Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I want to talk tonight about a once-in-a- generation opportunity we have in this Senate tonight to help middle- class families, to help grow our economy. I am going to talk about the facts. I am not going to be making stuff up. I am going to talk about the real middle-class tax cuts that are in this legislation. I am going to show you charts that indicate not just what kind of tax relief is going to be there for you and your family but who is going to pay, where the burden is. Despite what you are hearing on the floor tonight from some on the other side of the aisle, the burden of taxation actually increased in this tax bill for the wealthiest Americans. In terms of defending the status quo, which is a situation now where jobs and investment are going overseas, I think it is an outrage that this body has sat and watched company after company go overseas because of our Tax Code. To say we shouldn't fix it, I don't get that. If we don't lower the rate on businesses and workers who are competing every day when you have the highest rate in the industrialized world and you have an international system that rewards revenues being kept overseas--$2.5 trillion to $3 trillion of earnings overseas instead of bringing that back--that status quo is not acceptable. We can engage in all kinds of rhetoric here tonight, but if we stick to the facts, I think we might be able to see why this legislation is not only going to pass tonight but why so many Americans who are struggling because they are living paycheck to paycheck are going to be happy with this legislation. The proof is in the paycheck. People say the proof is in the pudding. The proof is in the paycheck when people see their withholding changing--less money being taken out of their paychecks for taxes--when they see they have a little more take-home pay and the family's budget is a little healthier, when they see the economy begin to take off, and when they see the end of this exodus of U.S. companies going overseas. In the last 13 years, 4,700 American companies have left our shores and gone overseas--being bought by foreign companies--that would not have gone if this Tax Code we are promoting tonight had been in place. That is based on an Ernst & Young study. Check it out. It is a big accounting firm. So 4,700, and when they leave our shores, guess what, they take their jobs and investments with them. You might wonder why wages have been flat in this country for the past couple of decades. It is because people who are supporting the status quo and don't want to change this Tax Code are leaving workers in America with no opportunities to get ahead because not only are wages flat but expenses are up. That is called the middle-class squeeze. It is very real, and it is happening. I would ask folks, when they are thinking about what you are hearing tonight on the floor, remember, one side is supporting the status quo. The status quo is not working. It isn't working for people in America and people in my State of Ohio who tell me: Rob, I am working hard. I am playing by the rules. I am not getting ahead. The statistics bear that out. Yes, some people are getting ahead, but it is not the guy or the woman working on the shop floor in a factory in Cleveland, OH, or Columbus, Toledo, Dayton, or Cincinnati because their wages have been pretty darn flat. Again, their expenses are up, especially healthcare, which is the largest single one of those expenses. They want some help. This legislation gives them that help in two ways: One, real middle- class tax cuts. We will talk about that in a second. Second, letting them be competitive instead of competing with one hand tied behind their backs because they are competing in a global economy, and they know that. Give them a chance. Give them a tax code that actually is up-to-date and competitive and lets them have the opportunity to build a better life, not just for themselves but for their kids and their grandkids because that is what they really care about. Again, I am happy to talk about that opportunity we have tonight, and it is a rare opportunity because we have not reformed this Tax Code in any substantial way in 31 years. Think about that. I celebrated my 62nd birthday today. That means we have not reformed the Tax Code in 31 years. That is half of my life. By the way, 31 years ago, Ronald Reagan was President. Pete Rose was still playing for the Cincinnati Reds. ``Top Gun'' was at all the box offices. It was a big hit. That is how long ago that was. During that time, I will tell you that every other country we compete with, all of them, have reformed their Tax Code, except us. We have sat back and had this debate. We have had this gridlock, partisan gridlock, in Washington because we can't get our act together. By the way, if you are a worker trying to get ahead, you can't do it on your own because the Tax Code has you competing with that one hand tied behind your back. Only this place, Washington, Congress, a President, can propose, develop, and sign legislation that can help address this problem. This is our job. I sure hope we will do it. In 1986, when that tax reform was passed 31 years ago, it led to two things: one, more economic growth. In the 1980s and 1990s, we did have economic growth--3, 3.5 percent, even 4.5 percent growth. Think about that. We are now living, over the last 10 years, with growth, on average, at about 1.5 to 2 percent. That is a big difference. The second thing it did is, it got wages up. Wages actually increased during that period after that tax reform. We need to do it again. Our economy needs a shot in the arm again, not just to improve the economy but to improve take-home pay. That is what this tax reform proposal is designed to do. We have heard, on the other side of the aisle, how this has moved too quickly, somehow there hasn't been enough thought put into this. I think it is long overdue. I think we should have done this years ago. I also know, from being involved in these issues over the past couple of decades on the House Ways and Means Committee and now in the Senate Finance Committee, there has been a lot of thought put into this issue. Just since I was elected to the Senate in 2010, there have been 70 hearings on tax reform. Chairman Hatch is in the Chamber tonight. He will tell you, 2 years ago we had five bipartisan working groups covering every part of the Tax Code. The bipartisan working group that I cochaired with the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, focused on the international side. Do you know what we decided? We decided we have to have a lower business rate because it has to be competitive; otherwise, we will continue to lose jobs in investment overseas, and we decided we have to have an international system that is competitive and bring back some of that $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion that is stuck overseas back to this country for more jobs and investment. Guess what. It was bipartisan then, and it is in the tax bill now. Those are the ideas that are in this tax bill before us. They make sense. In fact, for years, there has been a bipartisan agreement that our Tax Code is broken, and it is Congress's responsibility to fix it. I would like to commend tonight Speaker Ryan; Leader McConnell; Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, who is on the floor; Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, who has been a strong and fair negotiating partner with the Senate. I also want to thank my colleagues who have spent so many hours on this effort: Senator Toomey, whom you heard a little while ago talking about the economic benefits, as he does so well, Senators Scott, Thune, Cornyn, Enzi, and Murkowski. They were all on the conference committee, but many others too. Senators Collins, Johnson, Rubio, Corker, who all helped us get to this point and improve the legislation. The bill that passed the House earlier today, and we are going to vote on tonight, is the result of years and years of research and debate. It makes good on the promise we have made to create a tax code that provides tax relief to hard-working families but also positions America for leadership in the 21st century global economy. While we have seen some improvements in the economy recently, we have seen better economic growth numbers. Again, a lot of people I represent are not seeing the benefit of that. That is why we have to pass this bill. For years, colleagues on both sides of the aisle have called for middle-class tax cuts to help ease the burden. This legislation will finally actually deliver that middle-class tax relief. We have the opportunity to provide it tonight. Starting January 1--less than 2 weeks from tonight--that tax relief goes into effect. People are going to see how this tax reform helps them as soon as the IRS can adjust withholding in paychecks, which I would hope would happen before the end of February. Again, the proof is in the pudding. The proof is in the paycheck. People are going to see it. People can go online now and use a tax calculator to see how it will affect them and their families. This is going to happen, and it is going happen soon if we pass this legislation tonight. Again, the most immediate benefit is for working families and for the middle class. This bill doubles the child tax credit. It also increases the refundability of the child tax credit. For those families with kids, you have the opportunity now to save a little more money to deal with the expenses of raising a child. It doubles the standard deduction from $12,000 per family to about $24,000 per family. This, in effect, creates a $24,000 zero income tax bracket for families and simplifies the Tax Code. Probably 90 to 95 percent of Americans are going to take that doubling of the standard deduction, I am told, and that will simplify their returns but also give them tax relief right away. It lowers tax rates for families across the board, with the largest proportional benefit going to those at the lower end of the income ladder, those who need it the most. In fact, the combination of these tax cuts for lower income Americans means that at least 3 million Americans who have income tax liability now are going to pay nothing in taxes. They will be off the tax rolls altogether. I have a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation that affirms that. At our meeting last week of the conference, you can see where the Joint Committee affirmed that again. Over 3 million are going to pay no income taxes at all who pay income tax now. For those who say there is no benefit there, talk to those 3 million people. They feel the benefit. In fact, those people are going to be off the tax rolls altogether because of the tax relief we are passing tonight. As this chart shows, every income group will receive a tax cut. This one is for the year 2019, so it is a year after the tax cuts are put in place, which starts in just a couple of weeks. We have heard a lot from opponents that the top end, those making $1 million or more, as we just heard a little while ago, get all the benefits. It is simply not true. This shows that the biggest percentage cut is among folks making between $20,000 and $30,000 a year. That is the biggest, a 16.3-percent cut. It also shows that the smallest percentage cut is among those making $1 million or more, a 5.9-percent cut. Again, there is tax relief across the board here, but the bigger benefit is among folks at the lower end of the economic scale. In fact, when you look at who pays the income tax, you will see that those at the top are going to pay a slightly bigger share of the tax burden under this bill. Today, those making between $20,000 and $50,000 a year pay 4.37 percent of the income taxes. Under this bill, they are going to pay a little less, 4.1 percent of the income taxes. Those who make over $100,000 will go from paying 78.7 percent of the tax burden to 79.1 percent of the tax burden. If you make over $100,000 a year, you are paying 78.7 percent of the tax burden today, and that is going to go up. Your share of the burden is going to go up. The Tax Code is pretty progressive right now, and it gets even more progressive under this tax legislation. These are not my numbers. These are the numbers from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is the nonpartisan group that scores these things. Check out the numbers yourselves. Go on the Joint Committee on Taxation's website, jct.gov, and check it out. When you don't consider not choosing to buy healthcare insurance to be a tax increase, which is how the Joint Committee on Taxation scores ending the individual mandate, every income group of taxpayers gets a tax cut under this plan every year, for the next 8 years, during the time this tax cut is in place. Yes, it does expire, as did the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Congress took those up, and for 95 percent of Americans, we extended that tax relief. I hope we will do that again--I expect we will--but during these next 8 years, this is real tax relief, and it is needed. I reject the premise that choosing not to buy healthcare insurance under the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is somehow a tax hike, and I think most Americans do too. Take a look at the Rules Committee's website at rules.house.gov, and you will see how a typical family of four at the median income level will save more than $2,000 a year on its taxes as a result of this plan. The median-income family in Ohio--and in your State wherever you are--is going to be saving more than $2,000 a year on its taxes. Some have told me, as I walk down the halls here, that is not much money. Do you know what? For families who are living paycheck to paycheck, that is a lot of money, and it does help. It can be used to pay for healthcare, to buy gas, to buy groceries, to maybe add a little more to one's retirement. Of course, beyond the middle-class tax cuts that are in this legislation, families and workers are going to benefit from more jobs and higher wages, as we talked about earlier. This is going to be because there will be new investment and because there will be more productivity, which is the thing that is really lacking in our economy right now. Our productivity is weak. All of the economists agree on this whether they are right, left, or center. You have to do something to boost that productivity because that is going to result in higher wages, and more competition for workers is going to result in higher wages. That is going to happen because this Tax Code is focused on increasing wages through more investment. We have talked about how companies are going overseas now and how the status quo is not working. It is crazy that