The answer is yes. We have a tax system right now in place and we have a tax system right now and when i hear my colleagues of course we dont like the taxes and we particularly dont like it if states we like mine where the Companies Shut down production in line in springfield and move to get a tax break for doing it. We ought to close that loophole, but this bill explodes that because as i said a few minutes ago if a plant shuts down in kenya or zanesville there would be a 20 on profits and if it shuts down and moves to asia it can build a factory and get a Tax Deduction while moving a [inaudible] very briefly. I y have not in three years heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that Economic Growth of 1. 5 for almost ten years is good for the country, workers in ohio. Heres my question i was yielded to the question if it is a question. Reclaiming my time. T i d. I do not believe itld t is te new normal. Nobody believes that. Of course we dont think 1. 5 is a new normal but the bust time we focus on the middleclas midd cut taxes in the clinton years it was 22 million privatesector jobs. No economic net job growth. During the last few years we had a low level of gdp growth for a whole lot of reasons, but you dont fix it and you dont grow the economy by giving tax cuts to the rich with the hope of a trickledown. If the company does the right thing for benefits and Retirement Benefits that Company Keeps its production in the United States and to get a tax rate. 1,500 per worker is the way this amendment would work. President trump said m to me ina meeting with all of my finance Committee Republicans in the room now, we know that. That goes without saying in spite of the myth we continue but before you turn over to senatorbi durbin want to say one other thing, we have seen some pretty charts on the floor about middleclass tax cuts. What w we did and here mentioned was about the third year of the bill the tax cuts go down and down and down an into them becae aand then theycross as you go ax increase. 87 million, a. I will yield to the assistant theocratic leader senator durbin. In order to get this dynamic score for the republican tax bill because the ranking democrat on the committee i heard my colleagues say week after week that all we need to do is get the dynamic score and people will see the value of the bill. This report shows that the bill would lose more than a trillion dollars. It slows the growth of the American Economy after 2025. This bill isnt more than a holiday bonanza for the Multinational Corporations and powerful interests. Ive heard a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisleci criticizing the analysis by the joint committee on taxation. Im sure that they are unhappy because it it unravel all of tr projections and they continued despite the fact that the hard evidence is being but they are still saying the tax plan is going to produce a magical unicorn and rainbow fantasy of Economic Growth. The best are in. The republican plan loses a trillion dollars. This republican plan slows Economic Growth. The growth fantasy is over. Im happy to extend the courtesy. It is over with this projection and im happy to yield to my colleagues. I think the Ranking Member and i know we have others ready to speak. Since the senator believes the joint committee on taxation dynamic score the score demonstrates there is Economic Growth generated by tax cuts for negligible t growth this slows e growth of the economy after 2025. Thats not what we were promised. In fact the treasury secretary would generate so much growth it would take care of the 1. 5 trillion generate a trillion dollars on top of it. What a difference of 2. 5 trillion the number ive done on the sheet from the joint committee on taxation for 107 billion worth of revenue. I appreciate my colleague asking that to clear up more of what is in the issue. I appreciate senator thune being so gracious and giving me the extra time. I would just ask unanimous consent that we be added as a cosponsor to amendment number 1720 and i want to thank the senatosenator from south dakotar his thoughtfulness. A lot of our colleagues on the t other side talked about wy they dont like your tax reform bill and many of those arguments have been focused on who benefits from it and then as it is usually the case so they can keep more of what they earn and the dollars of their pockets so they can decide to spend it rather than send it to washington, d. C. , democrats dems complained that its tax cuts for the rich. Again, i want to point out and this is based upon the joint committee on taxation which was just eluded to where they find the benefits of the tax relief going. As you can see from the chart, they represent different income groups and the highest percentage of the tax cuts go to those in the lower and middle income group. They do particularly well under tax reform proposals of the argument again that this is a tax cut for the rich doesnt pass the smell test t test or ct with reality. We have one of the most progressive tax codes in the world and a lot of people who dont have any income Tax Liability some of whom benefit from refundable tax credits that helps eliminate or partiall pary automate their Tax Liability as well but this shows under the bill when its said and done who bears the tax burden and the Tax Liability and paid by each Different Group of congress. This is again their tax burden as a percentage of the entire tax burden the rate drops from 4. 3 to 4. 4 for the 20,000 to 50,000dollar income and as a percentage tax burden in the country to pay less under a proposal than they do today. If you look at the group from 50,000 to 100,000, that income group, they also as a percentage ofnt the entire tax burden pay less under our proposal than they do today they pay 60. 