Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to mark a milestone no Senator can be proud of and a milestone every Senator should regret. That milestone is, it has now been 100 days since the Congress failed to extend full funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program. The Congress has always looked at this in a bipartisan way. This is for the millions of families, for kids who walk an economic tightrope with their families, the families who balance the rent bill against the fuel bill and the fuel bill against the grocery bill.

I have to say, there was plenty of time in the last Congress to carry out the priorities of the multinational corporations. The people who are well connected, the people who are powerful received permanent, substantial, really massive new tax breaks, and yet the 9 million kids, including 80,000 in my home State who count on CHIP to stay healthy-- what they received was a patch. They received something temporary. They received something that didn't resemble the permanent, you-can-count- on-it tax relief the multinational corporations were celebrating at the end of the year. It is a sad statement about the priorities of the Congress at the end of last year and one I hope we will move now in the bipartisan tradition of this program to pass on a permanent basis.

The CHIP program was created in 1997 through a simple idea: No child, regardless of their income, family's status, or geography should go without quality, affordable healthcare. It serves families who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but also don't have access to affordable healthcare through their employer. A lot of these families go back and forth between CHIP and Medicaid, depending on whether a spouse is out of work.

CHIP covers all kinds of essential healthcare for kids from preventive services to dental checkups, to treatment for serious illnesses. For families across the country, that is peace of mind, that is the chance to go to bed at night knowing you aren't going to get crushed by big medical bills in the morning. It means you don't have to have those heartbreaking, right-before-bed conversations about what you are going to do for your sick child, and it doesn't mean you have to just plan on the unexpected emergencies with nowhere to turn. All of that is at risk because of the ``negligence'' of this Congress, and I use that word specifically.

I talked about the skewed priorities at the end of the year, but right now States are stretching their Children's Health Insurance Program dollars to the breaking point. They are trying to make sure kids stay covered, and what we are faced with is termination notices going out. We have to prevent those termination notices for these families. As I said, Congress put a patch on all this, contrasting this to the permanent relief of the multinationals, and the Congress sent a small amount of money to the States to keep them afloat, but make no mistake about it, it is not going to be long before bedlam sets in, once again, and there are real consequences for children and families.

Now, I also want to note that I have been working closely with Chairman Hatch for months now to get CHIP across the finish line. Chairman Hatch knows what it takes. He created this program with our friend Senator Rockefeller and the late, great Senator Kennedy. They demonstrated that kids' health was an issue that transcends ideological lines, and our country is the better for it today.

Chairman Hatch and I made an agreement in September that extends full funding for 5 years, affirms key protections for kids and their families, and gives States certainty they can

count on to plan their budgets. I note that the leader, Senator Schumer, is here. He has been very supportive of this bill. He sat next to me and Senator Rockefeller for years and is supportive of the children's health program.

The Hatch-Wyden bill passed with a strong bipartisan vote in the Finance Committee. Again, I am highlighting the priorities where there was time for the multinational corporations to get that permanent relief, but there wasn't any time to put the CHIP bill--one that had only one vote in opposition in the Finance Committee--on the Senate floor. In the House of Representatives, they weren't pursuing it like we did in the Finance Committee. They never could get past a purely partisan approach, out of line with CHIP's long, bipartisan history.

Now, obviously after months of delay, it is time to act, and I want to wrap up with a quick comment about what is going to happen if you don't move and move quickly. Just last week, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the cost of CHIP has plummeted from $8.2 billion to $800 million. That is because premiums in the individual market are set to skyrocket after the repeal of the Affordable Care Act's coverage requirement in the Republican tax bill. Many of the families who currently count on CHIP will have to get their kids' healthcare on the private market at a higher cost. As if Congress needed more reasons to act, the budget office has demonstrated what is now at stake for kids and their families who are counting on quick action for affordable healthcare.

There is a long history, as I have noted, of the Senate working on the Children's Health Insurance Program in a bipartisan way. We started building on that tradition in the Finance Committee with virtual unanimity. Somehow at the end of the last Congress--and your priorities can always be illustrated with what you find time to do--there was time at the end of the year for the agenda of the multinational corporations, but there wasn't time for the youngsters and their families who walk an economic tightrope and depend every night, when they turn the lights out, on making sure there is a way to pay for healthcare if there is an emergency in the morning.

I want it understood that we are working day in and day out now to quickly make sure kids and their families get the certainty and predictability they deserve. They deserve the kind of certainty the powerful got with the tax bill at the end of the year.

So we are going to be on this floor until this critical legislation is passed. It needs to be passed quickly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to discuss the Senate's investigation into Russia in the 2016 election. Specifically, I have been reviewing for months documents in the possession of the Senate's Intelligence Committee. I regret to say, the depth of the committee's investigation is completely unsatisfactory into the crucial issues of what I call following the money.

Early in 2017, I began asking the committee leadership to look into any and all financial relationships between Russia and Donald Trump and his associates. In an open hearing the committee held in March, I noted a number of public facts. First, there is an extraordinary history of money laundering in Russia. Billions of dollars from corruption and other illegal activities have been moved out of the country. Second, the President's son said in 2008: ``Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.'' Third, entities associated with the President had already been the subject of millions of dollars of fines for willful, repeated, and longstanding violations of anti-money laundering laws. Fourth, the Congress and the American people still haven't seen the President's tax returns.

Since then, there have been numerous additional press stories about associates of the President and their financial connections to Russia. In my view, these stories require thorough, detailed investigation. It is not just by the press. The special counsel's indictment against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort included extensive detailed allegations of laundering of millions of dollars from pro-Russia- Ukrainian interests. This indictment provided a clear example of how a foreign-influenced campaign can be financed through illicit means and why the importance of following the money is so crucial.

There have been others, acknowledged financial connections, such as former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and his payment from RT, the television station that is part of Russia's state-run propaganda apparatus.

Then there are the strange denials, such as when Jared Kushner wrote in his statement in July, ``I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector.''

I can state, that is some kind of good lawyering because the word ``rely'' is subjective. Mr. Kushner did not deny financial ties to Russia. He said he hadn't relied on those funds, not whether he had any, not whether he ever had any, but he hadn't relied on them. That is about as lawyerly and subjective a statement as you can imagine.

My bottom line is, these financial ties need to be a central focus of the Intelligence Committee's inquiry. The reason I say this, I want to spell out what the connection here is. Our inquiry covered counterintelligence concerns related to Russia and the election, including any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns. Following the money is counterintelligence 101.

If you want to compromise somebody, money is one of the best ways to do it. Well, let me repeat that. That is the connection. That is the connection between the counterintelligence work that is so important and part of the committee's charge. That counterintelligence work involves following the money because that is key to really getting into the question of whether somebody's been compromised because one of the best ways to do it is through funds.

Tonight, based on this review of documents, I call again on the committee to follow the money aspects of this inquiry, including by holding public hearings specifically on this topic.

In addition, it is not just the Intelligence Committee that ought to focus on these issues. As I have been saying since March, the Senate Finance Committee, of which I am the ranking Democrat, has a crucial role to play on follow-the-money issues as well. Relevant documents produced by elements of the Treasury Department which are outside the intelligence community, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, ought to be reviewed. There is a need to review these documents by the Finance Committee staff because we have specific experience and expertise in financial investigation.

In addition, the Finance Committee specifically has oversight responsibilities for tax matters. The Manafort indictment, which included tax evasion, demonstrated clearly that taxes, tax evasion, offshore accounts, and suspicious real estate transactions are all connected. They are all connected, and they ought to be part of any serious investigation into ties between Russia, the President, and his associates. Unfortunately, I and our committee have gotten no cooperation from the Treasury Department. Despite my repeated requests as the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, the Treasury Department has just stonewalled--plain old stonewalling--the lead committee with jurisdiction for the agency.

For that reason, I want to announce tonight that I will hold indefinitely the nomination of the individual to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Intelligence and Analysis until the Department cooperates with the Finance Committee and provides the committee with documents it needs to do its job.

Again, I regret that I have to take this step. By the way, many of these documents are unclassified in nature, so the Treasury Department is denying the Finance Committee access to unclassified documents. That is just completely unacceptable.

We all understand that we are in the midst of extraordinary and dangerous times. As our own intelligence community assessed in January, Russia interfered in our election with a clear preference for Donald Trump. No one, other than Donald Trump, has apparently called this assessment into question. For the sake of our national security and the future of our country, it is important to get to the bottom of every aspect of this attack on our democracy. The American people have clearly stated the urgency behind this.

My view is that the Congress has an obligation to follow the money wherever the evidence leads and to conduct a thorough investigation that leaves no stones unturned and presents to the public what we find. I will close by way of saying that I don't see how you can do the essential counterintelligence work that is so important to our committee--and I note that the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate, the Senator from Missouri, is a member of the committee and a valued one--I don't see how the committee can do its counterintelligence work without following the money, because we know that those financial issues are absolutely key--that money is the key to compromising an individual--it is obviously so important in trying to ensure that we have policies in this country that protect our security and our role in the world.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President and colleagues, today the Republican Party officially turns its back on America's middle class. Our constituents believe Congress must require multinational corporations to pay their fair share, ensure that the middle class has the chance to truly get ahead, and protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Instead, Republicans are doling out new giveaways to the multinational corporations, raising taxes on the middle class after a brief sugar high, and taking away the Medicare and Social Security guarantees for the future.

It takes hard work to muscle a tax plan this unpopular and destructive

through the Congress. Writing it is the easy part, especially when you are just checking off the far-right tax policy wish list. Normally, the hard part is sticking to your baseless talking points, ignoring the public outcry, and turning a blind eye to the loads of evidence that your plan is designed to fail.

This process has certainly been as far from normal as it can get. The bill comes at an enormous cost and represents a huge missed opportunity. For some perspective, the $1.5 trillion Republicans plan to borrow for their tax bill would fund the Children's Health Insurance Program for 915 years--915 years of a lifeline for families who are walking on an economic tightrope with CHIP. That is what you could get for the $1.5 trillion Republicans are borrowing to pay for their tax bill. Spent on infrastructure, it would build towering, new monuments in the tradition of the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Interstate Highway System. Aimed permanently at helping the middle class, it would give long-struggling Americans a meaningful chance to get ahead.

But this isn't real tax reform or a serious solution to the major policy challenges of our time; this is a stimulus plan for shareholder goodies and executive compensation. Today, Republicans are ignoring decades of evidence that trickle-down economics is a fantasy. Republicans have cut taxes bit by bit for multinational corporations and high-flyers, but we have seen wages stay flat. The benefits of those previous tax cuts never trickle down.

In this debate, Republicans seized on a talking point about workers getting a $4,000 average raise if the bill becomes law, but that figure is based on a made-up, revenue-neutral plan that was never on paper. It is fake math, plain and simple.