Congress allows that to happen, and fixing it is long overdue. We have talked about the $2.5 trillion, $3 trillion that is stuck overseas right now. We want to bring that home. We want to add more jobs and investment in this country. We did a study in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--a bipartisan effort. We studied these companies that go overseas through what is called inversions or by being purchased by a foreign company. What happens? Do they just move their headquarters overseas? No. We found out they also move jobs and investment. This is real. It is happening now. We can fix it. That is what this bill is intended to do, and I believe you are going to see not just middle-class tax relief to help with the take-home pay and the family budget, but you are going to see this increase, finally, not just in economic growth but in wages. That also makes the family budget a whole lot more healthy. I see Senator Cassidy has just come to the floor. Let me address an issue that has been misrepresented on the floor this afternoon. I heard one of my colleagues say this bill gets rid of the historic tax credit. It does not, thanks to the efforts of some of us who strongly support it, including Senator Cassidy. We actually retain the current 20-percent credit in the Senate-passed bill and in the final legislation. By the way, this historic tax credit has been very helpful. It has been instrumental in generating more private funds to restore historic buildings across my State of Ohio, including in my hometown of Cincinnati, as well as in Cleveland, Columbus, and elsewhere. We also preserve the important tax credit for urban redevelopment through the new markets tax credit and the private activity bonds, which are still in this legislation just as they are in current law. In Ohio, again, these tax incentives have leveraged a lot more private sector dollars, spurred economic growth, job creation, affordable housing, and I think have ultimately increased the tax revenue because, as people are working and as you get these buildings up and going, economic growth is generated, and so is tax revenue. They pay for themselves, in my view. I have shared some of those success stories in my home State throughout this process, and, again, we have successfully maintained those provisions in our final bill. The result is, we have a good tax reform bill that achieves the things that Republicans and Democrats alike have long supported--tax cuts for the middle class and a more competitive Tax Code for American workers and companies. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tonight have talked about this being bad for the deficit. I just have to tell them I respectfully disagree. The most important thing we can do right now to get the deficit down is to get this growth back because economic growth results in more revenue. One point in economic growth alone puts $2.7 trillion more in revenue into the coffers of the Federal Government. That is based on the numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Think about that--$2.7 trillion more with just one point of economic growth. The budget score we were forced to use for this legislation estimates a very conservative level of economic growth--at a weak 1.9 percent over the next 10 years. That was the last 10 years. We don't want to repeat that. We don't have to repeat that. The average economic growth over the past 30 years has been more than 2.5 percent, and over the last two quarters, we have had economic growth of 3.1 percent and 3.3 percent. The Federal Reserve's and private forecasts are both above the CBO's growth projections for next year, as an example, to show you why I think the CBO's numbers are way too small, too weak. That 1.9-percent growth is not only wrong, but I believe it is unacceptable. It cannot be the new normal. With the strength of our economy right now, paired with the pro-growth changes in this tax reform plan, I believe economic growth will surpass this relatively low projection that we are forced to use by increasing economic growth at just 0.4 percent more than this 1.9 percent, this weak projection. In growing the economy at about 2.3 percent rather than at 1.9 percent, on average, there is sufficient revenue to pay for all of the tax relief in this plan plus to begin to pay down the debt. That is what I believe will happen if you do the right kind of tax reform. It has to be the right kind. It has to be pro-growth. I believe what we have done in this bill is exactly that. There is no question that we are going to have more economic growth and more investment in America. The current Tax Code is so broken that it is pretty easy to do that, honestly--to create a more efficient and effective and productive Tax Code. I believe a more confident America, with rising wages and stronger economic growth, by the way, is much more likely to address the very real fiscal challenges we face as a country. This tax reform bill is not just about dollar amounts and bottom lines, though; it is about the investment we are making in American families, American workers, and American businesses. We are giving families the freedom to spend more of their own money how they see fit, we are putting faith in American entrepreneurs and workers to compete and win in the global market, and we are creating a fairer tax system that levels the playing field and creates jobs and investment here in America rather than overseas. Our constituents deserve this; they deserve better than the status quo. They deserve more than just hollow promises; they deserve a brighter future. I believe the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will reopen our economy as the best place in the world to do business and create that brighter future for all Americans. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, today I am proud to stand here for the recognition of the 50-year anniversary of a great organization in Ohio--Alvis. It is in Columbus, OH, and was formerly known as Alvis House. It was founded in Columbus, OH, with a broad mission of helping people in the community through human service programs to promote prosperous lives, with a focus on an individual's potential and not their past. Over the years, I have had the privilege of working closely with Alvis as they have become a model for reentry programs and treatment service programs with a focus on meeting individual goals--a customized approach--building a successful future, and implementing fundamental change for families and for our communities. Since its opening in 1967, Alvis has grown from a single 15-bed home helping 60 men a year to an organization of 13 locations throughout Columbus, Chillicothe, Dayton, Lima, and Toledo. It now serves more than 8,000 people annually. This agency has helped provide support and hope to thousands of individuals who are returning to their communities after having spent time in the criminal justice system, as well as offering recovery and developmental disability services that encourage health, growth, and independent citizenship. Alvis has been the recipient of Federal grants authorized by the Second Chance Act for their work in reentry. As the author of the Second Chance Act when I was in the House of Representatives, I have had the opportunity and the privilege to go to Alvis facilities and to see firsthand the good work that is being done using that legislation. I am proud to have worked with my friend and the corporate president and CEO of Alvis, Denise Robinson, to assist Alvis as it delivers services to Ohioans to turn their lives around so that people can indeed fulfill their God-given potential in life, and they have had a lot of successes. Alvis recently opened its 14th location, the Alvis Pages Recovery and Treatment Center, in April of this year on the South Side of Columbus to help provide access to treatment and recovery. Alvis continues to lead in its mission to turn lives around 180 degrees. In my work with regard to the opioid crisis in Ohio, we have looked to this treatment center and looked to the model that they provide other treatment centers to turn those lives around. I am confident that Alvis will continue these next 50 years to offer these same comprehensive services for overcoming the challenges of transitioning out of the correctional system, treating substance abuse, mental health, trauma, and promoting dependence and accountability for those with developmental disabilities. I applaud the outstanding commitment of Alvis, its staff, and all those who have been involved in reaching this milestone and making these first 50 years such a success in the lives of so many people. Madam President, I would also like to speak today about a nomination that is before the Senate right now. Today we will have the first vote on Kirstjen Nielsen, the administration's nominee to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security. I want to talk about why I believe she must be confirmed. I had the privilege of introducing Kirstjen Nielsen during her nomination hearing in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In that committee, she received broad bipartisan support, and I hope the Senate can now come together in a bipartisan fashion to confirm her as Secretary so she can get on with the critical work of leading the Department of Homeland Security. I am delighted we are having a cloture vote today--I wish it had been a few weeks ago--and I am looking for a vote to confirm her later this week. I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look carefully at this nomination because we need her there, and it would be great if we had a strong bipartisan vote to send her there. I think she is ready to hit the ground running on day one. I say this because she knows the Department. She knows what the challenges are, and she knows how to address them. She will be the first Department of Homeland Security nominee ever to have had previous experience at the Department of Homeland Security. She was a Policy Director for the Transportation Security Administration during the George W. Bush administration--that is TSA. She took over that role shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001, and later served on President Bush's White House Homeland Security Council as the Senior Director for Prevention, Preparedness, and Response. I got to see her good work in that capacity. Most recently, she served as the Department's Chief of Staff for former Secretary John Kelly. She proved herself during the early stages of the administration's transition and experienced firsthand the challenges of managing this diverse and sprawling agency. With her homeland security experience from those transformative years in the Department, her industry and homeland security consulting experience, and her most recent efforts in this administration, I believe Ms. Nielsen will be a capable leader--needed badly in this ever-evolving threat environment in which we find ourselves. Throughout her career in government and in the private sector, Ms. Nielsen has developed extensive experience in homeland security strategy, cyber security, transportation security, and emergency resilience--all critical areas for the next Secretary to understand. As we have seen countless times from terror attacks, cyber attacks, and natural disasters, tragedies persist despite our preparation, and we need to remain resilient and responsive to overcome new challenges and combat these evolving threats. I believe she gets that. She understands it. I believe she is well qualified to lead the Department of Homeland Security as a result. From our conversations we have had both before and during her nomination hearing, I can say confidently that Ms. Nielsen is committed to addressing the most pressing issues facing our country. She has signaled that she has a full commitment to working with the U.S. Congress on both sides of the aisle to get this done. There are so many issues this Department faces. For a moment, I would like to talk about one of those issues that is critically important to me and really to every Member in this body that she has made a commitment to addressing and will be able, I think, to make a big difference; that is, the scourge of deadly forms of synthetic heroin that are being shipped into your communities. Synthetic heroin--usually fentanyl, sometimes carfentanil--is one of the great new threats we face in our communities. It is an example of one of the emerging threats that the Department of Homeland Security and its agency, Customs and Border Protection, must address. Fentanyl is up to 50 times more powerful than heroin. Carfentanil is even stronger than that. These drugs are increasingly taking people's lives in my home State of Ohio and around the country. Fentanyl is so deadly that as little as 3 milligrams can be lethal to an adult male. By initial estimates of 2016 statistics, fentanyl deaths in America have increased by 540 percent in the past 3 years. In 2016 alone, more than 20,000 Americans died from fentanyl overdoses. Tragically, my home State of Ohio is at the center of this national epidemic. In 2015, fentanyl was involved in slightly more than 38 percent of the State's overdose deaths. Last year, that number increased to more than 58 percent. Fifty-eight percent of our drug overdose deaths in Ohio last year involved fentanyl. In the first 2 months of this year--2017--fentanyl was involved in approximately 90 percent of drug overdoses. So this is an emerging threat to all of our communities. Fentanyl is a threat to every State represented in this Chamber and in every community. While overdose victims are most often the drug users themselves, it has also become a great threat to law enforcement and to children who have been inadvertently exposed--tragically exposed--to this substance. An example is Chris Greene, a police officer in East Liverpool, OH. He was exposed to fentanyl while performing a routine car search, he thought, earlier this year. He pulled a couple of guys over. When he pulled them over, he noticed a white powdery substance in the car, and being alert to that, he put on his gloves, he put on a mask, and he proceeded to determine it was fentanyl they had spread around the car to try to hide the fact that they were moving drugs. When he got back to the police station after the search to book these individuals, Officer Green noticed there was something on his shirt, and he did what any of us would do; he reached down to brush it off of his shirt. Unfortunately, it was fentanyl, and the fentanyl became exposed to his fingers. Just that small amount absorbing through his skin caused him to have an overdose. This is a big guy, 6 foot 2, 220 pounds, great shape, and he fell to the ground unconscious. Luckily, he