9 today under the proposal they will pay 16. 7 of the total taxes in this country. Those making 100,000 or more will pay slightly more than the overall tax burden. Today they pay 78. 7 under the proposal so they will pay less as a share of the overall tax burden than they currently do today. I dont know how anyone with a straight face can argue that this is a tax bill that benefits those in the upper end. With the argument of those being made right now regarding the joint committee release of the dynamic score i would say the same things my colleague fromgo texas did. It demonstrates what we are trying to do to generate Economic Growth. It generates how much we think the assumption is used by the joint committee that are not accurate because they assume we will continue to grow for the next decade and economy of 1. 9 . Historical average is going back to the end of world war ii in the American Economy we have somewhere between three to 3. 5 growth. And so, if you take the assumption they will never do better than the 1. 9 growth in the economy than their estimate could be accurate. Wwete have to believe we are gog to give a whole lot better than that and if we put the right policies in place and we make america an attractive place to invest, we are going to see considerably higher growth than 1. 9 , so what does it take to cover the number it takes about four tenths of 1 of growth increased t an annual average growth over thera next decade. That means for the next decade to not only covered this but actually start generating revenue above and beyond what the impact of the tax cut would be on the budget. When you look at the various models that are done and the assumptions that are made, remember the joint committee on taxation and the Congressional Budget Office and the numbers theyas are using we wouldnt hae more confidence than we can generate higher than 1. 9 Economic Growth. That is a straight jacket that constrains their model. The Tax Foundation suggested that it would generate ane additional 1. 26 trillion in revenue. Secondly, to put the policies in place that will break the conditions are favorable of Economic Growth so it can get it back up to the more historical level when its growing at a faster rate it Means Companies and businesses are creating better paying jobs if theres a competition for labor in this country and i believe there will be when they start to expand and grow their operations and increased the demand. It goes into higher wages for the employees. The councilic of economic adviss suggest that i impact in fact we about 4,000 a year with an additional income per average household in the country. There is another study done by Boston University where they would have 3,500 a year in additional income per household in this country. So the impact of tax cuts were twofoldd. We lower the rate all of which impact the lower and middle income families and those are all features they can take advantage o of the generate initial benefits them, benefits expire way if you are an average family i in the country, typical family of four with a combined annual income o of 73,000 resu0 resulting 2,200dollar tax cut. That is a 60 tax cut over what they would pay under the current law. Succumso, as 2,200 the familys pocket that they will be able to spend on themselves and their families if that is sitting back to washington, d. C. Having somebody decide how to spend the heaven to give us confidence in that the American People are better prepared and better equipped to decide how to spend their own money than the federal government, so that the direct benefit number one. Second, as i said earlier if you get the benefit not only to the tax cut but also the additional growth in the economy that generates better paying jobs and wages increases your overall household income. American families benefit from the legislation that we are on today. It isti with the Economic Trends are and i think it is interesting to note that the Congressional Budget Office which in their analysis assumed 1. 9 growth in the economy for the next decade we think we can do a lot better and i want to ask our colleagues from ohio arent we already starting to do better economically . I think we have seen a significant improvement just in the last couple of quarters, and if we would continue to stay on that track were a similar track we might be able to get to the point that we are growing at a more at historic rate. We have had a debate this afternoon about Economic Growth and will not be obvious from both sides of the aisle we could create is helping middleclass families to be able toer have a Family Budget andlp also workers with regards to the internationalre competition they are competing with one hand tied behind their back and this is going to generate Economic Growth and productivity. Its over 400 million of revenue coming in soon enough though r to generate that much more. The growth rate for the next decade is going to be 1. 1. 9 isa thats the number lets say roughly 400 million that they have and by th banned by the ra7 economists who tell us it will be about 400 billion but it will be a trillion dollars and desist. Theres 137 economists who say it is twice as much and theres other studies you talked about that indicate there will be even morere Economic Growth, but we e already seeing that. So thate is one part is how much will come out of the tax reforms we are putting forward. We believe this will help in terms of that growth. We have to go by december of 1. 9 and 1. 9 is growth, 1. 9 , we have problems in this country and that is the next ten years projected. As you said its kind of interesting they are projecting 1. 9 i and others are projecting higher numbers in the context having finished a quarter was 3. 3 andfo then before you are saying 1. 