I want to issue a warning to the public today. Passing this bill guarantees years and years of instability in our Tax Code and painful, drawn-out battles over tax policy here in the Congress. Because of the pure partisanship and the recklessness of the process that went into drafting this legislation, the bill is already full of mistakes that are going to have drastic, unintended consequences.

Down on K Street, they are already working overtime to exploit new special interest loopholes. The giant passthrough tax loophole, which has been widely covered in the business pages, is just the beginning. There are going to be big new incentives for multinational corporations to ship jobs overseas, and with that, more factory towns and mill towns are going to go dark. Fewer Americans will have the kinds of reliable manufacturing jobs that support a family. There are going to be extraordinary new pressures on State and local finances, and that is going to hamper their ability to build new roads and bridges and schools. There are going to be new and annual fights over the stop-and- go tax policies. Around here, they are called tax extenders. And what they do is ensure a lack of the predictability and certainty we need for innovation and growth.

All the evidence says that many of the policies in this bill are going to be a nightmare to administer. This means that with this bill, tax cheats get a holiday gift and have the opportunity to create new rip-offs. What this means for the typical family who just wants to file and get a refund on time is that there are going to be more hassles because the government is going to have to devote more time to trying to catch the cheats.

The defining economic challenge of our time is guaranteeing that the middle class and those who strive to be middle class have a chance to get ahead. Our country is home to the world's most powerful economic engine, and it generates levels of prosperity that have never been seen before, but working families and the middle class have been on the outside of the winner's circle for generations. The Republican plan isn't an answer to that challenge. In fact, it almost certainly makes the problem worse.

At a time when the middle class needs fundamental, permanent reforms to give them a chance to get ahead, the best--the best the Republican plan offers is a sugar high. The fact is, it will not be long before the sugar high wears off and tens of millions of hard-working Americans will find themselves paying higher taxes--higher taxes--as a result of this bill. Corporations, on the other hand, reap the benefits of permanent tax breaks and a loophole-ridden system that, in my view, just begs to be gamed.

The trail of broken promises that Republicans have left behind in this process is long and unforgettable. The President said his tax bill would not benefit his family or people like him. That is untrue. The Treasury Secretary said there would be no tax cut for the upper class. He was happy to have that called the Mnuchin rule. That is untrue. Republicans in Congress said the principal feature, the main feature of their plan, would center on a middle-class tax cut. That is untrue. Republicans said their bill would make the system dramatically simpler. That is untrue. Republicans said their bill would allow families to file their taxes on a postcard. That is untrue. Republicans said their plan would pay for itself. That, too, is untrue.

Even many of the promises Republican leaders made to their own colleagues have been broken, but there is one that they are not trying to hide. The deficit hawks have flown back to town, and they are already stirring up a battle over entitlement reform, and they are going to look at a variety of health programs and programs that are a lifeline to millions of Americans.

Our people are not thrown off by the Washington lingo. They know that when Republicans say they are coming after entitlement reform, they have the knives out for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, anti- hunger programs, education funding, and more.

Our distinguished colleague from Wyoming, Chairman Enzi, was talking about how dynamic scoring would take care of things and that it was just off base to be concerned about these deficits because dynamic scoring would make everything turn out fine. The reality is that all of the independent analyses have shown that this bill comes up way short in terms of projected revenue. The Tax Foundation, for example--which is not exactly a leftwing operation--says the Republicans were hundreds of billions of dollars short. What the Joint Committee on Taxation said is that the Republican plan was $1 trillion short.

Let's put it in context. Remember that Steve Mnuchin said that this plan would not only pay for itself but that it would leave $1 trillion left over. Yet both the Tax Foundation and the Joint Committee on Taxation said that this bill comes light years away from paying for itself.

I say to my colleagues, it didn't have to be this way.

I see the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee on the floor.

As I have indicated, Democrats believe that the Tax Code is a rotting mess and has to be fixed. For years, there has been bipartisan interest in getting tax reform done right. Seventeen Democratic Senators came together, even in a last-ditch effort to try to bring some bipartisanship into the process, and laid out ideas for some common ground. I commend that group, led by our colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, and our colleague from Virginia, Senator Kaine. I have written two comprehensive, bipartisan tax reform bills, first with Senator Judd Gregg and then with a member of the President's Cabinet, Dan Coats. The majority leader always likes to talk about how nobody on this side is interested in bipartisanship. When Democrats laid out their principles, the first thing we said was how important it ought to be that we focus on bipartisanship. That letter was shared with the Republican leadership. Then you have the group of moderates. Then you have the actual bills that were written. So this idea advanced by the Republican leadership that there was no interest in bipartisanship does not resemble reality.

By the way, a lot of Senators here know that we have a pretty current example--the 2015 tax bill. It is kind of a model of what you can do. Both sides had good ideas. Bipartisanship is not about taking each other's dumb ideas; anybody can do that. But in the 2015 bill, my colleagues on this side said that the earned-income tax credit ought to be expanded, and we wanted the child tax credit and the American opportunity tax credit.

The Republicans, led by my distinguished colleague, Senator Hatch, had

some pretty good ideas too. They wanted to make the research and development credit permanent and the expensing provisions, which are so important for farmers and rural communities, and they had some ideas on business incentives. So we said: We are going to find some common ground here. We are going to take good ideas from both sides.

The tragedy of this bill is that Republicans wouldn't build on the good work of the 2015 tax legislation, where good ideas were accepted from both sides. This time around, there was zero outreach from Republicans on this issue. There was not one moment when Republicans actually shared even a piece of paper or a document about ideas that might bring both sides together. In fact, we can go all the way back to November 2016. They were still putting the voting machines back into storage when the first whispers began about tax reform happening through a completely partisan process.

Now, in coffee shops across America, most folks are not talking about budget reconciliation. Budget reconciliation is Washington lingo for saying: We aren't going to do this right; we are just going to make it our way, partisan, with no effort to try to bring people together. And after those whispers in November of 2016, within days, Chairman Enzi, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and my good friend, Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and everybody is on board.

Then, the majority leader, in December of 2016, made it official: We weren't going to build on the history of successful tax reform, which required bringing both sides together; the majority leader said that we are going with reconciliation and partisanship. Reconciliation is a full-on rejection of the history of successful tax reform, and it is a full-on rejection of bipartisanship. It is the majority saying to the minority, as was the case: We just don't want your ideas because we don't need your votes. When you look at the way this debate played out, it is obvious that has been exactly the approach my Republican colleagues have taken.

The administration's first tax outline, which was shorter than your typical drugstore receipt, didn't contain an ounce of Democratic input. Then, what we had with the Republicans were the closed-door meetings of what they called the Big 6, a Republican-only group who turned their outline into a framework for a bill. The framework they released, which was roughly the same size as your typical drugstore receipt, still reflected no Democratic ideas.

Everybody knew that if we did it this kind of way, the public was going to catch on. They were going to see this as a con job and they were going to catch on that this is going to give the middle class the shaft, so they decided that they just have to move at the speed of light. That is what the House did.

Here in the Senate, the Republicans dropped their plan late at night, just before the Veterans Day weekend, and the Finance Committee was supposed to start the process of voting on it a few days later.

There was a whole new bill introduced in the middle of our markup that turned the tax bill into a healthcare bill--a healthcare bill-- with a fresh attack on the Affordable Care Act. There was another set of last-second changes introduced literally minutes before the final committee votes happened. The bill makes $10 trillion in tax policy changes, and there was never a single hearing on the specifics of the legislation.

Let me just repeat that. I want the public to know that. There was never a single hearing--not one--on the specifics of this legislation.

We are going to hear on all points a push by my colleagues on the other side to say that there were 70 hearings. Well, sure, there were people who would come in from time to time and talk about issues. There wasn't one hearing--not one--on the specifics of the legislation.

On the Senate floor, the Republicans played hide the ball for days until they dropped the final version of their bill late at night on a Friday. Two full days of debate had already passed, and the final bill was a mystery.

I stood here hour after hour asking where the bill was--an economy- transforming bill, a tax hike on tens of millions of middle-class Americans. Yet Republicans kept it hidden until the very last second. When it was revealed to the public, we saw my colleague, Senator Durbin from Illinois, holding it up with illegible notes scrawled in margins. It wasn't anywhere near enough time for any Member of this body to read the bill and grasp each of its provisions.

Even the conference committee was an exercise in reckless partisanship. News reports said that Republicans had agreed to a final bill, but they were empty-handed at the only official conference meeting. So what was going on at this so-called conference meeting? This was, I guess, a reality show version of a conference committee. The conferees were supposed to ask questions about out-of-date plans from the other body, in the Senate, when the actual, final bill was still locked behind closed doors.

The chairman didn't allow any motions or any amendments. Just like every other step in the process, this was a sham debate, and now the bill is a few hours away from passage.

I close with this: This bill has the power to reshape the American economy in far-reaching and unforeseen ways. It has the power to send families into economic hardship. It has the power to threaten this country's ability to uphold the special promises of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And this bill was written in the shadows, written in the dark, with billions and billions of dollars' worth of changes tumbling out at the last second, the result of special interest influence and hushed conversations in back rooms.

There were no public hearings on the specifics of this legislation, and people wonder why the American people oppose it. Republicans have chosen to ignore them. They have chosen to ignore them. What is happening is un-Democratic. It is wrong. I am here to say that this vote will not be forgotten.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Sanders.

I want to pick up for a moment on his eloquent points and then pose a question to him about what we will be doing here in a few minutes.

Senator Sanders has eloquently spoken to the needs of the American people, our veterans, the Dreamers, the disasters. Those are bipartisan efforts. Mr. Crapo and I want to fix the broken system of fighting fires.

Senator Sanders mentioned children's health insurance. This bill borrows $1.5 trillion and is going to end up borrowing a lot of it from foreign interests. That would fund the Children's Health Insurance Program for 915 years. So what the Senator from Vermont is doing is saying: Look at all the constructive areas where we can really meet the needs of the people, and, instead, we are working on a tax bill that is going to betray the middle class. It is going to betray the middle class, and in my view, as the distinguished Senator from Vermont and I have discussed, this bill--this tax bill--is a textbook case of writing legislation in an undemocratic way, in a secret way, with provisions that were airdropped for lobbyists into this legislation in the middle of the night.

Senator Sanders and I were part of the so-called conference committee last week where we didn't even have the relevant bill in front of us. We were asking questions about bills that really didn't exist.

$10 trillion.

There was not one single hearing to discuss the specifics of the legislation before us today. The legislation before us today involves $10 trillion worth of changes in tax policy.

Our colleagues on the other side trumpet this idea that there were 70 hearings. I think what they are talking about is that over the years, people would come in and talk about this idea or that.

Right, that is correct. But there was not one single hearing with respect to the specifics of the bill.