was able to get immediate medical assistance at the police station, but it took four doses of Narcan to revive Officer Green. He said at the time he would have died had he been alone. Think if he had gone home to his family and he had hugged one of his kids and his kids had been exposed to that fentanyl. So this is a great danger, obviously, to our communities generally and to individuals but also to our first responders who are, unfortunately, finding out that these dangerous poisons are more and more of a danger. Children are also being exposed. This fall, a 12-year-old Columbus boy died as a result of fentanyl exposure. He was at a sleepover for a birthday party when he came into contact with the deadly poison someone had left lying around. He was unconscious by the time paramedics arrived, and he died in the hospital 2 days later. These synthetic forms of heroin have created a new challenge for law enforcement as they increasingly account for more and more of our overdose deaths. Combating this threat requires solutions from across the Federal Government, along with local, State, and private sector initiatives. We talked earlier about an organization in Ohio that is dealing with this threat that is coming into our communities, and the private sector and nonprofits have a huge role to play but so does the Federal Government, and so does the Department of Homeland Security. Again, Kirstjen Nielsen understands that need. The Department of Homeland Security plays a critical role in countering the significant threat because it comes through the U.S. mail system, and it is Customs and Border Protection officers who are meant to screen those packages that come in through the mail. Unlike heroin, which enters the U.S. over land, typically from Mexico, manufacturers, mostly in China, ship fentanyl through the U.S. mail directly into our communities. The Federal Government is responsible here. We are supposed to combat the spread of illegal drugs coming through the mail system, but in the case of fentanyl coming from labs in China, the U.S. Postal Service is oftentimes used as a conduit without any check. Drugs should not be as easy to send as a postcard, and the U.S. mail service should not be able to be exploited as a drug trafficking service. This is why we have introduced in the Congress legislation called the STOP Act. It is bipartisan. It is sensible. If enacted, it would give Customs and Border Protection officers, along with their law enforcement partners, the tools they need to identify suspicious packages by requiring the U.S. Postal Service to provide advanced electronic data on all of the packages and mail entering the United States. Already information as to what is in the package, where it is from, where it is going, the name of the center is required if you send it through one of the private carrier systems--UPS, FedEx, DHL, and others. Unfortunately, the Postal Service is not required to do that and, as a result, traffickers do what one would think they would do, they choose our U.S. Postal Service to send this poison into our communities, to a post office box, maybe to an abandoned warehouse address. This fentanyl is being spread throughout our communities. We need to hold the Postal Service to that same standard. At a recent hearing, Acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenen voiced his support for reforms like those in the STOP Act and said advanced electronic data would enhance their detection and prevention efforts. I have seen this firsthand. I have visited the sites in Ohio where Customs and Border Protection is asked to screen these packages. When they are with these private carriers, they can find packages, take them offline, and carefully--because it requires a lot of care, given the poisonous nature of the packages-- deal with it. President Trump's opioid commission recently issued its recommendations. They endorsed the STOP Act and called for it to be enacted and implemented into the Commission's final report just a month ago. At her confirmation hearing last month, Ms. Nielsen voiced her support for the STOP Act. I was pleased to have her commitment to getting this bill into law and implemented by CBP--Customs and Border Protection--so we can keep more of these deadly poisons off our streets. There is no one solution to the opioid epidemic, but the STOP Act will give law enforcement the tools they need to help stop this synthetic form of heroin from entering our communities in the first place, while also raising the cost of this synthetic heroin. The end result will be saving countless lives. So to get back to Ms. Nielsen, again, she is eminently qualified for this post and able to address so many of the tough issues we face as a country, including the evolving threats like the fentanyl issue and the terrorism issues we have talked about today. We need her at the Department of Homeland Security. We need her now. She is the leader we need for this critical and sprawling Department at a time when our homeland security posture has never been more critical, more important. I hope my colleagues will come together, on a bipartisan basis, and vote Ms. Nielsen out this week as the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, first of all, I was referring specifically to a CBO report earlier, and the Senator talked about the Joint Committee on Taxation. We may have different views on that. It wasn't my belief I was expressing; it was me talking about the Congressional Budget Office's report. My understanding is that tonight the entire bill will be online, No. 1. Second, the analysis is necessary to ensure that it fits into the reconciliation instructions.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 30 minutes, equally divided, for debate only, with no amendments or motions in order and with the majority leader or his designee being recognized at the conclusion of that time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 30 minutes equally divided for debate only, with no amendments or motions in order and with the majority leader being recognized at the conclusion of that time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Hatch. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify a point in connection with the application of the base erosion anti-abuse tax in the Tax Cuts and Jobs act to services companies. The act provides an exception from the base erosion anti-abuse tax for services. The act limits the exception to the ``total services cost with no markup.'' As a practical matter, companies account for amounts paid or accrued for services in a variety of ways. I would like to clarify that, if in a transaction a company used one account for services cost with no markup and another account for any additional amounts paid or accrued, that the first account would be subject to the exception under the bill. The act also excludes an amount paid or incurred for services if those services meet the requirements for the services cost method under Internal Revenue Code section 482, excluding the requirement that the services not contribute significantly to fundamental risks of business success or failure. Is it the intent that, for this purpose, that the business judgment rule under current law and regulations will not prevent an amount from being excluded under the act?

Mr. PORTMAN. Good news--you will be glad to hear those tax cuts continue. If your family is making $50,000, two kids, you will see a 36-percent tax cut. If you are making $165,000 a year, two kids, you will get less of a percent--an 8-percent tax cut. That is all included in the legislation. The big change, as we talked about earlier--and I know you have it in front of you--is that there is now this deduction for property taxes. It is a $10,000 cap on that deduction. As you know, if you look at the entire SALT, which are the State and local taxes and property taxes, about 50 percent of that benefit goes to families making over $200,000 a year. In this one, the property taxes capped at $10,000 will be much more targeted to the middle class. I think it is fair to say to my colleague from Oregon that he will see more middle-class tax relief from that, and that will be something that will help middle-class families. There is no change in terms of those tax cuts because those brackets--the reduction of the tax rates, doubling of the standard deduction, the doubling of the child credit--are all in the legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague. I yield back.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I wish I could convince my friend from Michigan--and she is my friend--about the $4,000 per family that would come from the pro-growth policies here, many of which she supports. She wants her businesses to be competitive, and they are not now. It is an outrage that our companies have to use a tax code that puts the workers in those companies in a disadvantageous position every day. It is not just about inversions, and it is not just about companies getting taken over. By the way, last year, three times as many American companies were taken over by foreign companies as the other way around. Over the last 13 years, 4,700 companies became foreign companies that would today be U.S. companies if this tax bill had been in place. I mean, it is happening. They are taking their jobs and investments with them when they go overseas. We have to fix that problem. It has been bipartisan. There has never been a partisan issue about that. That is where a lot of that $4,000 comes from. It comes from the fact that you are going to have more investment and therefore higher productivity, and workers are going to have a chance to see higher wages. The Congressional Budget Office did a study in which they showed that 70 percent of the benefit of lowering the business rate goes to workers in terms of higher wages and higher benefits. Others say it is less than that. Others say it is more than that. Kevin Hassett, who is the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, says that it is more than that. But that is where the $4,000 comes from. I hope it is a lot more than that, but it is on top of the middle-class tax cuts that are very direct. In other words, that is not just saying that we are going to have a better economy, which I believe we will--and I strongly believe we can improve a broken tax code, as I think everybody does, to make it better for American workers--but beyond that, you have the immediate tax relief, and that is what we have been talking about. This is the doubling of the standard deduction, the doubling of the child tax credit, the lowering of the tax rates. My friend from Pennsylvania just talked about the fact that 20 percent of the people between $50,000 and $75,000--I am not sure where his data was coming from, but let's take it as true--have a small tax cut or a tax increase, and 17 percent between $75,000 and $100,000 are in that category. That means 80 percent of the people in that category have a big tax cut, in the one category, and 83 percent in the other category have a big tax cut. So, yes, a small tax cut--I don't know how many have a small tax cut and how many have a tax increase, but the vast majority of middle-class families, according to what my colleague from Pennsylvania just said, are going to get a big tax cut. I don't know what is wrong with that. That is $2,375, on average, for a median- income family in Ohio. By the way, economists say that it not only creates the opportunity for people to have a little better family budget through the direct tax cuts but also, of course, more jobs. Here is something interesting. Over the past couple of days, a letter came in from 137 economists--many of them nationally known--who support this legislation. This is what they say: Economic growth will accelerate if this legislation passes, leading to more jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living for the American people. They say that there will be significantly more resources coming into the Federal Government because of this, because of the growth. They think that there will be $1 trillion more revenue coming in because of this, because of the growth. They also think that there will be additional jobs--the Tax Foundation says 1 million new jobs. So, yes, I do believe it will be $4,000 per family, but on top of that, I believe that they are going to have a very direct benefit. I know they will because the statistics are there--my colleague from Pennsylvania just acknowledged it--that the vast majority of middle- class families are going to see a substantial tax cut. Let me give you a number. For a family with two kids, making $50,000 a year, it is a 36-percent tax cut, on average. That matters. That helps people who are trying to make ends meet. It is real both in terms of the direct tax cuts and in terms of the economic growth and the higher wages that are going to come with that, and that is so important to all of the families we represent. We have had a good discussion here. I see that my colleague from Connecticut is here and would like to speak, and others, I am sure, are going to want to speak. I would ask my colleague from Oregon if he would be willing to have another unanimous consent that there be additional time equally divided.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is a big day because we are about to provide tax relief to millions of people in Ohio and around the country--middle-class tax cuts, doubling the standard deduction, doubling the child tax credit, lower rates for people in every bracket. In my home State of Ohio, we have the opportunity to see people who are making $50,000 a year, with two kids, see a 26-percent tax cut. That is important. My colleague just talked about his concern about some of the provisions that are before us. I will say, these have all been filed. That doesn't always happen around here, and it should. These have all been filed, and people can go on rpc.senate.gov. These were made public. Nothing is on this list that hasn't been filed publicly. Just looking at it, the biggest one that my colleague talked about as being something to help rich people is the deduction for property taxes. It is capped at $10,000. There is a deduction for allowing people to deduct their property taxes, which is incredibly important for middle-class families around the country. Some people on the other side want to go much further and provide much larger deductions and make those for State and local taxes. By the way, their proposal would go primarily to upper income people, the proposal they have. That benefit goes primarily to those who are making higher incomes. How is it paid? It is a $10,000 deduction for property tax. It is paid for by exactly the provision my colleague from Oregon just complained about because he said he wanted to be sure people had to pay an alternative minimum tax, and that alternative minimum tax is being used to pay for this middle-class tax cut we are talking about. Anyway, that is the biggest item by far. The second biggest item is for the passthrough companies. These are the smaller businesses in America, and it is to try to have some more parity between the passthrough companies and the so-called C corporations. Again, that is something that is really important to small businesses in my home State of Ohio and around the country. I encourage him to take a look. All of these have been filed. He can look at them now or he can go online, as any citizen can, and take a look at these things. I would say that at the end of the day, I know we had a difference of opinion on whether there should be tax cuts, but we think tax relief is appropriate right now. We think the middle-class families who have not seen an increase in their wages, not just for the last few years but the last couple of decades, need a little help. Their expenses have not gone down. They have gone up. Wages have been flat. That middle-class squeeze is addressed through these tax cuts--on average, about $2,375 for an Ohio median-income family. That is important. People who are working paycheck to paycheck will find this to be incredibly important. Maybe they can put a little more money aside for retirement. Maybe it can help with their healthcare costs, which have gone up dramatically as wages have been flat. Maybe they can help people be able to buy a car or to make a car payment if they already have a car. These are real tax cuts. They are going to help middle-class families. Again, I hope my colleagues will look at some of these changes, like the $10,000 deduction for property taxes paid for with the alternative minimum tax changes and help us be able to make this legislation even more generous for folks in the middle class, as they say they are for. With that, I would like to ask my colleague from South Carolina, who has been very involved in the child tax credit, ensuring we have a reduction of the brackets, if he would have a few comments on those.