9 . Again theres others out there with a private forecast earlier this week and even the last 30 years hurricanes and other natural disasters and 2. 5 or more, so this is not normal in others words this is a relativy low rate, and i know we can do better. Some say this is the new normal. Weve got to do better. We know we can do better and thats why this is important to get that economy the shot in the arm. But lets assume for a minute it will be only 1. 9 growth. Lets assume that tax proposal passes. Its about 1. 4 to 1. 5 trillion of tax relief that will be parti of this, that is over 44 trillion bucks will come in revenue for a little bit of a tax relief because we know that the growth will make up for that, so lets assume that this is true and assumed he was the right policy baseline that we will continue with the current extenders which we always do with about 533 billiondollar deficit over the next ten years if you assume this low rate of growth. If you assume its up 1. 9 , we go now to 3 , not to 2. 5 , not even 23412. 3 that lets take 1 growth, very conservative and i sure hope we will do better than that lets assume it is 2. 1 that will generate enough revenue because it is 270 billion per every. 1 to have to tax reform proposal in the money going back into theth treasure in other wos reducing the deficit, so i think that this is very fiscally responsible and conservative. I think 2. 1 is not something that is at all out of bounds in fact its going to be higher than that. I thinkil it is just the opposie and it will result in more money going into the federal treasury to be able to get the deficit down and let me Say Something else. This is a debate we can have but weve got to deal with the growth side of your going to get the deficit under control. They cant just be done on the spending side. To do the important work we have to do it in atr bipartisan basis and its much more likely when we have over growth if we are 1. 9 we are not going to get there. Lets get the economy moving and do something about the debt and deficit. We can do that and take money that is currently in the economy at 1. 9 not moving much good to get it moving more lets create more Economic Activity. Lets do that to get the growth rate up a little bit for the tax reformef and then begin to redue the deficit so i just want to make that point when you hear this is fiscally irresponsible, i think it is responsible and it will do better than the numbers we have seen here certainly just 2. 1 growth that reduces the deficit and i think that ought to be brought into the debate. To our colleagues, and viscount ourselves and the senator from ohio along with those of us who consider ourselves fiscal conservatives realize that init order to deal with debt and deficit, and yes, we havec to get our arms out of control in the washington spending and do something to make the programs that are driving that outofcontrol long run which is to restrain spending that in order to deal with the debt and deficits, we need to growth in the economy because it is growing at a faster rate and people are paying taxes and government revenues go up. We need more growth and that is what this will accomplish. I yield back the balance of my time. I would like to respond briefly to the majority leader who counted whator he claimed was te a great benefit coming from the republican tax reform bill. I say to the public this isnt tax reform at all. Tbut this is is a grab bag full of specialinterest goodies from the Multinational Corporations, powerful political supporters and lots of people who are in a position to have vast amounts of influence to sway the tax code their way. The fact is the independent tax umpire on taxation has just told us 37 billion middleclass families are going to pay more in taxes in 2027, so thats the consequences of the republican bill of rights into the wall a double standard of the per minute rate for the Multinational Corporation and temporary break for the working class. We will have more to say on the analysis being done by the joint committee on taxation but already, we have seen a variety thisports indicating that proposal is going to produce negligible growth and deficits. Thats why republicans are talking about how they would like to have some kind of trigger to deal with this proposal. What has been in the bill is this says a lot about their priorities if it comes true and the bill causes the federal revenue to skyrocket, Multinational Corporations would get yet another automatic tax cut. They already get from 35 to 20. And by the way, when we had our bipartisan bill, they didnt insist on going to 20 for spending hundreds of billions of dollars more that could go to the middle class beyond what the bill called for and then on top of that it says that the republicans get their mathematics about the growth and the Multinational Corporations will get yet another tax cut. I just want to respond briefly to what the republican leader said because this doesnt resemble the kind of tax reform Ronald Reagan and the democrats wanted and i will close by saying that it didnt have to be this way. There was a big group that said we would like to have a bipartisan bill and they asked me to come because ive written a bipartisan bill he and i want to show the contrast between what ronaldal reagan did in 1986 with democrats and what has happened unfortunately here. In 1986, bill bradley and democrats have served on the finance committee to the growth and innovation he flew ove all r the United States, mr. President , all over the United States to work out with republicans the variousvi provisions of the tax law that would make the bill bipartisan. So, 1986, democrats flew around the country to meet with republicans to get bipartisan reform. This year, they havent been willing to walk down the court or to discuss specific provisions about