, and that is the number of people out there for whom States get a 90-percent reimbursement from the Federal Government. So that has grown dramatically.
And what does that represent? It is a lot of able-bodied adults-- people who should be working, people who, perhaps, don't need to be getting the assistance that is designed for people who are disabled, and the low-income, the elderly, and pregnant moms. That is what Medicaid was about.
States have, with the Federal Government, a partnership, shared for the years at a traditional rate. The expansion population is 90 percent, paid for by the Federal taxpayers. So what do States do? They game the system to get more Federal money. They add more people to the rolls. So you have people on the rolls today who are here illegally and people on the rolls here today who are not eligible for this program, and you have people here today in that program for whom there is no work requirement. So what this does is it makes some reforms, one of which--one of which--includes work requirements.
I don't think that is a novel concept. It certainly isn't a concept that I think most Americans would disagree with.
In fact, it was a Democrat President. Back in the 1990s, there was something called welfare reform. Bill Clinton, a Democrat President, proposed work requirements for welfare recipients.
And do you want to know something? The work requirements in the Welfare Reform Act passed back in 1996 and signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton had stronger work requirements than are included in this bill--stronger work requirements in a bill passed, signed into law by a Democrat President than what is in this bill, and proposed, I might add, by a Democrat President.
So that is one of the reforms that we are making. These are the reforms that are going to make this program stronger, more effective, more efficient, improve it in a way that it gets the assistance to the people for whom it was intended and not to people who are gaming the system.
And, yes, we address the issue of provider taxes, which has been abused--no question about it. It is another way to leverage Federal money, get more Federal money into the State coffers. And the States have used it for things not just to cover people but also for other reasons; and you have States like New York and California who gamed the system.
The whole issue of what we are doing with the Medicaid Program is to get rid of the waste, fraud, and abuse and make it work in the way in which it was intended, to cover the people for whom it was intended, and to make sure that we have work requirements included in there.
To the current policy baseline--everybody got up last night, and they were clamoring and yelling--very animated speeches--about how the Republicans are using the current policy baseline--how could they ever do that?
Well, do you know what? Back in 2012, President Obama and one of the people who was working for him at the time named Jeff Zients used the current policy baseline to make permanent the Bush tax cuts. And the way he described it--Jeff Zients described it at the time--he called it the alternative fiscal scenario. That is how they explained it to the American people. Then he translated it and said: What it is, it is a current policy baseline.
So the Democrats have used this before. In fact, they kind of--you can argue--pioneered it. But current policy baseline is something that has been used by both sides. So spare me the hypocrisy and the noise about current policy baseline. Alternative fiscal scenario, he called it, and then he went on to explain current policy baseline.
Finally, with regard to the issue of the deficits. It is rich to hear Democrats all of a sudden concerned about debt and deficits. Really? I mean, I have been here a long time, and I have not been involved in a single spending debate and fight in which Republicans were trying to spend less and Democrats were trying to spend more, with one exception--with one exception--and that is national security. Democrats are always willing to cut defense but never want to cut anywhere else. That is my experience.
And I think it was borne out a couple of years ago when Democrats had then but we have now, which is unified control of the government--the House, Senate, and White House. So they had an opportunity to use reconciliation, which they did twice. One of the bills cost $2 trillion; the other bill cost $1 trillion. And it was all spending. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the fundamental difference between us here, and I understand that. We have different views about the role of government. Democrats like government, and one of the things we know about government is when you send money to Washington--money is power, and when you send money to Washington from the American taxpayers, that means Washington has more power; it has more control. And Republicans fundamentally have believed that it is better if you allow the American people to keep their own money, that you distribute power out of Washington, DC, back to State and local governments, which are closer to the people and can make better decisions that are more informed by what is actually happening in their individual States.
So when we use reconciliation to keep taxes low--and, by the way, that is all we are doing here, is extending current tax policy. We are preventing over a $4 trillion tax increase on the American people. And when you vote against us, that is what you would be voting for.