Mr. PORTMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, again, we have had some interesting dialogue back and forth. Earlier, my colleague from Connecticut was talking about how this isn't real middle-class tax relief, and then he lamented the fact that because of the arcane budget rules we have around here, after 10 years, all these great tax cuts expire. So you kind of have it both ways there, and I don't think you can do that, which is that there aren't real tax cuts but then, when they expire, it is the greatest shame because they are great tax cuts. Here is the reality. There are significant tax cuts here for the middle class. This legislation doubles the standard deduction. Probably about two-thirds of the people I am talking to tonight already take the standard deduction. Now we will have about 95 percent of people who will take it, and everyone who takes it will be able to, instead of getting $12,000 a family, get $24,000 a family, greatly expanding that. By the way, there is a zero tax bracket, meaning people who don't have any income tax liability. That means a lot to people I represent who are living paycheck to paycheck, having a tough time making ends meet. Also, as a result of this, and the other tax relief, about 3 million Americans who now pay income tax are going to fall off the tax rolls. They are no longer going to have income tax liability. That is really meaningful to people. It also doubles the child tax credit. We talked a little bit about that today. It also increases the refundability a little. But importantly, it helps to ensure that families have the ability to help make ends meet when they are trying to raise kids--the most important thing you can do--and it lowers tax rates. That combination means that you have the kind of tax relief we are talking about. So a family who makes $50,000 a year and has two kids gets a 36- percent tax cut. A family who makes $85,000 a year and has two kids gets a 20-percent tax cut. If you make $165,000 a year and have two kids, you get an 8-percent tax cut. So the benefit is focused more on those who are at the lower end of the economic scale, and I think that is appropriate. So it is middle-class tax relief, but here is how it works. As to the share of Federal taxes paid in 2019, which is a year after this is implemented--it starts right away, by the way, so middle-class families are going to get that relief right away--the current is in the red, and then our proposal is in the blue. So if you make zero to $20,000, it is very unlikely that you have income tax liability, but some families do and the average is 0.1 percent. If you make $20,000 to $50,000 a year, your share of the Federal taxes goes down in our bill from 4.3 percent to 4.1 percent. If you make $50,000 to $100,000 a year, your share of the Federal taxes goes from 16.9 percent to 16.7 percent. If you make $100,000 or above, your share goes not down but up, from 78.7 percent to 78.9 percent. The top percent of wage earners in this country, the top 10 percent, pay approximately 70 percent of the income taxes right now. After our bill is passed and implemented, they will pay more than 70 percent. So it is a progressive tax cut in the sense that the benefit is focused more on middle-class families who really need the help. That is what the legislation does. Then, in addition to that, in responding to my colleagues who were talking whether there is any economic growth that comes from this, yes, there is a lot of economic growth because the current code is so bad. It is broken. My colleague from Oregon, who is the ranking member, agrees with that. He has a different solution as to how you get there, but he has been a leader on tax reform for that very reason. The current code is actually putting our workers at a disadvantage, making our families have to go through a great complicated process even to file their taxes. More than half of taxpayers now have to use a tax preparer. That is terrible. So this legislation does also provide economic growth by taking that Tax Code, which has this perverse effect of actually telling U.S. companies that it is better that they have workers overseas and take their investment overseas or even become a foreign company--the 4,700 companies that are foreign companies today became foreign companies over the last 13 years because we didn't have this Tax Code in place. That is based on an Ernst & Young study. I encourage folks to take a look at it. It basically makes the point that because of a broken Tax Code, it is advantageous for U.S. companies to take their jobs and investment overseas. That makes no sense. Foreign companies can pay a premium for U.S. companies because of our Tax Code. We have the highest business tax rate in the industrialized world, and we have an international system that encourages people to go overseas and keep their money overseas. That is crazy. This proposal changes all of that. It says: Let's get our rate down below the average of the other industrialized countries, and then let's have an international system that actually encourages them to bring the money back and create more jobs here. In fact, Mr. President, I will say something else. I know you are interested in this. It also encourages foreign investment in this country, because if you are a foreign auto company--and you have a bunch in your State of Tennessee--and your decision is that am I going to invest in Japan, where they might be headquartered, or am I going to invest in China, where they might have a factory, or am I going to invest in Germany, where they might a factory, or am I going to invest in the United States of America and maybe in Tennessee, this bill will make it more advantageous for them to make their investment here and to create the jobs here because of the lower tax rate and because of the expensing when they go out to buy new equipment and technology to make their workers more productive. So this is going to help American companies a lot to be able to compete globally. It levels the playing field, which is very important. It has been bipartisan up to now--very bipartisan. We had a working group on this, among five bipartisan working groups that were established 2 years ago, that studied this issue. We came up with the solution that you have to get the rate below the average and you have to go through the kind of system we are talking about. It was totally bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans alike agreed to it because it just makes so much sense for the American worker. They are the ones getting the short end of the stick right now. They are the ones who are told: You go out there and compete, but do it with one hand tied behind your back. We need to give them the tools to be able to succeed, and that is what this legislation does. Yes, that is going to result in middle- class families getting benefits well beyond, in my view, the direct tax cuts we talked about earlier because it is going to enable them to be able to get the higher wages and the better jobs, and that is why some economists have said it is $4,000 a family. Some have said it is more. Many Democrats think it is less. But there will be a benefit to these families. Remember, these companies we are talking about, the C corporations, they employ more than half of the American private workforce. They are competing every day in these global marketplaces. We want them to win. We want our workers to win because we want them to be able to have those higher wages and better benefits. We have spent 2 decades with relatively weak economic growth and, therefore, relatively flat wages. In fact, on an inflation-adjusted basis, if you look back over the last 15 years, there hasn't been any wage growth. There have been higher expenses, especially healthcare, and those healthcare costs and tuition costs for those who want to send their kids to school, or other costs--food and energy--have all gone up. Wages have been flat. That is a middle-class squeeze, and that is what this middle-class tax relief helps to address. Importantly, that is what this pro-growth part helps to address because you are going to see higher wages, and you are going to see better benefits if you give this kind of tax relief to the American worker because you are going to see more investment, you are going to see more productivity that comes from that, and you are going to see higher wages. I believe that, but what I believe isn't as important as what others believe. So 137 economists, many of these are nationally known economists, have looked at the pro-growth parts of this legislation-- the parts I am talking about that make us competitive again--and they have said that economic growth will accelerate if this legislation passes, leading to more jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living for the American people. They say there will be a million new jobs in this country just because of this. I think that is really important, as important as the tax cuts are for the middle class--and they are important. Again, those tax cuts primarily go to folks who are in the middle class and that is appropriate. Equally important to me is to get this economy moving in a way that people can have the opportunity to get those higher wages and better benefits. The Congressional Budget Office did a study. It showed that 70 percent of the benefit of getting that corporate tax rate down is going to go to workers in terms of salaries and benefits. Some say it is less than that. Some say it is more than that. Kevin Hassett, who is the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, says it is more than that. The point is that it is going to help these workers, and it is about time that we help them. There has been a lot of discussion about the process here tonight, and I understand the frustration. As a Member of the Senate, sometimes I feel that frustration as well. But I will say that this legislation, H.R. 1, which is the vast majority of the papers that were held up a moment ago--this is the legislation that came out of committee; it is the vast majority of the pages--has been on this website called budget.senate.gov and has been public since Saturday, November 26. So it has been out there awhile for Members to look at. Every single one of these amendments that are part of the manager's amendment that was talked about tonight has been publicly filed, and I think that is good. We required that Members have to file an amendment and make it public. People can go on rpc.senate.gov and see all of those amendments, and I think that is appropriate. I would hope that, as we go through this process tonight and we talk about this legislation, we can express our differences, which we will, but that we can also stick to the facts, which is that this does provide middle-class tax cuts. Again, as to those who have said earlier that there are no real tax cuts, but then when it expires in 10 years say: Well, gosh, these big tax cuts are gone, you can't have it both ways. There are tax cuts. Maybe people think there should be different kinds of tax cuts, but they are there. Second, there is the economic growth element of this, which to me is so important. We are not going to be able to have a growing economy and have opportunity and, frankly, be in a position as a country to be able to address some of our broader problems unless we have the growth and the optimism that comes with that, and that is why I think the economic growth parts of this are equally important. Again, that has been bipartisan in the past, and I hope it can be bipartisan in the future. I hope we will be able, as a Senate tonight, to pass this legislation and then continue to work on these issues, not just in terms of tax reform but making our economy and our workers more competitive because that, in the end, is going to be the ability to give people the chance for themselves and their kids and grandkids to have a better life. I see my colleague from Pennsylvania is on the floor, and I know my colleague from Oregon may have another speaker. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the chairman for that clarification and appreciate his outstanding leadership and work on this historic tax reform measure.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Oregon has some other speakers. I know he would like to speak, I am sure. I ask unanimous consent that there now be 30 minutes, equally divided, for debate only, with no amendments or motions in order, and with the majority leader being recognized at the conclusion of that time.