I would like to turn, if I could, to this work that my colleague--and I am happy to have partnered with him--has played such an important role in; that is, the consequences of all this reckless haste and secretive process, which he and I have been working on. In my view, it is really is legislative malpractice. We have a bill that is full of mistakes that are going to have unintended consequences, opening many new loopholes for the wealthy and crafty accountants and lawyers.

The Senator and I have been working to try to weed out of this legislation violations of what is called the Byrd rule, which, in English, basically means you can't stuff provisions into a bill that really don't deal with tax and spending. By my count, the Senator and I have already pushed that there are more than 20 Byrd rule violations that had to be corrected.

Before I ask my question, I just want to give people a little bit of the idea of the work the Senator and I have been doing over the last few days. Late Friday night, we were able to remove a particularly offensive provision that would have turned some churches in America into partisan, political organizations. Specifically, there was an effort here to overturn what is called the Johnson amendment, named after Lyndon Johnson, that barred churches from endorsing partisan political activity with political candidates. The way that the bill was written--and the Senator and I fought to get it struck and were successful--it would have turned churches and sham charities into political machines where they could be conduits for billions and billions of dollars in dark money.

Absolutely. I think we need to tell America about this because we have won this round, but the Senator and I are going to be back at this fight with our colleagues again. In effect, this would have been Citizens United 2.0. This would have been another version of the push to have unaccountable, dark money--billions of dollars poured into elections through churches and sham charities.

Turning to the question now of this evening, it looks to me as though we have now found several other Byrd rule violations that would seem to me to be further indications of rash and reckless legislating that does not serve the American people well.

So I would wrap up by asking my colleague from Vermont--and I want to tell him it has been a pleasure to work in partnership with him on this--aren't these Byrd rule violations that we have been going after and that you are going to discuss again tonight, aren't these just a textbook case of what happens when you legislate with reckless haste?

Will my colleague yield?

My colleague is making a very important point, and I think it would be great if he would repeat those figures, because all night we have had Republican Senators come to this floor and say: Hey, middle class, just wait until February. Wait until February, and your paychecks are going to be bulging.

From what my friend from Pennsylvania has just said, using this new data that we just got from the Joint Committee on Taxation, what we have picked up--and my friend from Pennsylvania has clearly done his homework--is that something like 60 million taxpayers with an annual income of $200,000 or less will get practically nothing--maybe $100 a year in tax relief or a tax increase. So I think what my colleague is talking about--I would like him to walk me through the numbers he used--is that it directly contradicts what we have been hearing last night, where one Republican Senator after another was saying: It is just going to be good times come February because your paycheck is going to bulge.

Would my colleague just repeat what he found?

Mr. President, the issue with the Cruz amendment is straightforward. The Byrd rule states that the primary purpose of a budget bill is to address spending and taxes. If, on the other hand, you are debating a major policy change and the budget impact is merely incidental, the provision just doesn't comply with the Byrd rule. That is the case here.

The Cruz amendment has a modest budget impact, but the impact is vastly outweighed by the profound impact, as a matter of social and education policy, of providing Federal support for homeschooling for the first time. In fact, last week, the Senator from Texas called his section 529 homeschooling provision ``the most far-reaching Federal school choice legislation bill ever passed.'' I agree with the Senator's assessment of his amendment. The issue of Federal support for homeschooling is, in fact, major policy. There is no question that there are parents who want to homeschool their kids. I am certain that many of them are very conscientious. Yet this is the first time the Federal Government would provide Federal support for homeschooling. That is why the Parliamentarian ruled against Senator Cruz.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Enzi motion to waive the Byrd rule point of order, which we will vote on shortly.

I also want to close for the Finance Democrats on this tax issue with some brief remarks. My colleague from Texas once again has been saying, as many Republicans have done tonight: Middle-class folks, wait until February. Your paychecks are going to be bulging.

Here are the facts. We just got them from the Joint Committee on Taxation--a specific table that shows that 60 million taxpayers with an annual income of $200,000 or less will get $100 a year in tax relief or a tax increase. That looks to me like a third of all taxpayers are not exactly going to have bulging paychecks the way we have heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

The fact is that some of the rhetoric we have heard from Republican colleagues tonight didn't sound half bad, so it is a real shame that the rhetoric doesn't resemble the plan on paper.

As I indicated, this bill is not centered on a middle-class tax cut. The

fleeting sugar high the bill provides offers some middle-class families a modest amount of help, but it is basically a distraction from the giveaways to the multinational corporations and powerful donors.

One of our Republican colleagues tonight repeated that if passed, the deficit is going to drop when the bill is enacted. I just have to say that fantasy is over. Even independent conservatives are saying that there is no third alternate reality in which Republican tax bills perform magic.

I want to close tonight by saying to the public that I would really like to wrap this up with a warning: The American people should know that the far-right architects of this tax plan are going to be coming for your Social Security and Medicare before you take your Christmas tree down. That is the end game. That is what Americans need to know is coming next. And on this side of the aisle, we want the American people to know that we are going to be on their side.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last month, Oregon lost one of our most esteemed landscape architects, James Douglas Macy. Doug dedicated his life to protecting places that brought Oregon's unmatched natural beauty to millions of visitors. He will be sorely missed.

Doug grew up on a cattle ranch in Madras, OR, where he soaked up the natural beauty of his dramatic surroundings. It was there that his passion for landscape architecture first took hold. That passion grew as Doug studied landscape architecture at the University of Oregon and moved to Portland where he founded the urban design firm Walker Macy.

Doug blended his passionate advocacy for the protection of Oregon's natural treasures with his dedication to civic causes, the arts, and beautifying outdoor spaces. Through his design firm, he has influenced and mentored generations of landscape architects who have shaped cities and public spaces across the Pacific Northwest and beyond.

Anyone who has visited my hometown of Portland has felt Doug's influence in his designs of some of the city's most beloved spaces, including Pioneer Courthouse Square, Waterfront Park, and the Vietnam Veterans of Oregon Memorial. He was behind much of the revitalization that turned downtown Portland into a thriving, diverse, and green city where so many people enjoy living.

Visitors can also get a sense of Doug's love of nature in his designs for projects at national parks, including Crater Lake, private natural preserves like Opal Creek Ancient Forest Center, the scenic wonders of the Columbia River Gorge, State parks such as Oregon's Cottonwood Canyon, and hundreds of municipal parks and open spaces. Doug's work didn't stop there; his work can also be seen on college campuses, museums, vineyards, hospitals, and scenic highways.

In addition, Doug was a selfless citizen who donated his time and professional expertise to a countless number of causes, such as the Pacific Northwest College of Art, the Portland Parks Foundation, and the Portland Japanese Garden, which recently opened an expansion designed with Doug's guidance.

Doug will be remembered by those whose lives he touched and for creating beautiful and inspiring places for people across the West. He will especially be remembered as a dedicated father to his son Aaron, who died tragically in 1999, and as a caring sibling to his sisters Marilyn Macy Brown and Rebecca Macy and his brother Gregg Macy.

Today I honor the esteemed life and career of James Douglas Macy and recognize his enduring legacy as a landscape architect who fiercely protected and improved Oregonians' quality of life and many unique public and cultural resources throughout the Northwest.

Mr. President, I introduced the Senate's first strong net neutrality bill back in 2006. I rise today to give my strongest possible condemnation of what the Federal Communications Commission's head, Mr. Pai, is seeking to do, which is to roll back protections that ensure a truly free and open internet for our people.

This is a handout. It is a holiday gift to a collection of giant internet companies to increase their profits at the expense of the consumer.

Before I actually begin my remarks, I see Senator Franken is on the floor, as well. I would like the public to know how important his leadership has been on these issues. He and I have partnered on these issues ever since he came to the Senate. He was on the key committee, the Judiciary Committee. He has been a go-to figure in a key spot on this issue.

I want to continue this discussion after Senator Warren's terrific presentation. I know my colleague is going to speak on this, as well.

I want the public to know that Senator Franken has made a big difference for the consumer on these issues. Those

of us who have been toiling in these precincts are very appreciative of what he has done.

I want people to understand what net neutrality is, because Senator Franken and I have talked about this over the years. I think there is a little confusion over what it is. Net neutrality means that after you pay your internet access fee, you get to go where you want, when you want, and how you want. It is the essence of ensuring that everybody gets a fair shake, that all bits are created equal. It is the foundation of what has kept the internet free and open.

Before I get into my prepared remarks, I want people to understand what happens if you don't have net neutrality. If you don't have net neutrality, in effect, big companies can manipulate who is going to win and who is going to lose in the marketplace. They will continue to manipulate who wins and who loses until and after we get fewer services and the consumer gets higher prices. So this is not some kind of abstract discussion.

Let me flesh out some of these remarks for a few minutes because I know my colleagues have been waiting, as well.

Since the origins of the internet, the defining feature has been that all information--all bits, as we know it--gets the same fair shake. If you are a big company or a mom-and-pop ice cream shop with a website, your content gets to everybody's home at the same speed. That is what net neutrality is all about. Net neutrality keeps internet service providers from favoring one type of content over another.

The market has changed since 2006 because the market for access to the internet has changed. Where once there were legions of dial-up providers and DSL resellers, we were seeing a few monopolies and duopolies dominating neighborhoods across the country. With their power to dictate where you could go and what you could see on the net, they had and continue to have the power to suppress those sites and those services that you would have chosen yourself in a free marketplace, driving them out of business.

Again, to lay out what this means for people who are following this, that means that instead of Netflix, YouTube, or Amazon, you could be forced to get your video content from something called go90, whatever the heck that is. It certainly isn't a service that has been able to compete in a free internet market. But all that changes when Verizon can charge you more to get to YouTube or Facebook than it costs to reach their own service.

Without strong net neutrality protections, AT&T might provide--and we always put it in quotes--``free data'' for customers streaming HBO. That is pretty good if you watch HBO, but without net neutrality, it could starve other creators and subscribers necessary to survive, until soon enough, as Senator Franken has pointed out in some of our discussions, free data is gone. That is it. Free data goes away, and the American consumer--which is my fear when you think about what it really means to somebody sitting in Minnesota at home, and I see my colleague Senator Merkley from Oregon as well. The free data goes away under what I described, and the consumer at home in Minnesota or Oregon is stuck with few choices at higher prices than they have today. That is what the loss of net neutrality means.

I care deeply, as my colleagues do, about innovation and startups and small businesses. Senator Warren was eloquent on this point. There are going to be a lot of people who aren't a startup. They are going to ask: What does it mean to me? What it means--I have just walked people through an example--is, that typical person is going to be stuck with fewer choices at higher prices.

Two years ago, Tom Wheeler, then the head of the Federal Communications Commission, put in place a strong framework, something with teeth that was enforceable, called title II of the Communications Act, to make sure the government, the FCC, had the tools to protect net neutrality.

