Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. WYDEN. Will my colleague continue to yield?

Mr. WYDEN. In just one moment. Will my colleague yield for a question? I believe I have the floor.

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

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

Mr. WYDEN. We have just a minute and a half. The hour is late. I want to repeat once again that we still do not have this bill. We have seen apparently, in the last few hours, tax changes that involve billions and billions of dollars. The American people have a right to know what is in this proposal, and certainly we on this side of the aisle have a right to know about it. I am struck by the comments of my colleagues on the other side that learning the facts about what the Joint Committee on Taxation had to say about the Republican proposal--0.8 percent growth, $1 trillion short in spending--has had absolutely no effect on the discussion we are having from the Republican side. I see my friend the distinguished majority leader here, and I believe he will propound a unanimous consent request. As he knows, I will have another reservation, and we will discuss this some more.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I understand that we are going to get the proposal from the majority shortly. I come back again to the fact that there are changes apparently worth billions and billions of dollars, like the passthrough provision. We need to be able to see these. The American people have a right to know. I believe the majority has indicated that we will get this shortly, and I withdraw my reservation and will point out that if we don't get it shortly, I will stay at my post and keep objecting because the American people have a right to know that tax policy is being made in the dark.

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

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would just like to respond briefly to the Senator from Pennsylvania, who is baffled by why we are so opposed to the health provisions of the bill. The Congressional Budget Office says that the majority's provisions will cause 13 million people to lose coverage and premiums to go up 10 percent. This morning's paper makes the point that it will bring back junk insurance, which once again will allow discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. I will use the last 30 seconds that I have, as we await the majority leader, to say, once again, that the American people and the Congress are actually going to find out some information about what is being offered. I would just like to close my use of the minute by pointing out now another double standard. It sure looks like lobbyists on K Street have more and better information about what is about to be offered than do Democrats in the Senate. So what we are talking about is that we have seen one double standard after another. The tax breaks for the middle- class are temporary, and the wealthy get permanent ones.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, here we are now at 4:15. We still have not seen this bill--a $10 trillion bill, the biggest tax bill in more than three decades, with changes involving billions and billions of dollars made, apparently, overnight. I have made it clear that when the leader, Senator McConnell, comes back down, we expect to see this bill. We were told essentially an hour ago that we would see this in a matter of minutes. The American people have a right to know that even though the majority wants to make $10 trillion worth of tax policy changes on the fly, this side of the aisle is going to insist on knowing what is in the bill. My colleague has been very patient, and I wish him to be recognized on our time now.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have just seen an air-dropped list of provisions--there seem to be upwards of 30--and it sure looks as if the lobbyists have been working overtime. They must have earned a holiday gift with this new bonanza of goodies. We still await a bill that we are going to read, although I saw something that might actually be a bill. So we are going to use this time so colleagues can get into some of these questions about this array of treats that the lobbyists seem to have figured out how, in the last few hours--perhaps overnight--to carve out for their benefit. To start our discussion for our 15 minutes, I believe my friend and colleague Senator Merkley is going to start.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. WYDEN. Will my colleague yield for a question?

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

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

Mr. WYDEN. I am going to try to do some, but as far as I can tell, it sure looks like a lobbyist's wish list. There are going to be a lot of folks happy on K Street as they try to shop for the holidays because of the fees they have put together in working to get these changes into the Republican proposal. I appreciate my colleague for giving me the opportunity to make sure that the public knows now that, at this late hour, we are finally getting, after days, the opportunity to see the bill that is actually the bill.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to yield to my colleagues in a minute. I just think it is important to make sure that the public understands exactly what some of the facts are behind the Republican proposals. My colleague from Ohio just talked about how the Republican proposal is going to create many more jobs in the United States and certainly isn't going to keep the system that makes it attractive to do business overseas. Yet my understanding is, all the previous versions--and we are going through the 500-plus pages now--are based on territorial taxation. I don't imagine too many folks in coffee shops are up on what territorial taxation is, but it is an express lane for shipping jobs overseas. The fact is, a number of the proposals earlier from the other side have made it more attractive to do business overseas than in the United States. Here are a couple of other points. My colleague said that 70 percent of the corporate tax reduction would go to the workers. That is not what Tom Barthold, the head of the Joint Committee on Taxation, said. He said specifically that he didn't see anything resembling that kind of benefit going directly to workers. He speaks a special language known as economics, but he has made it clear he didn't envision anything like that. Two other points, and then I have a question for my colleague from Maryland. We still do not have an analysis in two areas: No. 1, the cost of the bill, and No. 2, what is going to be the fate of middle-class families with respect to this new proposal? What is it going to mean for their taxes, and by what amounts? If I can engage my colleague from Ohio on this--what can we be told at this point we are going to get, if anything, with respect to an analysis of this particular bill, the 500-plus pages? Will we be getting anything tonight before we vote?

Mr. WYDEN. What analysis would it be, for example, with respect to what the new bill--the bill we are actually going to vote on--means for middle-class families? We have millions of middle-class folks who are trying to sort out what this means for them. We have just gotten a brand new bill. We would like to know what the new bill means with respect to the taxes paid by middle-class folks. Are they going to get ahead or, as we have seen in so many of the previous iterations, fall behind, particularly after 2027? Will we get a new analysis on this new proposal that we will actually vote on with respect to what it means for middle-class families?

Mr. WYDEN. Of course.

Mr. WYDEN. What I would say to my colleague is, we don't have any evidence of that. My colleague has certainly made laudatory claims about his bill, but we don't have any evidence of them. In fact, the comment made by my colleague highlights my concern. What we have seen thus far for middle-class families after 2027 is that upward of half of them would pay more in taxes. I think, rather than continue this, I will just ask my colleague to see if his side can produce an actual document--even a summary--of what this new bill is actually going to mean for middle-class families who are concerned, based on the earlier versions, about seeing their taxes go up, particularly after 2027. I have one question for my colleague from Maryland because he has been talking about the State and local deduction, which is enormously important to folks in my State and in my colleague's as well. My question is, when the first income tax was enacted in 1861, it was to finance the cost of the Civil War. It included only one deduction at that time for State and local taxes, and that was really composed to respect the States' ability to make their own fiscal decisions. It was the first deduction more than a century ago. So does that seem like a special interest tax break compared to this list of more than 30 breaks that we have managed to excavate from various corners of K Street?

Mr. WYDEN. I will.