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

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I think the Senator makes a great point. We have had a debate here this afternoon about economic growth. One of the realities now on which both sides of the aisle can agree is that the tax relief we are putting out there, which is helping middle-class families to have a little healthier family budget, is also helping workers with regard to the international competition. Right now, our workers are competing with one hand tied behind their back. All of this is going to generate more economic growth. It is going to come from more investment, more productivity. In fact, the number that the Joint Committee on Taxation put out today, although it is significantly lower than other numbers, is over $400 billion in more revenue coming in. That is enough growth to generate that much more revenue coming into the Federal Government.

Mr. PORTMAN. Exactly. So that is the number--let's say roughly $400 billion--that they have. By the way, there are 137 economists who tell us that it will be not $400 billion, but it will be $1 trillion. This is their quote. Their letter came out yesterday. ``Economic growth will accelerate, if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passes, leading to more jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living for the American people.'' This is 137 economists who say that actually it is going to be more than twice as much as Joint Tax says. There are other studies that the Senator from South Dakota talked about that indicate there will be even more economic growth.

Mr. PORTMAN. That is one part of the debate: How much economic growth is going to come out of these tax reforms that we are putting forward? We know there will be a lot; the question is, How much? But this is all based on a Congressional Budget Office estimate of growth over the next 10 years, the GDP growth, the economic growth. So we are sort of in a straitjacket. Although we believe this tax reform proposal will help in terms of that growth, we have to go by this number of 1.9 percent. So 1.9 percent is anemic growth. That is sad. If we can't do better than 1.9 percent, we have real problems in this country, and that is over the next 10 years, projected. As the Senator has said, it is kind of interesting that they are projecting 1.9 percent and others are projecting higher numbers. In the context of us having just finished a quarter that was 3.3 percent--it was adjusted yesterday to 3.3 percent--and then the quarter before, the second quarter of this year, was 3 percent. So 3 percent, 3.3 percent over the last two quarters, yet they say 1.9 percent. There is a private forecast that indicates there will be between 3 and 4 percent growth next year. The average, as Senator Thune said, even with a lot of things happening, such as a recession and hurricanes and other natural disasters, is 2.5 percent or more. So this is not normal. In other words, this is a relatively low rate. I know we can do better. I don't say, as some do, that this is somehow the new normal. We have to do better. If we don't do better, we can't begin to get wages back up again, which have been flat really for the last couple of decades when you take inflation into account. We know we can do better. That is why this tax bill is so important, to give the economy that shot in the arm. But let's assume for a minute that it will be only 1.9 percent-- dismal growth. Let's assume this tax proposal passes. Let's assume we get the benefit of the increased revenue from that. By the way, what we say in the tax proposal is that about $1.4 trillion to $1.5 trillion of tax relief will be part of this, and that is out of $44 trillion over the next 10 years. That will provide a little bit of a tax relief because we know the growth will come from that. So let's assume that this is true. Let's assume you use the right policy baseline, assuming that we are going to continue with the current extenders, which we always do. We end up--stick with me here-- with about a $533 billion deficit over the next 10 years if we assume this really low rate of growth. If you assume that instead of 1.9 percent, we go not to 3 percent, not to 2.5 percent, not even to 2.4, 2.3, 2.2, but let's just say 2.1 percent growth--again, very conservative, and I sure hope we will do better, and I believe we will--but let's assume it is 2.1 percent. That will generate enough revenue, because it is up to $270 billion per every 0.1 percent, to have this tax reform proposal actually result in money going back into the Treasury--in other words, reducing the deficit. So I think this is very fiscally responsible. I think it is very conservative. I think 2.1 percent growth is not something that is at all out of bounds. In fact, I think it is going to be far higher than that based on the growth we have already had recently and the growth that has been projected by outside forecasters. So I would just say to folks who are hearing that this is somehow blowing a hole in the deficit, I think it is the opposite. I think it is going to actually result in more money going into the Federal Treasury to get the deficit down. Let me say something else. This is a debate we can have, but we have to deal with the growth side if we are going to get the deficit under control, there is no question about it, not just the spending side. We have to get it under control. But even to do the important work we have to do on a bipartisan basis with restrained growth, it is much more likely that we will do it when we have higher growth. If it is 1.9 percent, we are not going to get there. So let's get some pro-growth tax reform. Let's get the economy moving. Let's give people the sense that we can tackle these problems. Let's do something about the debt and deficit. We can do that by very meager growth--2.1 percent versus 1.9 percent--and actually take money that is currently in the economy at 1.9 percent--not moving much. Let's get it moving more. Let's create more economic activity. Let's do that to get that growth rate up a little bit through this tax reform, and then let's actually begin to reduce that debt and deficit. I just wanted to make that point. When we hear that this is somehow fiscally irresponsible--I think it is very responsible fiscally, very conservative. I think we will do better than the numbers we have seen here of 1.9 percent growth. Certainly just 2.1 percent growth actually reduces the deficit, and I think that ought to be brought into the debate.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for six additional full floor access passes to be equally divided between the majority and minority during the consideration of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act legislation, for the following staffers: from the majority on the Finance Committee: Randy Herndon, Zach Rudisill, and Shay Hawkins; from the minority on the Finance Committee: Ryan Abraham, Adam Carasso, and Sarah Schneider.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, tonight I want to talk about the opportunity we have before us in the Senate, and that is for tax reform that can truly help our economy and help the middle-class families we represent. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The last time we reformed our Tax Code in any substantial way was 31 years ago. Ronald Reagan was President and Pete Rose was still playing for the Cincinnati Reds. That is how long ago it was. In 1986, tax reform gave our economy a much needed shot in the arm, and it led to more jobs and higher wages in the 1980s and 1990s. Now, 31 years later, after a decade of disappointing growth and flat wages, we need that shot in the arm again. We need a tax code that better reflects the needs of today's workers, today's families, and our 21st century economy. There is bipartisan agreement that the Tax Code is broken--hopelessly broken--and it is up to Congress to fix it. No one else can. Through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act now before us, we have a chance in the Congress to create a better economy and a better future. We have to get this done for the people we represent. It starts with tax cuts for the middle class. While the economy has seen some improvement recently, and I saw some good numbers today for last quarter's growth, the people I represent, hard-working Ohioans, and people across the country are not feeling these benefits of a growing economy. For more than a decade now, expenses have increased, including healthcare costs, which have increased the highest, at a time when wages have been flat. When you take inflation into account, wages have stayed relatively flat for almost two decades. That increase in expenses and flat wages is the middle-class squeeze, and people are feeling it. For years, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been calling for middle-class tax cuts to help ease this burden. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will actually deliver. The proposal helps us in a lot of ways but three main ways. First, there is a doubling of the standard deduction. This is a doubling for families from $12,000 to $24,000. That means, for a lot of families in America, the first $24,000 is a zero tax bracket. Two-thirds of Ohioans already, by the way, use the standard deduction. The estimate is, now that we are doubling it, over 90 percent of Ohioans will use that standard deduction. That helps to keep the tax bill down but also is a tremendous simplification of our Tax Code. Second is the doubling of the child tax credit. That is in this legislation. The American dream starts with the American family, and parents shouldn't have to reconsider starting a family because of the financial burden that comes with it. This doubling of the child tax credit will help working families afford childcare and will help strengthen middle-class family budgets all across the country. By the way, it includes increasing the refundability of that tax credit for taxpayers who don't have any income tax liability. Third, of course, is lowering tax rates. There are tax rates that are lowered all across the board for middle-class families. The independent Tax Foundation estimates that the tax cuts in this proposal will save an Ohio family at the median income level 2,375 bucks a year. That almost $2,400 a year is a big deal. A lot of the people I represent and others represent here in this Chamber are living paycheck to paycheck, and this matters. More money staying in the pockets of working families to make that car payment, to pay for healthcare, maybe put a little money aside for retirement, is a big deal. We also know from the Tax Foundation that the lower rates in this plan will benefit families across middle-class income brackets. For example, a family with two kids making $50,000 a year will see a 36- percent tax break, a 36-percent reduction in their tax liability. For a family with two kids making about $85,000 a year, there is a 20-percent reduction in their tax liability. And for a family with two kids making about $165,000 a year, there is an 8-percent reduction in their tax liability. So there is tax relief across the board, but the biggest proportional tax cut goes to the folks who need it the most. This chart shows this. For people who are in these income categories--$20,000 to $50,000, $50,000 to $100,00, $100,000 and above--right now paying 4.3 percent in taxes from $20,000 to $50,000, under this proposal, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Foundation, it goes down to 4.1 percent. So the burden is reduced for people at the lower end. From $50,000 to $100,000, the burden is also lower, from 16.9 percent to 16.7 percent. For those people with $100,000 and above, the burden right now is about 78.7 percent. The top 10 percent of wage earners pay about 70 percent of the taxes. That actually goes up from 78.7 to 78.9. So this notion that we have heard today that somehow these middle- class tax cuts are not proportionally helping those at the lower end is simply not true. This is the data. Go on jct.gov--Joint Committee on Taxation--and look for yourself. Go on the Tax Foundation site, and you can look at your family income, look at your situation, and determine how doubling the standard deduction, doubling the child tax credit, and reducing tax rates will benefit you. The biggest proportional tax cuts, again, go to people who need it the most. In total, by the way, when these tax cuts are implemented, it is estimated that approximately 3 million Americans who are currently paying taxes will no longer be paying income taxes. They will be off the rolls altogether. That is tax cuts for middle-class families, for families who need it the most. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested that our plan will hurt families with incomes below $30,000 because there is a Joint Committee on Taxation report that, because of arcane budget rules, counts repealing the individual mandate as a tax hike. This is an interesting perspective, but I reject it because I don't think stopping the ObamaCare individual mandate and people choosing not to buy health insurance and therefore not having both the cost of the Affordable Care Act and the ObamaCare tax credits that come with that healthcare is a tax hike. In other words, what they are saying is that because somebody doesn't choose to buy healthcare partly because it is too expensive and therefore doesn't get the tax credits that come with that, that somehow that is a tax hike. That doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think it makes sense to most Americans. What the Joint Committee on Taxation did say repeatedly at our committee markup 2 weeks ago is that when you don't consider this issue--again, choosing not to buy healthcare insurance a hike--that our plan does give every single income group, including those under $30,000, a tax cut. As noted earlier, the biggest percentage tax cuts goes to those with lower incomes, and that is appropriate. Those are the folks who need it the most. What we do know is that right now the individual mandate is an onerous tax by itself. The Supreme Court has called it a tax. It is a tax on people that disproportionately affects lower to middle-class Americans. In fact, 80 percent of the individual mandate falls on folks making less than $50,000 a year and their families. In Ohio, by the way, that figure is about 83 percent. Eighty-three percent of that individual mandate tax falls on people in households that make less than $50,000 a year. Getting rid of this penalty removes the financial burden unfairly affecting those working families, and then we use the savings from that, that the Congressional Budget Office says we get from this, to increase the child tax credit and to reduce tax rates on the middle class. That is one reason we have better middle-class tax cuts in our bill. Providing immediate relief to the family budget is incredibly important, but beyond that, the tax reforms on the business side will make American workers and companies more competitive, create more jobs and better wages, and that, to me, is just as important in terms of helping middle-class families in my home State of Ohio. Why? Because when you reform the business tax code to make it competitive, the benefit goes to workers and working-class families all over this country. The United States now has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. One study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that workers bear 70 percent of the burden of our corporate tax rate being so high. Others say it is less than that, and others say it is more than that, but all say that workers benefit. If we lower that rate below the average of the other industrialized countries, our workers will benefit through higher wages and better benefits. And by the way, that benefits middle-class families well beyond these direct tax cuts we were talking about earlier. A recent study by Ernst & Young, the accounting firm, said that if we had had the tax rate that we have in this proposal--a 20-percent tax rate--on these businesses, if we had had that in place since 2004, there would be 4,700 more U.S. companies today. Let me repeat that. They are saying that 4,700 companies that were American companies have become foreign companies because of our Tax Code, and if we had put in place these changes back 13 years ago, those companies would still be American companies, hiring more American workers, and investing more money here. We did some research on this, some investigation in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations over the past few years, and we determined that, in fact, when companies are taken over by a foreign company because of our Tax Code or when U.S. companies choose to go overseas and invert because of our Tax Code, what happens? We lose jobs, and we lose investment here in this country. It matters, and it matters a lot to the communities where those employees are lost and where those businesses have left. The 20-percent tax rate is going to mean more jobs and more investment coming right here to this country instead of going overseas. It is also true that there will be more foreign investment here. Companies are now trying to decide whether they are going to invest in America or whether they are going to invest in some other country with a lower tax rate, and with the expensing we have in this bill, to be able to write down new investments they are making, it is going to encourage them to make an investment here in the United States rather than in other countries. That will increase jobs too. By the way, the Tax Foundation estimates that because of the new investment and the higher productivity that comes with it because of this tax reform proposal, we will create nearly 1 million new Americans jobs and more than 35,000 jobs alone in my home State of Ohio. In addition to providing relief for middle-class families and making business rates more competitive for American companies and workers, this tax reform does a lot to level the playing field internationally. This is very important. Right now, American workers are forced to compete with one hand tied behind their back because of our Tax Code. A broken tax code is something that must be fixed because it is irresponsible to tell the American people: You have to get out there and compete, but guess what--your foreign competitor has a big advantage over you. It is crazy that Congress has allowed this opportunity to go by for so many years. The situation where companies are actually encouraged to move overseas and keep their profits overseas makes no sense. Right now, it is estimated there is between $2.5 trillion and $3 trillion of earnings trapped overseas because of this outdated Tax Code. Think about that. That money can come back here and be invested here in plants and jobs and equipment. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act says to those companies: We want your money back here. We want you to invest in America. The result will lift the economic condition of our entire country. This week, 137 of the country's leading economists wrote an open letter to Congress in support of this tax reform bill. These former heads of government agencies, leaders of economic policy groups, and leading academics said, quite simply: Economic growth will accelerate if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passes, leading to more jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living for the American people. That is by 137 economists in an open letter. I encourage you to take a look at it online. These are people who understand what the impact of the policy we make here is going to be on decisions that are being made all around the country. We can debate the exact growth amount that will result from this bill, and we will have a spirited debate on that this week, but we all have to agree that this will help to grow the economy if we are following basic economic theory. By the way, their letter also states that ``$1 trillion in new tax revenue for the federal government can be generated by four-tenths of a percentage in GDP growth.'' In other words, what they are saying is that if there is just a slight increase in economic growth because of this tax reform bill, compared to the number we have to use here, that this will result in actual new revenue coming in to the government to pay down the debt. I am convinced that is going to happen for a very simple reason. We have to use a very low number on economic growth. Under our rules, we have to use a CBO--Congressional Budget Office-- number of 1.9 percent economic growth over the next 10 years. By the way, the average over the past 30 years has been 2.5 percent. We just learned today that the average last quarter was 3.3 percent. The average the quarter before that, the second quarter, was 3.1 percent. This tax reform proposal will help to actually increase economic growth, but even if you don't believe that, 1.9 percent economic growth is unacceptable. We cannot accept that as a country. We can and must do better than that. We will do better than that, and this tax reform proposal will be one reason. So I am convinced that the four-tenth's increase--up to 2.3 percent--is still very conservative and that we will be able to do better than that, as we have over the past 30 years, as we have traditionally in this country. When you hear my colleagues on the other side talk about this bill being bad for the deficit, I think you ought to think about that. This means that they are resigning themselves to 1.9 percent economic growth. That, to me, is not acceptable for our country, and I don't think that is what we will see. Of the $44 trillion in new revenue estimated to be coming in over the next 10 years, yes, out of that amount, we are suggesting $1.5 trillion be a tax cut relative to that, again, very low economic growth of 1.9 percent. About a third of that, by the way, is by simply using what we should use, which is the right policy baseline, so you end up with about $1 trillion in tax relief. And again, over 10 years, with $44 trillion coming in and with what the economists are saying about it generating more revenue through economic growth, I am convinced we are going to do better than that 1.9 percent. I believe the pro-growth changes in this bill will help drive economic growth in ways that help every American family. We are in a position now, if we pass this bill, to be able to help all the people who are now looking at a tough time making ends meet--it is difficult for a lot of people living paycheck to paycheck--but it will also help to grow the economy generally. Businesses and organizations all around the country are supporting this legislation because they believe it is going to help American families. We have about 120 groups already as of yesterday who are supporting us: the National Federation of Independent Business, which is the group that represents most of the small businesses in America; the Family Business Council, which represents a lot of small businesses that will benefit greatly from the changes we have not just with the corporation rate but also with how we deal with companies that are considered to be passthrough companies, the smaller companies. The National Retail Federation is strongly in support of this bill. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council supports this reform plan and the opportunities it has to create more economic growth for small businesses, to let them be more competitive. You can look at some of the groups here, some of the roughly 120 groups that are supporting this legislation. Why? Because they know it is going to help. Big businesses will benefit and be more competitive; therefore their workers can compete. Through these pro-growth policies, small businesses are going to be able to grow and be more entrepreneurial, to come up with more innovations and expand employment. We can estimate the savings for the middle-class family in every tax bracket, as I said, but what can't be measured as easily is the economic boost this is going to have for everybody. We are giving families freedom to spend more of their own money the way they see fit. We are putting faith in the American entrepreneurs and businesses to compete in a global market. We are bringing back some of that money that is locked up overseas. We are creating a fairer tax system that encourages jobs and investment here in this country rather than overseas. That is all good stuff. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is made in America and it is made for America. We need to come together now as a Congress--and I hope we will get support from the other side of the aisle as well--to pass this once-in-a-generation legislation to benefit our country. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I really enjoyed listening to my colleague from Pennsylvania talking about this new tax reform plan that has just been unveiled by the Finance Committee. He is right; this is really exciting because it is an opportunity, after a lot of talk over a lot of years, to finally fix our Tax Code. Our Tax Code is broken. It is broken in a lot of different respects, but one that he pointed out so well is the fact that we actually have jobs and investment going overseas because of our Tax Code. It is the responsibility of the people who are in this body and in the House and in the Presidency to actually fix that. No one else can do it. Workers in America, including in my home State of Ohio, are competing with one hand tied behind their back because we have a tax code that encourages other companies from foreign countries to come in and buy our companies, to take our business, to take our market share, to make it harder for U.S. workers to be able to compete and win. So I think it is way past time, frankly, for us to fix that. People say: Well, we haven't reformed the Tax Code in 31 years and it is about time, and I agree with that. If we go back to the international part of our Tax Code that created a lot of these problems, we have to go back to John F. Kennedy, who last reformed it. That means that part of our Tax Code should qualify for AARP benefits; that is how old it is. So it is time for us to fix it, and it is really exciting to finally have the opportunity. There are three parts of this tax reform proposal, all three of which are really important. The first is a tax cut for the middle class. Why is that important? Because right now, even with the economy that is starting to grow a little bit, what is happening? Wages are flat, so expenses are up across the board. The biggest expense, by the way, is the one the Presiding Officer has been involved with, which is healthcare. People have seen their healthcare costs go up, as well as their premiums and their deductibles and their copays; yet their wages aren't going up, and that creates a middle-class squeeze. But it is more than healthcare. It is food. It is every day purchases. It is tuition, if you are trying to send your kid to school. Those have skyrocketed. So let's do something to actually give the family budget a little help; that is, the middle-class tax cuts that are in this proposal. You probably saw today that the middle-class tax cut alone provides, on average, $1,458 for every family. That is the median income family. One of the reporters here in the hall asked me: Gosh, $1,500 a family--why does that matter? I said: It matters a lot if you are living paycheck to paycheck. Maybe you are not, but a lot of people whom I represent are, and that $1,500 will help them to be able to make ends meet and maybe begin to save a little bit for vacation or retirement or for the ability to make that car payment. So I think this is really important. I would say, though, beyond just that important middle-class tax cut, there is something else that ought to be considered, which is, if we do this right--the way this has been laid out by the Finance Committee-- what is going to happen is we are going to help to create more jobs and higher wages. My colleague from Pennsylvania talked about this. With a relatively tight labor market, as we have more investment into these businesses, what is going to happen? Everyone says we are going to see wages go up. The Congressional Budget Office, which is a nonpartisan group, and the Joint Committee on Taxation, also a nonpartisan group, have looked at all of this. They say: Yes, there is actually going to be a benefit to workers if we do these business tax cuts, to be able to get the business rate down below the average of the other industrialized countries, rather than having the highest business rate in the entire industrialized world, which it is now, because that is going to attract more jobs and investment here and we will stop losing jobs and investment. There are some economists who have looked at this, as well, and they agree that this is going to benefit workers. In fact, there are a couple of economic studies that show that families will get an additional $4,000, on average, per family. Again, we are talking about middle-class families who will get the benefits that are going to come from more investment and more jobs and higher earnings that are going to happen in the business world. So it is not just about the middle-class tax cuts, as important as they are; this is also tax reform that is going right to the bottom line. You will be able to figure it out. Go online, use the tax calculator, and figure out what it means to you. But also remember that these other reforms, in an outdated Tax Code that is just crying out for reform, are going to result in additional benefits flowing to you and your family, as well, if we do this right, and we have to do it right. There is a study that came out recently from a firm called Ernst & Young. The study looked at what has been happening in America over the past decade or so. It said that over the last 13 years, there are 4,700 American companies that have become foreign companies because of our Tax Code that would still be American companies today if we put in place the kind of tax reform we are talking about--20 percent rate-- below that average of the other industrialized countries and this international system that allows you to be more competitive--4,700 companies. Think about that. There is other data out there that says twice as many foreigners are buying U.S. companies than U.S. companies are buying foreign companies. Why? Because of our Tax Code. It is just true. This is something that has been happening in this country, not just in the last couple of years but really over the last couple of decades. It is time for us to catch up. America needs to get back in a leadership position, and if we do that, we are going to see more jobs and more investment coming here to this country rather than going overseas. Finally, the third thing this does that is so important is it levels the playing field internationally. Right now we have between $2.5 trillion and $3 trillion of earnings--money--from American companies that are trapped overseas. Those companies aren't bringing it back. Why? Because of our Tax Code. This tax reform proposal actually says to those companies: We want that money back here. We want you to invest in America. We want you to create jobs here and expand plants and equipment; bring your intellectual property, your patents back here, and then send that export out from America. That will create jobs here, including good jobs in research and development. That is what this proposal does as well. It levels that playing field internationally to tell the foreign companies and the foreign nations that are taking advantage of our current Tax Code: You know what, that is not going to happen anymore. That is done. We now are going to have a competitive tax code where we are encouraging money to come here to this country, and that money coming back here, invested in this country, will also raise the economic condition for the entire country. Economic growth will go up, and, again, that filters down to all of us, including every family I represent. That is why I am excited about this. I think it is overdue. I wish we could have done this earlier, not just last year but 10 years ago or 20 years ago. Senator Hatch is on the floor tonight, and he has been talking about this for a few decades. He has been saying that we have to fix this. He is now chairman of the Finance Committee. He can do it. Senator McConnell is going to speak in a minute. He has talked about this for a long time. We have had commissions on it. We have had bipartisan working groups--five of them--a year and a half ago on reform, and those bipartisan working groups looked at this issue. I cochaired one of those working groups on the international side. Guess what. On a bipartisan basis, we said: We have to have this lower tax rate; we have to go to this more competitive international system. Do my colleagues know who the cochair of that working group was? There was one Republican, one Democrat on all of these working groups. It was Chuck Schumer from New York who is now a Democratic leader. So this has not been a partisan issue in the past, on the international side at least. Let's figure out how we can come together and get Republican and Democratic support to be able to tell the workers of America: You are no longer going to have to compete with one hand tied behind your back. We are going to give you the tools to be able to be successful for you and your family so that you can achieve the American dream. I am excited about this. Let's move forward. I look forward to the Finance Committee next week bringing it to the floor, and I hope we can have support on both sides of the aisle to get this done. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I don't know where to begin. I want to speak about the tax reform proposal but will start by responding to my colleague from Maryland--and he is a colleague and friend--to say that he must be talking about a different tax reform proposal than we are talking about because, frankly, so much of what he said is not consistent with the legislation that I have seen the House proposing and certainly not consistent with the legislation we are talking about here in the Senate. Let me start with his claim that there is a $1.5 trillion tax cut for big corporations. That is simply not true. You can look at the House proposal because it is now out. You can see the fact that it does have tax relief, and it has tax relief targeted at middle-class families. He is right about the fact that it has a lower rate for our multinational businesses, but he also knows that our current system is absolutely broken, and what is occurring is precisely what he is suggesting might occur if we were to change the code, which is companies and jobs and investment are going overseas. He talked about the fact that we haven't had hearings. Since I got elected to the Senate in 2010, we have had 70 hearings in the committee I serve on, which is the Finance Committee. I would encourage people to look at what we did 2 years ago. We set up five bipartisan task forces on tax reform. I cochaired one of them. It was actually on the very topic my colleague was talking about. I would encourage him to look at the working group paper on international tax reform and the need for us to go to a lower rate--20 percent--to be competitive, to get just below the other industrialized countries, and then to have the opportunity to go to a new type of tax system that enables us to bring back the money that is locked out overseas. Unbelievably, there is $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion of earnings that are overseas. Much of that could be brought back, and that is what this tax proposal does. Significantly, that report my colleagues will see was coauthored by two Members of this body, one Republican and one Democrat, because all of these task forces, these working groups, were bipartisan. My colleague in that effort was a Senator from New York by the name of Chuck Schumer, who now happens to be the Democratic leader. So I think there is a consensus, at least in the real world, about the fact that our current Tax Code is hopelessly broken and we have to fix it. And if you are against helping our companies to stay American companies, that must mean that you believe that they ought to become foreign companies, which is exactly what is happening. To me, it is an outrage that the U.S. Congress is allowing this to happen. Ernst & Young, which is a public accounting firm, recently came out with a study showing that 4,700 companies that have become foreign companies over the past 13 years would still be American companies if we had the kind of tax reform proposal that we are proposing. In other words, if you had this 20 percent rate I talked about, this competitive international system, you would have 4,700 more American companies here, providing jobs, making investments, contributing to their communities. It does matter that a company is headquartered here versus headquartered overseas. We have done an analysis of this. We have done an investigation of this. We have determined that when companies leave, they don't just change their headquarters, they take investment and jobs with them. I would refer my colleagues to the work of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; again, bipartisan work about the fact that we have to fix this broken Tax Code. The Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan group here on Capitol Hill that gives us advice on the impact of tax reform on the economy, on deficits, on revenues, has a report which says that if you do lower the business tax rate to make these companies competitive-- again, the alternative is going overseas--the benefit of that goes to shareholders, goes to workers. They say in their analysis that 70 percent of the benefit goes to higher wages and more benefits for workers. Think about it. That makes sense. If a company is not competitive, they can't pay the kinds of wages we want them to pay. We want to get wages up. They can't pay the kinds of benefits we want them to pay. We want to get benefits up. So although I hope that we can have a spirited debate about aspects of this legislation, we should stick to the facts. We should not attempt to make this yet another partisan issue in this town, where we are attacking something not so much on the merits but because the other side thought about it. I will tell you, when you look back historically, it isn't just the working group that Senator Schumer and I cochaired on this international front where we have to get this rate down. We have to become competitive. We have to save our jobs here. But look at another bipartisan effort that is talked about a lot and is not agreed to by all Democrats or all Republicans; that is, the Simpson-Bowles proposal. This was several years ago. They looked at the tax policy and deficit issues. Simpson-Bowles--totally bipartisan, supported by a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators who, at the time, were on that commission--said that we ought to go to this lower rate and territorial system. This is not a partisan issue or at least it hasn't been until now. Let's not make it one. Yes, it is true that there is tax relief in this proposal. The proposal the House has proposed--the proposal the Senate is likely to propose later this week--does have tax relief, and we believe that tax relief