Chairman Wheeler, like Chairman Pai, worked for industry for much of his career in Washington, but rather than serve his former employers, Tom Wheeler said: I am going to use my experience working in the private sector, my experience in how companies operate, to design and implement constructive and effective consumer protections. What a contrast between the two Chairs of the Federal Communications Commission. Both of them are from industry. Both of them did well in industry. We consider it a good thing in America that we have a prospering private economy. Tom Wheeler used it and that expertise to help the public. That is not what we are seeing today.

There isn't any need to fix what isn't broken. There are strong net neutrality protections in place right now. Since the 2015 rules went into place, our economy has grown up around this leading principle of equal access to information and customers.

The day before Thanksgiving, Chairman Pai released his proposal to strike down the 2015 rules that ensure real net neutrality but also prevent States from introducing their own approach to net neutrality.

Rather than listening to the millions of voices who spoke up on behalf of real net neutrality and against this proposal to allow pay- for-play or what I really call--I say to the Senator from Minnesota--a trickle-down telecommunications policy, which is to just let the big guys make as much money as they want, and maybe something eventually trickles down to rural Minnesota or rural Oregon.

Chairman Pai is going to keep pushing pay-for-play and is expected to ignore the will of the public and demolish net neutrality rules.

The first key vote is tomorrow, December 14. What I have been doing is spending a good chunk of my waking hours--obviously, we have the tax issue, which is enormously important. This is enormously important, too, to tell the American people this is a time to make their voices heard. My message to the American people on net neutrality is to get loud. This debate is far from over.

We know Chairman Pai plays a strong hand tomorrow--there is no question about that--but then it goes to the courts. Some of our colleagues are looking at approaches here on the floor. I want, as much as anything, to make sure the American people know we understand-- Senator Franken and Senator Merkley--that political change doesn't start in government buildings in Washington, DC, and trickle down is bottoms up. If ever there was an issue for bottoms up, it is net neutrality.

Not only are the majority of Americans opposed to Chairman Pai's proposal, many of the comments solicited for input are fake. These fake comments have been attributed to bots and false identities or linked to Russian IP addresses.

Any argument that this agency, the Federal Communications Commission, has a transparent process with comments from the American people is not true. This is not government for the people. This is government for the special interests.

Just a couple of other points, and let me wrap this up so my colleagues can have the floor.

Chairman Pai has been out there arguing falsely, in my view, that without title II protections, Big Cable will make more money and use those profits to invest in infrastructure. This is what I call the trickle-down theory about telecommunications.

First of all, the existing regime was called title II--tough rules. It has not been a roadblock in investment and broadband. In fact, cable giants have continued to invest in broadband infrastructure even when strong net neutrality protections were put in place in 2015.

Publicly available documents show that investment by internet service providers was 5 percent higher during the 2 years after strong net neutrality rules were adopted than for the 2 years prior. Comcast, for example, has increased its investment by 25 percent since 2013.

Big Cable, in their own statements, show that none of the major internet service providers told their investors that net neutrality protections negatively impact their investments. That is based on publicly verifiable documents.

What we have is Chairman Pai making the argument that net neutrality provisions with teeth are going to be pretty much the end of investment and sort of Western civilization as we know it. Public documents show otherwise.

Publicly available documents show otherwise.

The FCC Chairman once claimed that a policy of voluntary net neutrality would be another way to go. Any talk of a voluntary solution to net neutrality is just nonsense.

Allowing a net neutrality provider to follow net neutrality has about as much of a chance of working--there is about as much of a chance that the big cable companies will honor voluntary net neutrality as there is of getting Ava and William Wyden, my 10-year-old twins, to voluntarily limit the number of desserts they have at dinner. It is not going to happen. It is not going to happen, folks. It is not going to work for open and fair access to the internet; it wouldn't work with Ava and Will Wyden.

On the same exact date as the Federal Communications Commission produced its rulemaking rollback to title II, Comcast removed the pledge on its website that it does not prioritize internet traffic or create paid fast lanes--so much for voluntary policy.

In my view, the only way the potential of the internet can be fully tapped is by ensuring that one form of content is not provided a preference over another form of content by their internet service provider.

The Trump Federal Communications Commission is barreling ahead to blow up this level playing field that is so crucial to innovation and free speech.

I close only by way of saying that this is also a lifeline for the startups. Those startups are dreaming of being the next YouTube, Google, or eBay. This is not about Google or eBay. This is about the startups.

I would be staying to hear my colleague Senator Franken make his remarks on net neutrality but for the fact that we are about to start the tax conference. I close my remarks where I opened them. Senator Franken has been our go-to person on these issues since he came to the Senate. We are so grateful he looked at this issue through the prism of what it means for the person without power and clout. I thank him for his leadership.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, a number of Senators have inquired about the status of the tax legislation and, particularly, the prospect of a real conference committee. It is clear that Republicans are talking among themselves, but apparently they feel, with respect to Democrats, this is a conference in name only.

What I would like to do is spell out what we know to date and talk a bit about what would really be in the public's interest. Specifically, late last night, the public learned through the press that Republicans have made no progress--their words, not mine--with respect to the tax bill.

They said that all of the major issues were still outstanding. Then, when all of them got up and made their way through their breakfast cornflakes, we were told that, magically, everything had just been worked out--that everything was worked out and that this bill would be ready to go.

I know they have been trying to move at the speed of light. We had yet another dose of fake math yesterday when the Treasury Department reported its so-called analysis to project that this bill would generate great growth, when, in fact, it comes up $1 trillion short. So I would like to make sure the public understands what is on offer as of right now.

My sense is, with respect to the key issue, which is the well-being of the middle class, millions and millions of middle-class people are going to get hurt by this legislation, millions of them very quickly-- for example, millions are going to lose their health insurance coverage. Millions more are going to have high premiums. By 2027, half of the middle class in America will actually be paying more in taxes.

Senate Republicans seem to be talking about a variety of issues, but not one of the tax issues they are talking about involves bettering the quality of life for America's middle class. We don't hear any discussion of that. We hear plenty of discussion about multinational corporations. We hear plenty of discussion about rates. We hear discussions about pass-through businesses. But all of this is really like rearranging the chairs at the country club. Maybe one day the multinational corporations will do a little bit better; maybe the next day well-off heirs will do a little better. What I heard at my recent town hall meetings is that the American people want to make sure that the middle class is not always getting the shaft. They want to make sure, for example, that in the tax law, the breaks for the multinational corporations aren't permanent and the breaks for the middle class aren't temporary. They want everybody to have a chance to get ahead. It is not too late to change course.

There are 17 moderate Democrats, led by our colleagues Senator Manchin and Senator Kaine, who have said that they are hungry for a bipartisan approach to bringing both sides together. I have introduced two comprehensive, bipartisan bills with senior conservative Republicans--close allies of Mitch McConnell's. We have made it very clear that we want a bipartisan bill.

In that all of these changes are now being discussed and our fellow Americans can read about them in the press, take a look and see if you see one idea--even one--that is going to make life better for the vast majority of working Americans, the folks who work so hard day in and day out, who are walking on an economic tightrope, trying to save money and trying to educate their kids. We don't hear about one single idea-- not one--that would make life better for the middle class.

We will have more to say about this tomorrow as, I gather, there may be some kind of ceremonial conference committee that is scheduled as they try to sort through all of these reports that they are getting from lobbyists on K Street because, I guess, lobbyists know lots about what the Republicans in the leadership and on the conference committee are talking about.

I want Americans to just read through all of this and look, line by line, to try to find anything that is going to make life better for the middle class, because I cannot find it. That, as much as anything, shows what is wrong with the way this legislation is being pursued.

What a difference from the way Ronald Reagan pursued tax reform. Ronald Reagan said point blank that the working person should at least get as good a deal as the investor. He said that we ought to have the same rate of taxation for workers as we have for investors. In fact, with Ronald Reagan--and I voted for his bill--the corporations, in effect, gave up some money to help the workers. Now what we are seeing is the workers getting the short end of the stick so that the multinational corporations can do even better. We will have more to say tomorrow.

I urge people to look through all of these stories and all of these press reports and see if they can find anything that involves a change to make life better for the hard-working middle class of our country.

Mr. President, I think that we are going to be joined here in a few moments by our colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, who, for years and years, has been leading the fight for the Dreamers--for the young people who are affected by DACA. He may be tied up for a bit, but as we begin--because we are going to be in a colloquy on some of these issues--I want to recognize his extraordinary contributions.

Nobody has been more focused and more relentless in terms of standing up for the rights of the Dreamers--the young people and the families who are caught up in DACA--than Senator Durbin, the senior Senator from Illinois, and I want to make sure that his role is recognized at the outset.

I and Senator Merkley have spent a lot of time talking to these young people at home in our State, and we have held special forums on it. I am just stunned at what wonderful young people these folks are. Inevitably, their grades are at the top of their classes. They seem to be working two jobs, and they are sending money to relatives. They are just doing everything that we associate with hard work and thrift and ingenuity and with what has made our country so unique and so special in the world.

I want to talk a little bit about what I have heard and also set the record straight with respect to DACA, because there is an awful lot of reckless talk about this legislation, and much of it just does not resemble the truth. Misinformation is being spread to discredit DACA recipients and their contributions to the country, and those innocent lives are being damaged. Right now, Dreamers face the very real and frightening threat that they may be ripped away from the only lives that they know and the only country that they have ever known, and I want to spell out why.

The Congress is now up against an artificial deadline that was created by this President in his scrambling to come up with a solution for the 11,000 DACA recipients in Oregon and the hundreds of thousands all over the country. If nothing is done in the Congress this year, we know that these young people are going to be fearful, and they are going to go into the holidays while wondering what is ahead for them and their families. I just feel so strongly that they deserve better. They shouldn't be hanging in suspended animation--wondering what is going to happen to them, living in fear. My hope is that there will be action taken this year to help these young people. I feel so strongly that the end-of-the-year wrapup legislation has to include legislation to finally allow these young people to realize their hopes and dreams in this country.

In his statement that announced the end of the DACA Program, the Attorney General said that our country must enforce our immigration laws, and he implied that the failure to enforce the laws somehow puts our country at risk of crime, violence, and terrorism. I can just say that, based on everything I have seen in Oregon, DACA recipients have not put our country at an increased risk of crime and terrorism, because, in fact, they are vital contributors to our Nation's success, including many who serve in our military.

It is just wonderful, and it is so good to see our colleague from Nevada here, who, along with Senator Durbin, has championed the rights and interests of these young people. I know that she is going to speak shortly because she has seen the real-life consequences--the dangers-- that are being inflicted on our young friends, our neighbors, and those who are so fearful about what will happen if Congress does not act before the end of the year.

This is not an abstraction for those like Mariana Medina, whose family

brought her to the United States when she was 3. She went on to graduate from Tigard High School, which is just outside my hometown of Portland. This past June, Mariana graduated from Portland State University with a bachelor's degree in political science. She speaks eloquently and powerfully about how she really wants to give back to the people of Oregon by helping the children and the families who are most in need of help. What a wonderful role model Mariana is.

