Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. WYDEN. Their eyes are being strained as we speak.

Mr. WYDEN. I yield to the Senator from Florida.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WYDEN. When this is filed, we want the American people to know what has actually been written on the side. Will it be possible, as part of Senator Durbin's statement, to add this ``written on the side'' portion as part of his statement so that the American people will actually know how outrageous this process is and that it at least states, as part of his speech, what is written in the margin? Can that be stated as part of his statement? Would the Chair answer the question? My question is, when the amendment is filed, I would like to ensure that the important point my colleague has made about what is written in the margin could be included as part of his written statement that will be entered into the Record so that the American people can get some sense of what kind of flimflam is actually taking place here.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would just like to set the record straight on a couple of points. I have a response to my colleagues who continually say this corporate tax cut is going to raise workers' wages by $4,000. Now, I asked the head of the Joint Committee on Taxation whether that was the case. He essentially said, no, he did not believe it was the case and referred us to tables that document it. Perhaps even more egregious is tonight we heard our colleague from Ohio say that a Congressional Budget Office report claims that workers are going to get 70 percent of the benefits from a corporate tax cut so it was raised even higher. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a portion of the report from the Congressional Budget Office, making it clear on the cover where it says the analysis and conclusions expressed there should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. It directly contradicts the comments made by the Senator from Ohio on wages and corporate tax cuts.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of my colleague from Pennsylvania, I would like to pose a question to him on a matter. We, as we have indicated, have been digging through the amendments. As far as I can tell, what we have is the earlier language that imposes a new excise tax on the investment income of large university endowments. That has been in the bill, so be it. Now, there seems to be a new exception on page 289. The bill says that the new tax does not apply to a university otherwise subject to the tax if it is described in the first section, which is 511(a)(2)(B), and which does not receive Federal funds. This is new, and I am trying to figure out why there is this special exemption. I can't seem to find other people who are getting it or whom it benefits. I thought perhaps my colleague from Pennsylvania could enlighten me on this.

Mr. WYDEN. I am reclaiming my time.

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

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. I was concerned at the beginning because there are so many deserving schools in Oregon and Pennsylvania and elsewhere that don't get this special treatment, and obviously you have heard my colleagues express their concern, and I think it transcends somebody's politics. So my question now would be--the perfecting amendment has not yet been filed. Would my colleague be willing to take his provision out of the perfecting amendment and offer it as a separate amendment so we can actually have an up-or-down vote? And perhaps by that time, we will know how many colleges, if any other than this one, benefit.

Mr. WYDEN. The answer is no.

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

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