is appropriate. We believe we have to give middle-class families in my home State of Ohio and around the country a little break right now. Why? Because they are seeing their expenses go up, especially healthcare, but also other expenses. I say ``especially healthcare'' because that is the single largest increase in expenses; it is in the healthcare area-- deductibles, copays, premiums--but also on food, housing, and other costs, including tuition if you are trying to send your kids to school. These expenses have skyrocketed, yet wages are flat, meaning people are facing this middle-class squeeze. We hear a lot of discussion on both sides of the aisle about the fact that we want to help the middle class. One way to help is to help the family budget, to get a little relief to these families so they can make ends meet and not just live paycheck to paycheck. It will also help the economy. It will help get more money into the economy to buy that car, to buy that appliance, to help move the economy forward. It is part of this reform bill--yes, it is--and we are proud of it. We also provide some tax relief on the business side to help small businesses. These are the so-called passthrough companies. About 90 percent of the businesses in America don't pay their taxes as companies. They are not corporations in that sense. They pay their taxes through their individual tax return. They are called passthrough companies. Some call them LLCs, subchapter S, or sole proprietors or partnerships. These companies tend to be smaller companies, they tend to be family-owned. They need a little help too. So the proposal does provide significant relief for those small businesses. In the House proposal and the Senate proposal, it is hundreds of billions of dollars out of the $1.5 trillion tax relief. We think that is appropriate. Finally, again, on the business side, it will help make companies competitive to get the rate down so they can attract investment into America rather than having that investment and jobs going out of America, which is what is happening now. There are 4,700 companies that would be American companies today if we had this tax proposal in place over the last 13 years, but we didn't, and we should learn from that. It is Congress's responsibility to act to keep that from happening in the future. That is what this tax reform is about. It is about three things. It is about a middle-class tax cut allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned money. We think that is appropriate in these times. It is about helping to make our companies more competitive because we want more jobs and higher wages. Part of dealing with the middle-class squeeze is to provide a little help with the family budget with tax relief. Part is to get wages up. When people look at this tax reform proposal--right, left, or center--they are going to say the same thing: This is going to incentivize more investment. Some think more, some think less, but that investment in a tight labor market, as we have right now, is going to result in more competition for these workers, therefore, pushing wages up. That is what we want. That is what this is about. It is exciting. Third is to level the playing field internationally so American companies will not be going overseas. That is the whole point. We are not doing this tax reform proposal to encourage companies to go overseas. We are doing this tax reform proposal to incentivize them to stay in America and to attract more foreign investment here in this country so an American company can pay that premium for a foreign subsidiary, rather than the other way around now, where American companies are not just inverting. We have heard this word ``inversions,'' going overseas and buying a foreign company. They are actually being taken over by foreign companies. That is the reality. We can't let it continue. We have to stand up and be counted, stand up for the middle class, stand up for our workers who are now competing with one hand tied behind their back, whether it is a big auto company like in my home State of Ohio--I toured five of these auto factories over the last couple of weeks, talked to them about the tax reform proposal and how it would work. They gave me their input. It is going to help. By the way, it is going to help whether you are a U.S. company or a foreign company. If you are a foreign automaker here in America or you have other foreign investments, a lower rate and immediate expensing--in other words, being able to write off your investments and equipment as you make them--that is all good for you too. So it will have both, the desired effect of helping American companies be competitive but, also, if you have foreign direct investment in your State and your community, they should be encouraged to put more money in America rather than somewhere else. If you are a Japanese automaker and you are looking around the world asking: Do I put that next investment in China, do I put it in Tokyo, do I put it in Europe and Germany, or do I put it in America, you will like this proposal because you will want to invest and be part of this too. That will help us give this economy a needed shot in the arm. There has been a lot of talk--and I heard it again today on the floor--that this is going to be bad for the deficit. I think there will be about $44 trillion of new revenue coming in, estimated, over the next 10 years. Yes, out of that amount of money, we are suggesting a $1.5 trillion tax cut relative to the score--the budget--we have to use. What does that mean? About $500 billion of that is simply saying, the Budget Office says the existing tax policy in place is only temporary. Some of it is only temporary. These are the so-called extenders. We know that is unlikely because we have always pretty much made these permanent, including a big one called bonus depreciation, which is most of that. Right away we think the way it is scored is not fair so we get down to about $1 trillion in tax relief over 10 years, again, with $44 trillion coming in. What does that mean? It means you have to have a little more economic growth than is projected in order to not have a deficit and actually pay down the deficit through more revenue coming in. I think that will happen. Why do I say that? Because the projections we have to use are very conservative. The Congressional Budget Office is what we are using, and we are obliged to do that, which is fine. It is a nonpartisan group. They are saying economic growth over the next 10 years will average about 1.9 percent of growth. The average over the past 30 years is about 2.5 percent. So they are saying our economy is not going to grow as fast as it has in the last 30 years. We will see. In the last two quarters, the economy grew at 3 percent and 3.1 percent so they don't seem to be on track with where the economy is going right now. More importantly to me, these proposals are pro-growth proposals-- whether it is help with regard to the business rate, which gets it below the rate of other industrialized countries rather than the highest rate in the entire industrialized world, which is where we are now. We have the highest rate in the industrialized world, and we are getting it below the average. That will increase investment and economic activity and jobs and, therefore, revenue. If it is the immediate expensing,--again, where you can write down your investments right away--that will increase investment in jobs, according to all the economists who look at that. They may differ on how much. If you look at the international side, where we are going to bring back some of that $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion that is stuck overseas, that certainly is going to be invested here in this country and help with regard to economic growth. There are a number of provisions. I talked about the small business provisions earlier which will help small businesses to be able to innovate, to be entrepreneurial, which is what we need more of--more new starts. That is going to help. All of that together is going to help with economic growth. How much? Instead of the 1.9 percent conservative estimate they have made for the next 10 years, let's say it grows 0.4 percent more than projected. I would attribute at least that much to this tax reform proposal because of what we just talked about, but if you believe it is going to grow at 0.4 percent more than projected; in other words, instead of 1.9 percent, 2.3 percent--2.3 percent growth would be below the average over the last 30 years--then you will actually see the deficit start to come down because of this tax reform proposal because the revenue will be there, not just to make it revenue neutral, but beyond that we will actually pay down the deficit. We haven't done that in a while. Back in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, we went through this before. We began to reduce the deficit annually. Do you know how it happened? Constraining spending helped, and that is part of our challenge in the Congress--how do we get our hands around the spending--but second is growing the economy. In that case, the capital gains rate of taxation was reduced. Then, suddenly, in the late 1990s, about $100 billion of revenue that nobody expected showed up in the coffers. That is how we got to a so-called balanced budget a few years early because tax revenues were greater than expected. I believe this will happen again. I believe that when you look at this proposal, it is conservative in the sense that it says: Yes, let's provide needed middle-class tax relief. Let's also do these things to grow the economy. Let's assume that because of all this, we are going to be able to improve the economic performance that is projected. It is a pretty disappointing projection. Let's face it, 1.9 percent growth isn't great for any of us. It isn't great to deal with the issues of poverty. It isn't great to deal with the issues of entrepreneurship and innovation. It isn't going to help us to afford the entitlements that are growing. We need better growth than that, we want more growth, and I think tax relief is the single-most important thing we can do right now. Yes, we should have more regulatory relief. Yes, we should do better in terms of getting the cost of healthcare under control. People are concerned about costs rising so fast, and we haven't been able to grapple with that issue. Yes, we should do more on worker training. We have a skills gap in this country. We have jobs available, and yet we don't have the skilled workforce to take those jobs. Yes, we can do more in terms of helping grow the economy through education and other things, but the one policy area that is crying out for reform is our tax system. It is antiquated. It is out of date. It is driving jobs overseas. It makes no sense. It can be simplified, and this simplifies the Tax Code. It can be made more fair, and this makes it more fair by helping the middle class more. It can encourage economic growth, and it does so through small business relief and relief for our multinational companies. It can help bring back trillions of dollars stuck overseas. That is what this does. That is the whole idea here. I am excited about this opportunity. The House of Representatives is working on their legislation now in committee. Next week, that will shift to the Senate and the Senate Committee on Finance. We will have the opportunity for an open process. As I noted, we have already had 70 hearings in the Finance Committee just over the past 7 years since I have been in this Chamber. We have had working groups, including the bipartisan one I mentioned earlier, the five bipartisan working groups of that committee. We will have the opportunity at our hearing next week to have an open process--anybody can offer an amendment--and open discussion. We will have an interesting debate. It will be spirited. As we saw here today, we have some differences of opinion, but let's stick to the facts. Let's not make this partisan. Let's stick to the merits. Let's try to help the American people and our economy. Then we will come to the floor of the U.S. Senate, and the same thing will happen--an open process. Every desk you see in here represents a Senator who will have the opportunity, should he or she wish, to offer an amendment, to have a debate, to discuss the issue. It will be spirited at times, but, again, I hope it will lead to a result that actually helps do the things we were elected to do: to give our constituents--the people we represent--the chance to have a better life; to give middle-class families a little relief as they are facing this middle-class squeeze; to help grow this economy from the middle out, from the bottom up, from everywhere; to give us the ability to say, once again, that America is that shining example, that beacon of hope and opportunity for the rest of the world. That is what this is about. Let's not blow this opportunity. Let's get it done, let's get it to the President's desk for his signature before the end of this year, and let's make good on the commitments we have made to our constituents to help create a better economy and a better future. I yield the floor.