The debate is just as real for Ricardo Lujan, who graduated from Southern Oregon University in the spring. Ricardo is now the legislative director for the Oregon Student Association. There, he has been a strong advocate for legislation to give Oregon Dreamers a chance to get their own higher education degrees.

Ricardo worked full time while going to school full time in order to pay for essentials. He said: I want to make sure that I am contributing to affording an apartment and a car. He said that without DACA, he would not have his bachelor of science degree today. He said that this law is a beacon of hope to young people like himself.

In Oregon, there are now an estimated 11,000 Dreamers. All of these young people have parents and brothers and sisters and friends and people who know them in the community because they always want to help and chip in. They have roots in these communities. They have well-laid plans to work hard in school, make something of their lives, and start families of their own here in our country.

It seems to me that with the groundswell of support for these Dreamers, before the end of this year, this Congress ought to be able to come up with a bipartisan, fair way to put an opportunity path forward for these young Americans. The effort from the White House, I have to say, and I regret it, to punish these young people and split families seems to run contrary to the values we hold dear as Americans.

Our government, by the way, made a promise to these young people when the government encouraged them to share their stories publicly, submit to background checks, and pay taxes. That was something the government urged these young people to do--come forward, pay taxes, submit to background checks. We want to make sure that we are in a position--and I was hopeful when I heard about that pledge--to take action based on the fact that these young people were willing to come forward and say: We want to be contributing members of our country. We want to make sure that when the government asks us to come forward, we do. And they did so.

I close with this, because I know my colleague wants to speak-- perhaps on the same subject--it would be wrong to turn our backs on these exceptional young people. I know my colleague from Nevada is going to keep fighting tooth and nail alongside so many of our colleagues.

Senator Durbin was going to join me for a colloquy on some of these issues, and with the end of the year legislation barrelling toward us, I think he was detained, but I want to thank him for his leadership. In fact, he has joined us now.

With the indulgence of my friend from Nevada, I would like to recognize my colleague from Illinois because no one in this Senate has put in the time or shown the tenacity and the years-long commitment to make this fight for justice for the Dreamers and those who are trying to work their way through the DACA Program to a better future for themselves and their communities. So I am very grateful to the Senator from Illinois.

I had mentioned in his absence that we thought at one time we would have a full-scale colloquy, and I have pretty much used up my time in terms of making some of the points about issues we have raised. With the indulgence of our friend from Nevada, I want to again thank the Senator from Illinois. We are on the cusp of being able to finally get justice to these Dreamers and those in DACA, and I want this body and people who are following this issue to know that we would not be in this position without the help and the advocacy of the senior Senator from Illinois.

I appreciate my friend from Nevada allowing us to have time for the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this fall, I met with Dreamers in my home State of Oregon. At meetings in Eugene and in Portland, these young people gave powerful accounts of how the Trump administration has needlessly and cruelly injected fear into their lives and the lives of their families.

Right now, these Dreamers--these young people who have done nothing wrong, who have terrific grades, wonderful conduct, who are helping their

families--are faced with the very real threat that they may be ripped away from the only lives and the only country they have ever known. These young people might be little more than numbers on a page to those who spend their days waging political fights in the Nation's Capital, but this is not just some academic topic for the thousands of young people across the land who would be affected by these vicious policies. This is a real-life issue with real-life consequences and real-life dangers for many of our friends and neighbors.

It is real for those like Cynthia Aguilar, whom I met this fall at the University of Oregon in Eugene. She spoke eloquently about how her mother sacrificed so much for her, living paycheck to paycheck so Cynthia could have an education and a better life.

It is real for those like Eastern Oregon University student Daysi Bedolla, who spoke just as movingly when we met in Portland, as well as in La Grande at a townhall I held in her community. Not only does Daysi talk about the huge contributions that Dreamers are making in their hometowns and college campuses, she demonstrates her contributions each day at Eastern Oregon University as the school's student body president.

Cynthia, Daysi, and so many others are what I call the real dream team, and I am proud to be their teammate in this fundamental fight for fairness. It is not a small fight. In Oregon alone, there are an estimated 11,000 Dreamers--enough to fill almost every seat in the Memorial Coliseum--and every one of those young people has parents and brothers and sisters and friends in their communities. They have well- laid plans to work hard in school, make something of their lives, and start families of their own in the United States. The strength of their stories fuels our fight, and that is why I join colleagues today in insisting that the Dream Act come to the floor of this Senate. This has been a long battle.

I am proud to have been with the Dreamers every step of the way from the Dream Act legislation to President Obama's actions on DACA. I am also pleased to have worked with my colleagues to introduce legislation like the Protect Dreamer Confidentiality Act. This bill would ensure that the information Dreamers provided to the government isn't somehow used against them for immigration enforcement.

Congress has to come together and work in a bipartisan way on a fair path forward for Dreamers. This effort from the White House to punish innocent young people and split families goes against the values we cherish as Americans and further divides our country. These children have known nothing but the United States as their home. They have done nothing wrong and everything right. They deserve an opportunity to stay here. Our government made a promise to Dreamers when we encouraged them to share their stories publicly, submit to background checks, and pay taxes. It would be wrong to go back on that promise now.

I am pleased to be on this floor to say that we are just going to battle every step along the way until there is justice done for the Dreamers.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Moran, who graciously gave me some time, and I want to briefly talk about one other subject.

I am the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, and I am pleased to serve with my colleague from Louisiana who also serves on the committee and will be a conferee on the tax bill.

I would like to bring up a matter the President introduced yesterday. The President has long said that there was going to be a ``fantastic tax bill''--his words, not mine--and obviously the American people don't see it that way. Overwhelmingly, we see in surveys--I saw it in townhall meetings over the weekend, in a community Hillary Clinton won, in a community where Donald Trump was extremely popular--that this tax bill was incredibly unpopular.

The President admitted yesterday that there was a ``tiny little sliver'' of Americans who, as he said, ``just through circumstances maybe don't get the full benefit of the tax bill.'' I am not sure what tax plan he is talking about, but it sure can't be the one that hikes taxes on middle-class folks that Republicans are working out in the conference right now.

So I want to get to the numbers, just briefly, from the independent, nonpartisan referees at the Joint Committee on Taxation. These are the folks we pay. The numbers they have given us really aren't in line with what the President is talking about when he says only a ``tiny little sliver'' of Americans are going to be hurt and come out behind.

Thirteen million low- and middle-income Americans are facing an immediate tax hike of $100 or more because of this bill. Apparently, in the President's view, 13 million Americans is a ``tiny little sliver.''

That is just the immediate impact. The bill gets worse and worse for middle-class folks with each passing year, and 2027 is when the numbers put your jaw on the floor. Under this plan that the President says is so ``fantastic,'' 150 million middle-class taxpayers either get a couple of crumbs or they get hit with an outright tax hike. I am going to say that once more. One hundred and fifty million Americans will get nothing but crumbs or an outright tax hike. That is what the President calls a ``tiny little sliver''? It is pretty close to 90 percent of the middle class.

That is just the raw math of who is facing a tax hike. As I have said, this bill drives a dagger into the heart of the Affordable Care Act. Thirteen million Americans are going to lose their healthcare, and tens of millions more will get hit with a hidden tax hike in the form of higher insurance premiums. Then, of course, we all understand that the coverage requirement in the Affordable Care Act that Senate Republicans seek to remove is what makes it possible for us to get loophole-free, airtight protection for those who faced discrimination when they had a preexisting condition.

This is pretty troubling stuff, and it sure doesn't strike me that when this administration says that only a ``tiny little sliver'' of people are going to get hurt--the reality shows something very different.

The fact is, after all the giveaways to the multinational corporations and the well-connected and high-fliers, this bill is going to cost more than $1 trillion. It is a real head-scratcher, how you can spend so much money, help so few people, and convince yourself that what you are doing is so terrific.

Peddling the idea that there is just a ``tiny little sliver'' of people out there who don't benefit from this tax plan, in my view, is preposterous, and the tens of millions of Americans this bill is going to hurt deserve far better.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President and colleagues, the Republican tax plan is now racing to completion in secrecy and shame. Republicans are finishing it in secret because it is a shameful scheme the American people overwhelmingly oppose.

Today the Senate is going to debate whether to go to conference with the House to resolve the differences between the two plans that the Republicans have passed on a wholly partisan basis. Not a single Democrat in the House and not a single Democrat in the Senate is in support of this bill. I think it is clear that the conference committee that will meet in the days ahead is nothing more than theater. It is not going to be an honest debate in the light of day. There will not be an honest debate that the American people can listen to on the prospect of $10 trillion worth of tax policy changes that will reach into corners of every part of this country and every household in America.

The truth is, Republicans from the other body and the Senate are hashing out differences right now--right now, behind closed doors. They are packing the bill with even more goodies, even more loopholes for the well connected and special interests. There is no telling what swamp creatures have crawled up to Capitol Hill to get their fingers on this bill at the eleventh hour. The basic proposition on offer is this: taking money and healthcare away from middle-class Americans to pay for tax cuts for the multinational corporations, the powerful, and the well connected. That proposition isn't going to change. Apparently, now the Trump administration is calling for more speed and even more secrecy, just so the President can claim a victory and Republicans in Congress can appease megadonors, who made it clear they are frustrated by a sputtering agenda.

What unfolded here last week is a black mark on this storied institution of the Senate. It was the climax of a process marred by recklessness and partisanship. This took place after 17 moderate Democratic Senators tried again last week, while the Senate still had the opportunity, to have a bipartisan plan. Well, I renewed my plan, my ideas--the only two bipartisan Federal income tax reform bills in decades, written by senior Republicans and moderate Senators. Bipartisan plans were discussed yet again last week before the Senate took off on this reckless course.

Senators did come to the floor last Wednesday and Thursday prepared for a debate, but it was cut short by the partisan reconciliation process--just 20 hours, evenly divided between the two sides. Wednesday turned into Thursday, and there was no final Republican bill. Then Thursday became Friday, and still Republicans had their plan hidden in the shadows. Then on late Friday--late Friday, well after dark--I was handed, personally, a new version of a 500-page bill by a key official in the Republican caucus who said: Here is the bill.

There was no opportunity for review or debate. The distinguished majority leader had said to me personally during the course of the afternoon, when I was asking every 30 minutes, that there would be plenty of time--plenty of time--to review the bill. Not only was there not plenty of time, there was essentially no time, and it reached a point as we heard from our colleagues last week, that notes on technical material were scribbled into the margins.

We had questions about education provisions that seemed to benefit one academic institution. There are plenty of them that are deserving in Oregon and Pennsylvania, but this would seem to benefit just one. Special interest handouts were air dropped right up, apparently, to the very last minute, with huge giveaways to oil companies and hedge funds. The unintelligible lines became a metaphor for what this whole debate was all about--haphazard work that not a schoolteacher in America would give a passing grade to, if some kind of work product like that was submitted to them.