Now, a good example of this spending issue was the 2011 Budget Control Act in which--authored by a number of people, including Senator McConnell--that created a supercommittee equally represented on both sides of the aisle. And they met for a long time trying to come up with some ways that we could come up with, ways to reform the entitlement programs. And, of course, what happened is they deadlocked because every Democrat voted against it and every Republican voted for it. It even included some revenue increases, which is something Democrats are always for.
So getting up and talking about deficits all of a sudden, honestly, is kind of mind-blowing coming from this side of the aisle. What we are doing here is extending existing tax policy, using a current policy baseline which was used by the Democrats, President Obama, Jeff Zients, no less than a little more than 10 years ago.
It is time to vote, and Democrats are going to get a chance to offer all of their amendments, and they will attack this thing as cutting taxes for billionaires. What we are doing here is extending tax relief for the American people, keeping their rates low, making sure they don't have their child tax
credit cut in half, their standard deduction cut in half, including new provisions that provide more relief for working Americans, which is what President Trump campaigned on. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, lower taxes for seniors, for Social Security recipients--these are all targeted at working Americans, working families. That is, first and foremost, what this is about.
This will make this country safer, stronger, and more prosperous. It addresses military modernization. It addresses securing our border. It addresses security dominance. It extends tax relief for the American people so they can avoid a $4 trillion tax increase at the end of the year. And, yes, it includes some savings associated with reforms that are made in a way that targets assistance from Federal programs to where it was intended to go. And, yes, we have work requirements--work requirements that were initiated by Bill Clinton and the Clinton administration during welfare reform back in the 1990s; only, I would say again, they are not as strong.
The work requirements included in that legislation back in the 1990s--what we have in this bill, the work requirements here are not as strong.
Mr. President, let's vote. This is good for America. This is good for the American people. It is good for working families.
It has been a long debate. I know people are weary, but at the end of the day, we want to get this done so that this country is safer and stronger and more prosperous, not only for today but for future generations of Americans.
Order of Business
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to all rollcall votes in relation to Calendar No. 107, H.R. 1.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Schumer motion, No. 1, motion to commit on healthcare costs, Markey motion, and then the Klobuchar point of order.
Mr. President, I make a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(b) of the Congressional Budget Act against title VII of substitute amendment No. 2360.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Wyden, motion to commit; Coons, motion to commit.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senator to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Blunt Rochester--motion to commit.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Cornyn No. 2705, Merkley No. 2446.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Murray, No. 2771.
I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to the vote in relation to the amendment or motion: Blackburn, No. 2401.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Kaine, motion to commit; Blumenthal, motion to commit.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Van Hollen, No. 2584; Gallego, motion to commit; Hassan, motion to commit.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions and with 12 minutes of debate equally divided on the Kennedy amendment No. 2772 between Senators Kennedy, Welch, and Scott of South Carolina: Duckworth, motion to commit; Schiff, motion to commit; Kennedy, No. 2772; Alsobrooks, motion to commit; Kelly, motion to commit; Murphy, motion to commit; King, motion to commit; Padilla, motion to commit; Bennet, motion to commit; and Collins, No. 2812.
Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2775 on behalf of Senator Kennedy and ask that it be reported by number.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions.
Wyden, motion to commit; Hirono, No. 2382; Warnock, motion to commit; Lee, No. 2745; Kim, No. 2817; Ernst, No. 2372; Sanders, No. 2435, with 60 affirmative votes required.
Mr. President, I would suggest to my colleagues that we get this vote started and that, when we get it, we are going to start voting in our seats, and we are going to start doing 10-minute votes.
Mr. President, I ask to clarify. I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes be 10 minutes in length.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendment be reported by number with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Blackburn-Cruz No. 2602, Blackburn No. 2814, Rosen No. 2717, Kennedy No. 2790, Hickenlooper No. 2719, and Shaheen No. 2564.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Warner, No. 2847; Van Hollen, No. 2585; and Kennedy, No. 2723.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I know of no further amendments.
Vote on Amendment No. 2360, as Amended
I ask for the yeas and nays.