Of course, this is what the majority party here, the Senate Republicans, said was a full and honest debate. The technical term here is ``regular order,'' but the fact is, those $10 trillion of tax changes were made in secret. When the bill that was brought to the floor finally appeared, it was clear that Republicans had played ``hide the ball'' with their tax plan until the very last minute.

There was not a single hearing on the specifics of the legislation. I heard so many times in the debate that there were 70 hearings. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard that there were 70 hearings. There was not one single hearing--not one--on the specific provisions of that legislation. There was no bipartisan input. No Member of this body can possibly claim to have read everything before they voted.

Now the recklessness continues. Republicans are sticking with the con job on the middle class as they work out the differences between their two plans, again, behind closed doors. Whatever product comes out of these negotiations is still going to raise taxes on millions of middle- class Americans and drive a dagger into the heart of the Affordable Care Act. Why? To pay for yet more handouts to faceless, multinational corporations. There are still going to be bigger tax cuts for those multinational corporations that ship jobs overseas than there will be for those businesses that create red, white, and blue jobs here at home.

What ought to cause even more alarm for Americans over the coming weeks are the special interest goodies that are still being packed in-- the handouts nobody yet knows anything about.

Down on K Street, they seem to be licking their chops as they read the bill the Republicans wrote so quickly and carelessly. It looks to me like a whole flock of tax lawyers are scheming and planning their next moves.

According to reports, the big sticking point in the negotiations between Republicans isn't about how you are going to help middle-class families or how you are going to protect healthcare, they are debating whether the corporate handouts ought to get bigger. They are already slashing the corporate rate down to 20 percent, and now they are debating whether corporations should actually be required to pay it.

I note that in both of the tax plans I put together that were bipartisan, written with two conservative Republican Senators close to the majority leader, during all of those talks, we didn't hear about corporations saying they had to have a tax rate of 20 percent.

The American people do not want this plan to become law. I heard that this past weekend. I had two town meetings in communities where Hillary Clinton had a lot of support and in communities where Donald Trump had a lot of support, and I am telling you this tax cut bill is unpopular all over. It is hard to write a tax cut bill that is unpopular, but somehow Senate Republicans actually managed to do it. That is what I heard in townhalls and when I met with folks last weekend at Fred Meyer, our iconic store. We heard it all over. I can promise every Member of this body the American people have a sense of what is coming now.

The Republican deficit hawks who flew away when the proposition of a

$1.5 trillion budget-busting tax bill came up, they are going to come flying back. They will be flying over the horizon, returning. There is already a whole lot of frightening Republican talk about the fiscal crisis facing our country, exploding deficits, spending run amok. In fact, Republicans haven't even waited for this tax plan to become law to crack out the fiscal crisis talking points. We hear all the talk, the President at rallies and talking on national television about entitlement reform. It is a whole lot of focus group-tested code for cutting the safety net, the lifeline programs for the vulnerable: Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, the anti-hunger programs. That sure looks like what is next on the slash-and-burn to-do list.

Here in the Congress, the Speaker said a few weeks ago we have a lot of work to do in cutting spending. Ways and Means Chairman Brady talked about welfare reform and tackling the entitlements. The Freedom Caucus, the far right folks in the Freedom Caucus, are using the tax bill to lock in promises on spending cuts and the safety net programs, and nobody knows yet what secret guarantees they have been given.

Last week, as Republicans were getting ready to spend a trillion and a half dollars on handouts to corporations--just put your arms around that for a moment, Mr. President--I heard for years in the Finance Committee and the Budget Committee about how Republicans want to be fiscally minded and tight with a dollar. Right away, out of the gate, they said we will spend a trillion and a half dollars in handouts to corporations--corporations already awash in money. What we heard is the leadership of the other side of the aisle saying we are already spending ourselves into bankruptcy, and they were blasting what they called liberal programs for the poor.

The chairman of our committee, whom I admire greatly, said: When it comes to helping the vulnerable, we don't have the money anymore. We don't have the money anymore for the vulnerable, but somehow we can borrow billions of dollars to have a $1.5 trillion handout to multinational corporations awash in money? It sure indicates to me some out-of-whack priorities.

Then we heard our colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, say on the floor that there wasn't a secret plan to cut Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. I give my colleague from Pennsylvania credit for his honesty because he is right about one thing. They are not keeping this tax plan a secret. Republicans are talking about the tax plan and the prospect of these entitlement cuts now in the open. The tax plan may be secret, but the plans for cutting entitlements are going to be right out in the open.

Colleagues, I want to close with this. I heard this weekend, and I hear at every stop I make, that the people of this country do not want this partisan tax plan to become law. They understand what is happening now. The working people and the middle class are being forced to pay for handouts to multinational corporations; that the Republican plan puts the interests of the politically connected above the interests of hard-working American families. I believe the American people are going to stand up and fight against any fear-mongering attack launched by the so-called deficit hawks who, as they come flying back, are clearly looking at cutting Medicare, Medicaid, anti-hunger, and anti-poverty programs.

It is not too late. It is not too late while this process continues between the House and the Senate to change course. Instead of going to a sham conference--a sham conference that is little more than diversionary theater--there could be a real and bipartisan debate on a tax plan that would give every American a chance to get ahead.

I have been particularly struck by my conversations with our former colleague Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey. He calls almost every few days because he, along with President Reagan, were the authors of the last bipartisan plan. I am particularly struck by how he describes when Democrats and Republicans came together. Bill Bradley, former Knicks celebrity all over the country, he would fly all over the United States to meet with colleagues like the distinguished Presiding Officer from North Carolina. He would fly all over. Now, we can't get Republicans to walk down the corridor of the Dirksen building to have a conversation about how we ought to have a chance to give everybody a good tax plan so everybody in America can get ahead. That is what I sought to do with Republican colleagues, former Senators Gregg and Coats, who are plenty conservative.

So it is not too late for my Republican colleagues to do an about- face and say we can do better than this. I don't, for the life of me, understand why we can't have Republicans and Democrats, on the basis of the overwhelming unpopularity of this bill, now say we can do better than this and change course.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor a longtime public servant and regional director of the northwest region of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in my State, Mr. Stanley Speaks. Stan has served the tribes of Oregon and the Pacific Northwest well since 1982. His distinguished career with the Federal Government spanned more than 59 years and has resulted in highly recognized and extraordinary accomplishments that stem from his established knowledge, experience, and management leadership.

Stan graduated from Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, OK, and later obtained a master's degree in education administration. By 1959, he had begun his long career with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. He served as the regional director in western Oklahoma and Kansas and came to the northwest region in 1982. There he served 14 agencies, 3 irrigation projects, and oversaw a trust land base of 6.3 million acres, covering five Northwest States. Stan also had the fiduciary trust responsibility to 45 Northwest Tribes with a membership totaling 115,000 Native-American people. As a Tribal member of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, Stan was inducted into the Chickasaw National Hall of Fame in 2002.

Stan has devoted his life's work to the advancement of Tribes and Indian people. He has worked hard to uphold and protect Tribal treaty rights, and through his stewardship of trust property and natural resources, trust income has helped meet the individual and family needs of Tribal members. He became the regional director at a time when the Western Oregon Tribes were being restored.

Stan has long been a champion for Tribal veterans. He has supported housing, the expansion of veterans benefits, and access to healthcare. He, along with his lovely wife, Lois, are a staple at the annual veterans dinner sponsored by the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians each July.

He has assisted the federally recognized Tribes in my home State of Oregon with both advice and financial assistance on a variety of business and economic development ventures. His efforts have created hundreds of job opportunities for Indian and non-Indian people in every Tribal community across Oregon and the Northwest.

Stan has achieved countless victories for Native Americans, which will have long lasting beneficial impacts for years to come. He has been critical in maintaining the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Oregon has benefited from Stanley Speaks' career management and leadership contributions. His legacies of achievement for our Tribes will live on to benefit not only this generation, but for generations yet to come. I thank Stan for his service to Indian Country and to this Nation.

Mr. President, I want to pick up where Senator Murray left off and emphasize to colleagues that not only would this bill raise taxes on millions of middle-class families, but it would also be a dagger in the heart of the Affordable Care Act, causing millions to lose their coverage and raise costs for millions more. By gutting the personal responsibility portion of the Affordable Care Act, this legislation is going to take America back to the days when healthcare was for the healthy and wealthy because it will green-light once more discriminating against those with preexisting conditions. It will say the insurance companies can go out and beat the stuffing out of somebody who has a preexisting condition.

If that is not enough, evidence this morning in the paper shows that this will trigger a new wave of health insurance scams and rip-offs that are going to harm our people. This morning in the paper, they talked about how this is going to encourage these cheap, junk, short- term health insurance policies, which often lack consumer protections and in so many instances have been a magnet for fraud and unscrupulous sales practices.

For example, the paper this morning talked about how--I will read it. ``Examples abound of people who are dumped from such policies''--these short-term policies--``or denied coverage, mired in debt and medical bills totaling thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.'' It documents the various sales tactics used to rip people off. I remember what those tactics were like. When I was director of the senior citizens, the Gray Panthers, at home, it was common for agents to sell policy after policy that was not worth much more than the paper it was written on. It sure sounds to me as though these short-term policies, while a different time, are going to encourage the same kinds of rip- off practices that are going to harm our people.

As we have touched on, we have heard from Senators on the other side that they think that if they vote for this bill, what they are going to be able to do is get two other bills that somehow will mitigate, will eliminate a lot of the harm this horribly flawed bill is going to do. It is going to harm millions of middle-class families who don't get a fair shake in the marketplace and then inflict all this damage on healthcare that I just described.

I happen to think these two bills are constructive bills. The Alexander-Murray bill will make payments that will help limit the amount low-income Americans pay for health insurance. Our colleagues, Senators Collins and Nelson, have another constructive idea-- reinsurance money. That helps to stabilize the insurance market, which, by the way, the President of the United States has worked so hard to destabilize. The fact is, the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan group of experts we use, has made it clear that these two bills will not even come close to wiping out the disastrous consequences of the health provisions in this bill that the Senate is about to vote for.

I want to be clear. This is not just a tax bill, not just a bill with handouts to multinational corporations and a grab bag full of goodies for campaign supporters and powerful, well-connected interests. It is not just that. It is a big step backward in the cause of making sure that all our people have affordable, accessible healthcare.

What we ought to be doing is looking at ways to come together and find common ground on provisions that we know are cost-effective, things like the children's health bill, which if I had my way would have been passed a long time ago, and community health centers and other vital provisions. We should be building on what we have, such as holding down the cost of pharmaceuticals, for example, targeting the middlemen who are at the heart of the problem. That is what we ought to be doing.

We should not be doing what is on offer this morning. What is on offer this morning is turning back the clock on American healthcare, turning back the clock to those dark days when the insurance companies could beat the stuffing out of somebody who had a preexisting condition. We are better than that. We still have time. As I have said on the floor, as the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, we still have time to choose a different course. A few days ago, 17 Democratic Senators--led by Senators Manchin, Kaine, Donnelly, and Heitkamp--came together and said: We want to find common ground on taxes. I have written two bipartisan, comprehensive Federal income tax bills, the most recent one with a member of the President's Cabinet.

We don't have to go this route. We don't have to go this route on taxes. We certainly don't have to do it on healthcare. There are approaches that would bring us together, and I have just described several of them. What I know we shouldn't do is turn back the clock to the days when healthcare in America was for the healthy and wealthy. That is what you get when you green-light discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. If they are healthy, no problem. If they are wealthy, they can take care of it. We should reject this bill and especially the provisions that relate to healthcare and that take America back to dark days, horrible days when healthcare in America was essentially for the healthy and wealthy.

I yield the floor.

I am very pleased that my colleague from Vermont is discussing this issue on the floor. The Finance Democratic staff has been looking into this and has been working also with the Senator's staff, and I think that it would be fair to say that every few hours, this bill just seems to get worse. I mean, we don't know if, in the middle of the night, somebody will add another round of favors for the powerful interests, the politically well connected. What I can tell the Senator is what we have been able to put together as of now.

In 2004, legislation was written that we were very much involved in that helped eliminate the loophole by requiring U.S. citizens to be bona fide residents of the Virgin Islands and imposing U.S. tax on income effectively connected with the United States. Now, in the dark of night, as I have indicated, it appears that we have a provision that is relaxing this rule.

From our conversations, I know the Senator understands that we all want to help the people of the Virgin Islands after a devastating hurricane. Are we helping people by creating a huge, new loophole, possibly for a handful of those people who are especially well connected and can get to the Finance Committee? I am convinced that if one looks at the Paradise Papers and the Panama Papers, what they were warning about in those papers was of all of these efforts to stash money and create new options for people to wheel and deal in offshore accounts.

So my colleague is right. I continue to wonder why, when we want to ask these really important questions about special interest favors and when we look to the other side, we have this barrier between both sides of the aisle. We need somebody here to explain to us and explain to the American people how this has seemed to just fly out of the sky.

I am very appreciative of the Senator's raising a question about what looks like yet another scam that has come into a process that has been one big sham from the beginning. I appreciate my colleague's question.

If my colleague will yield, there is no question he is correct that in terms of stacking the deck, this is not just stacked to the top but to the top 1 percent or a fraction of the 1 percent.

There is absolutely no question about that. We are looking at something like half of the middle class to be paying more in taxes come 2027.

Not for a minute.

The reason my colleague's questions are so important is that this is, certainly, an example of what seems to turn up every few hours, practically in the middle of the night.

My colleague raised a very good point with respect to the development of this bill. I mean, we are talking about making $10 trillion worth of changes in tax policy on the fly--without a hearing. The Senator's colleagues have said--Chairman Enzi and the Budget Committee--and I have heard it several times on the other side--that there were 70 hearings on this bill. There was not one on this piece of legislation. It certainly didn't examine this issue. It didn't examine the question, for example, of what is going to happen to people with this dagger to the Affordable Care Act.

I can tell this to my colleague because he is right to talk about how one brings parties together. I know my colleague did that as part of a major bill on the Veterans' Affairs Committee with Senator McCain. Our former colleague Bill Bradley mentioned that when he wrote a tax bill, he flew all over the country to work with Republicans. In this case, apropos of my colleague's question, not only did no one do that sort of thing, but they wouldn't even walk down the corridor to talk about working with the other side.

Will my colleague yield for a moment?

I want to ask the Senator a question because I am not sure that we have really laid out the timetable of what is ahead. My colleague, of course, who is our ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, is very up on this.

We have all been concerned because we have seen it before. You pass these big tax cuts. You get on a sugar high for a relatively short period of time. Then the deficits start rolling in. What we see next are the cuts in the programs that are a lifeline for millions of people--the anti-hunger programs, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security.

I saw comments in the paper that what my colleague is concerned about has already been announced by the Speaker of the House. I understand that what the Speaker of the House has said is that his next plan is to take up the issues of what he calls entitlement reform. They are not talking about the things that the American people care about and that I am going to hear about at townhall meetings at home this weekend-- holding down the costs of prescription drugs. They are talking about rolling back the safety net--Medicaid and the anti-hunger programs and Social Security.

Is that my colleague's understanding?

Reserving the right to object, if I could, I don't think the UC was granted.

Well, I would like to reserve my right to object at this time.

Reserving my right to object, and I will not object. I would just like to make sure that our colleague from Oklahoma and our colleague from Washington are both accommodated in this matter.

Senator Sanders and I have finished. I believe Senator Cantwell said that Senator Inhofe will go ahead. We thank Senator Cantwell for her usual collegiality.

Senator Inhofe will go first and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cantwell follow Senator Inhofe, and I will withdraw my reservation.

I withdraw my reservation and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cantwell follow Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cantwell and Senator Van Hollen be allowed a total of 15 minutes to discuss some very important issues.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President and colleagues, the Senate is looking at making $10 trillion of changes in tax policy on the fly. This is the biggest change in Federal income tax policy in more than three decades. This is legislation that will determine our country's economic future for a generation, and, at this time, the Senate does not have the language the Senate will be voting on. My colleagues have been saying that they are out looking for it.

I have a couple of questions I would like to ask the distinguished majority leader.

When will the Senate be able to actually see the full text of this legislation?

Again, through the Chair, we are talking about complicated materials. We are talking about extraordinarily difficult, technical issues under the best of circumstances. While I respect the majority leader, to just be told we will have plenty of time to read it, what I can say--coming on top of the fact that we didn't have a single hearing on the actual legislation, nothing with regard to specifics--I think on this side of the aisle we have a right to some sense of when we will actually be able to see this. It strikes me as a reasonable and pretty straightforward request, given the fact that the American people have been kept in the dark about this for so long.

So, again, I respectfully ask the majority leader: When will it be possible to see the full text of this bill?

Further reserving my right to object, I know that on the other side there has been discussion of scores and scores of hearings. I would say to the distinguished majority leader, there was not one single hearing--not one--on the specifics with respect to this legislation. There was not one single hearing on the health changes the majority seeks to make that put a dagger into the heart of the Affordable Care Act.

So I will ask my colleague once more, and if we don't get a sense of what time we are actually going to see this bill, I intend to object.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

Could my colleague tell me when the hearing was held on the health changes envisioned in this legislation?

Will my colleague yield?

Will my colleague continue to yield?

In just one moment.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

I believe I have the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

It is my intention, Mr. President, to come back every 30 minutes until we get an answer to the question. I just asked my colleague from South Carolina if there was a hearing on the sweeping changes that are being proposed in this bill, the Affordable Care Act. I asked him for a date. He said nothing with respect to----

Mr. President, we will be back in 30 minutes to continue this.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I will take our 1\1/2\ minutes.

We have just a minute and a half. The hour is late. I want to repeat once again that we still do not have this bill. We have seen apparently, in the last few hours, tax changes that involve billions and billions of dollars. The American people have a right to know what is in this proposal, and certainly we on this side of the aisle have a right to know about it.

I am struck by the comments of my colleagues on the other side that learning the facts about what the Joint Committee on Taxation had to say about the Republican proposal--0.8 percent growth, $1 trillion short in spending--has had absolutely no effect on the discussion we are having from the Republican side.

I see my friend the distinguished majority leader here, and I believe he will propound a unanimous consent request. As he knows, I will have another reservation, and we will discuss this some more.

Reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I understand that we are going to get the proposal from the majority shortly. I come back again to the fact that there are changes apparently worth billions and billions of dollars, like the passthrough provision. We need to be able to see these. The American people have a right to know.

I believe the majority has indicated that we will get this shortly, and I withdraw my reservation and will point out that if we don't get it shortly, I will stay at my post and keep objecting because the American people have a right to know that tax policy is being made in the dark.

Mr. President, will my friend from Pennsylvania yield briefly?

He is a very fine member of the Finance Committee.

I don't remember any discussion in our committee about how this specific legislation affects children. My colleague is really the expert on the subject, and maybe he can tell me if he recalls such a thing with respect to this specific legislation and what it means for children. I don't remember such a discussion.

Mr. President, I would just like to respond briefly to the Senator from Pennsylvania, who is baffled by why we are so opposed to the health provisions of the bill. The Congressional Budget Office says that the majority's provisions will cause 13 million people to lose coverage and premiums to go up 10 percent. This morning's paper makes the point that it will bring back junk insurance, which once again will allow discrimination against people with preexisting conditions.

I will use the last 30 seconds that I have, as we await the majority leader, to say, once again, that the American people and the Congress are actually going to find out some information about what is being offered.

I would just like to close my use of the minute by pointing out now another double standard. It sure looks like lobbyists on K Street have more and better information about what is about to be offered than do Democrats in the Senate. So what we are talking about is that we have seen one double standard after another. The tax breaks for the middle- class are temporary, and the wealthy get permanent ones.

Mr. President, here we are now at 4:15. We still have not seen this bill--a $10 trillion bill, the biggest tax bill in more than three decades, with changes involving billions and billions of dollars made, apparently, overnight.

I have made it clear that when the leader, Senator McConnell, comes back down, we expect to see this bill. We were told essentially an hour ago that we would see this in a matter of minutes.

The American people have a right to know that even though the majority wants to make $10 trillion worth of tax policy changes on the fly, this side of the aisle is going to insist on knowing what is in the bill.

My colleague has been very patient, and I wish him to be recognized on our time now.

Mr. President, I have just seen an air-dropped list of provisions--there seem to be upwards of 30--and it sure looks as if the lobbyists have been working overtime. They must have earned a holiday gift with this new bonanza of goodies.

We still await a bill that we are going to read, although I saw something that might actually be a bill. So we are going to use this time so colleagues can get into some of these questions about this array of treats that the lobbyists seem to have figured out how, in the last few hours--perhaps overnight--to carve out for their benefit.

To start our discussion for our 15 minutes, I believe my friend and colleague Senator Merkley is going to start.

Will the Senator yield?

I think my colleague--my seatmate--is making a very important point. Of course, people always wonder, well, is this kind of a Democratic position or a Republican position? I want to make it clear that I believe that Tom Barthold, the head of the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is our independent tax umpire, essentially agreed with you. In committee, I believe we asked him whether he thought this huge reduction in the corporate tax rate would translate into $4,000 in the pockets of working families in Michigan and Oregon. Is that my colleague's understanding?

Will my colleague yield for a question?

My understanding is that you and Senator Casey in particular have been out here--and we are so glad to have our colleague from Connecticut--wondering when in the world we would actually get to see this legislation.

This pile of papers, for all practical purposes, is what we have been waiting for for days.

I am going to try to do some, but as far as I can tell, it sure looks like a lobbyist's wish list. There are going to be a lot of folks happy on K Street as they try to shop for the holidays because of the fees they have put together in working to get these changes into the Republican proposal.

I appreciate my colleague for giving me the opportunity to make sure that the public knows now that, at this late hour, we are finally getting, after days, the opportunity to see the bill that is actually the bill.

I think 30 minutes is what we have been talking about and that it is appropriate.

Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question before he yields?

I am just curious. I am heading home for townhall meetings in Oregon over the weekend. I am the ranking Democrat on the committee, the storied committee, as my colleagues know, that works in a bipartisan way.

Bill Bradley tells this story about how he flew all over the country to meet with Republicans to talk about how you could find common ground to deal with tax reform. At this time, we haven't been able to get the majority to even walk down the corridor in an effort to try to get a bipartisan bill. As I told my colleagues, I have written two of them.

My question to my friend is, when you have your community meeting, how do you think people in Connecticut are going to react to the idea that we had maybe an hour or so to try to make our way through a bill that is actually the biggest tax bill in 31 years? I know my colleague tries very hard to be straightforward with his constituents, and he will tell them: I got it with insufficient time to get into it. How will they react to that?

Mr. President, I am going to yield to my colleagues in a minute.

I just think it is important to make sure that the public understands exactly what some of the facts are behind the Republican proposals.

My colleague from Ohio just talked about how the Republican proposal is going to create many more jobs in the United States and certainly isn't going to keep the system that makes it attractive to do business overseas. Yet my understanding is, all the previous versions--and we are going through the 500-plus pages now--are based on territorial taxation.

I don't imagine too many folks in coffee shops are up on what territorial taxation is, but it is an express lane for shipping jobs overseas. The fact is, a number of the proposals earlier from the other side have made it more attractive to do business overseas than in the United States.

Here are a couple of other points. My colleague said that 70 percent of the corporate tax reduction would go to the workers. That is not what Tom Barthold, the head of the Joint Committee on Taxation, said. He said specifically that he didn't see anything resembling that kind of benefit going directly to workers. He speaks a special language known as economics, but he has made it clear he didn't envision anything like that.

Two other points, and then I have a question for my colleague from Maryland.

We still do not have an analysis in two areas: No. 1, the cost of the bill, and No. 2, what is going to be the fate of middle-class families with respect to this new proposal? What is it going to mean for their taxes, and by what amounts?

If I can engage my colleague from Ohio on this--what can we be told at this point we are going to get, if anything, with respect to an analysis of this particular bill, the 500-plus pages? Will we be getting anything tonight before we vote?

What analysis would it be, for example, with respect to what the new bill--the bill we are actually going to vote on--means for middle-class families? We have millions of middle-class folks who are trying to sort out what this means for them.

We have just gotten a brand new bill. We would like to know what the new bill means with respect to the taxes paid by middle-class folks. Are they going to get ahead or, as we have seen in so many of the previous iterations, fall behind, particularly after 2027?

Will we get a new analysis on this new proposal that we will actually vote on with respect to what it means for middle-class families?

Of course.

What I would say to my colleague is, we don't have any evidence of that. My colleague has certainly made laudatory claims about his bill, but we don't have any evidence of them. In fact, the comment made by my colleague highlights my concern. What we have seen thus far for middle-class families after 2027 is that upward of half of them would pay more in taxes.

I think, rather than continue this, I will just ask my colleague to see if his side can produce an actual document--even a summary--of what this new bill is actually going to mean for middle-class families who are concerned, based on the earlier versions, about seeing their taxes go up, particularly after 2027.

I have one question for my colleague from Maryland because he has been talking about the State and local deduction, which is enormously important to folks in my State and in my colleague's as well.

My question is, when the first income tax was enacted in 1861, it was to finance the cost of the Civil War. It included only one deduction at that time for State and local taxes, and that was really composed to respect the States' ability to make their own fiscal decisions. It was the first deduction more than a century ago. So does that seem like a special interest tax break compared to this list of more than 30 breaks that we have managed to excavate from various corners of K Street?

I will.

Mr. President, I thank my friend, and I know the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Connecticut have both been patient. Why don't we yield time to the Senator from West Virginia now.

Mr. President, before we go to Senator Blumenthal----

I thank my colleague from West Virginia. I believe we are going to propound another 30-minute unanimous consent request.

Oh, they have 15 minutes.

We will let Senator Toomey start the 15-minute time allotment for Republicans. Then, when our turn is next, we will go to Senator Blumenthal.

Mr. President, to start our portion of the 30 minutes, Senator Blumenthal has been very patient, so I wish to start with the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, for this tranche, I believe we will have Senator Durbin lead off for us and then Senator Nelson and Senator Bennet. Each is going to try to take around 5 minutes.

Senator Durbin.

Correct.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois for a very insightful analysis, and his skills as a handwriting expert may be necessary as the Senate Finance Committee tries to divine what that particular page actually means. I thank my colleague for trying to unpack a byzantine area of subchapter S tax law.

Their eyes are being strained as we speak.

I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. President, my colleague has a parliamentary inquiry, and then we will go to Senator Bennet.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

When this is filed, we want the American people to know what has actually been written on the side.

Will it be possible, as part of Senator Durbin's statement, to add this ``written on the side'' portion as part of his statement so that the American people will actually know how outrageous this process is and that it at least states, as part of his speech, what is written in the margin? Can that be stated as part of his statement?

Would the Chair answer the question?

My question is, when the amendment is filed, I would like to ensure that the important point my colleague has made about what is written in the margin could be included as part of his written statement that will be entered into the Record so that the American people can get some sense of what kind of flimflam is actually taking place here.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, just before we wrap up, I have heard Republicans talk constantly about how this process is being conducted by regular order. I have never seen in my time in public service, when talking about $10 trillion worth of tax policy changes and the biggest tax bill in three decades, something along the lines of the flimflam that we have been talking about, with handwritten changes in the margins about something that conceivably will affect vast sums of taxpayer money.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are going to have several of our colleagues on our side, and we will start with Senator Sanders.

Mr. President, I would just like to set the record straight on a couple of points. I have a response to my colleagues who continually say this corporate tax cut is going to raise workers' wages by $4,000.

Now, I asked the head of the Joint Committee on Taxation whether that was the case. He essentially said, no, he did not believe it was the case and referred us to tables that document it.

Perhaps even more egregious is tonight we heard our colleague from Ohio say that a Congressional Budget Office report claims that workers are going to get 70 percent of the benefits from a corporate tax cut so it was raised even higher.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a portion of the report from the Congressional Budget Office, making it clear on the cover where it says the analysis and conclusions expressed there should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. It directly contradicts the comments made by the Senator from Ohio on wages and corporate tax cuts.

Mr. President, if I could have the attention of my colleague from Pennsylvania, I would like to pose a question to him on a matter. We, as we have indicated, have been digging through the amendments. As far as I can tell, what we have is the earlier language that imposes a new excise tax on the investment income of large university endowments. That has been in the bill, so be it.

Now, there seems to be a new exception on page 289. The bill says that the new tax does not apply to a university otherwise subject to the tax if it is described in the first section, which is 511(a)(2)(B), and which does not receive Federal funds.

This is new, and I am trying to figure out why there is this special exemption. I can't seem to find other people who are getting it or whom it benefits. I thought perhaps my colleague from Pennsylvania could enlighten me on this.

Mr. President, if my colleague would yield further, what is your analysis of how many colleges would benefit from this? The reason I ask is, in my view, there are a lot of deserving Oregon schools--and I seem to remember quite a few colleges in Pennsylvania-- that also are very deserving, they would not benefit from this, and I would like my colleague's assessment of how many colleges would benefit from this particular provision.

So is this Hillsdale College--because that is what I have been led to believe--and I would like my colleague's analysis of whether they would benefit.

I am just not aware of any.

I am reclaiming my time.

I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes to complete this one question.

I thank the Chair.

I was concerned at the beginning because there are so many deserving schools in Oregon and Pennsylvania

and elsewhere that don't get this special treatment, and obviously you have heard my colleagues express their concern, and I think it transcends somebody's politics.

So my question now would be--the perfecting amendment has not yet been filed. Would my colleague be willing to take his provision out of the perfecting amendment and offer it as a separate amendment so we can actually have an up-or-down vote? And perhaps by that time, we will know how many colleges, if any other than this one, benefit.

The answer is no.

Let the record show that my colleague has said no. And I can't find anybody else in America who benefits from this particular provision, and that doesn't strike me as right, to have it airdropped at the last minute into a bill.

Mr. President, I believe I am out of time on my consent request.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side in the tranche?

I would like to yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my motions to commit be printed in the Record.

Madam President, with this amendment, Senators Rubio and Lee stopped far short of meaningful relief for millions of vulnerable American families and leave out altogether so many deserving children like the Dreamers.

After 2025, Rubio-Lee offers a double standard. Their child tax credit expires, even while multinational corporations get permanent tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. Democrats want to provide strong, permanent protection for all working families, rather than temporary protection for some like Rubio-Lee. The best way to protect these families is not through a puny bandaid approach but through permanent help that America's struggling families richly deserve.

Madam President, I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, Senator Cruz's amendment expands tax subsidies for upper income households to aid private or parochial schools by allowing 529 account balances to spend up to $10,000 a year on private or parochial school tuition and supplies.

Colleagues, this is nothing less than a backdoor assault on the public K-12 education system. The real goal seems to be to take more and more children from the public schools and put them into private schools and shrink the funds that would be available to the public schools that give all of America's children the chance to get ahead.

Members should oppose the amendment because it undermines America's public education system.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, millions of Americans must be watching in stunned disbelief tonight as the Republican Senate betrays the middle class for the benefit of faceless, multinational corporations.

Colleagues, how many middle-class families need to see their hard- earned pay snatched away in tax hikes before these corporate handouts are no longer worth it? How many more Americans need to see their jobs shipped overseas before corporate paymasters no longer call the shots? How many Americans need to lose their healthcare or see their premiums shoot sky-high before this is stopped?

What is happening tonight is the worst of the U.S. Senate. There is a trail of broken promises--broken promises to working families in the mad dash to pass this bill. The American people understand this is the first step of continuing attacks on Medicare, on Medicaid, and on Social Security. This vote will not be forgotten.

I yield the floor.

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

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. 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.

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?

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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Will my colleague yield?

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?

We can see if we can work this out. Senator Thune has been very gracious. Would it cause great

consternation over there to give Senator Sanders 3 minutes, myself 5 minutes, and then go right to Senator Thune?

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--

As soon as I have a chance to finish my statement.

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.

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.

I want to thank the Senator from South Dakota for indulging me.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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.

Mr. President, I call up a motion to commit at the desk on behalf of Senator Nelson.