Skip to main content

tv   House Ways Means Tax Reform Markup  CSPAN  November 8, 2017 2:53pm-6:52pm EST

2:53 pm
we remind you that once again if you would like to read the entire bill, it is available on our website at when you click on that, it will take you to our congressional chronicle painful, whe chronicle page where you can see all 429 pages of the bill. we also have available for you mondays and tuesdays ways and means committee markup session. if you would like to review those. politico is reporting today that senate republicans plan to unveil a bill to rewrite the tax code that sharply diverges from the house republican plan, including by not fully repealing the estate tax. republican leaders will brief the conference on the details of their long-awaited tax overhaul legislation tomorrow tomorrow at 11:30. senators not on the tax-writing finance committee through the intricacies before unveiling it to the public. the plan is expected to have significant differences from the house legislation. we plan to cover that meeting as it takes place tomorrow at 11:30
2:54 pm
eastern. and we'll have it for you on the c-span networks. by the way, you can read the rest of that story at we also have this from the hill. lawmakers rallied against former ceos of yahoo! and equifax over cyber security breaches that occurred on their watch and floated potential policy solutions to crack down on the hacks impacting hundreds of millions of americans. frustrated members of the senate commerce committee pressed former yahoo! ceo, marissa mayer and former equifax ceo, richard smith and his current ceo, paulina de riggers barrows on how their company allowed so much breaches and pushed for answers. lawmakers rallied against the massive cyber security breaches on their watch and floated those policy solutions. they also said we have not been able to identify the intrusion that led to that breach. and that quote from the former yahoo! ceo. read the entire story at
2:55 pm incidentally, that hearing took place earlier today. we do plan to show it to you later on the c-span networks. you can also watch it online at again, standing by, waiting for the house ways and means committee markup session to continue. they're in the midst of a brief break now.
2:56 pm
2:57 pm
2:58 pm
2:59 pm
3:00 pm
again, we're live from capitol hill as ways and means committee members continue to slowly float back into the room to continue their markup of the republican tax plan. most of the democrat members, well, they were there. they have been there and apparently were ready to go. some of them have left now. republicans could be discussing strategy before they return here. in any case, we'll have live coverage of all of the deliberations here on c-span3. the hill writing today, repealing obamacare's individual mandate will save $338 billion over ten years. that's according to a new analysis from the congressional budget office. the analysis comes as republicans are pushing for repealing the mandate within tax
3:01 pm
reformulation as a way to help pay for tax cuts. the idea has met resistance from some republican leaders who do not want to mix up health care and taxes, though. that story from the hill also reporting earlier today that the republican tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade. and increase the country's debt to gdp ratio by 5.9 percentage points. that's according to the congressional budget office. the cbo analysis relying on the joint commit of taxations fighting the bill would cut revenues by $1.4 trillion. that falls within the level republicans allow themselves in their budget resolution. you can read the rest of that story at while we wait for members to return here to the markup of the tax reform bill, we'll show you some of the deliberations that took place earlier today. >> are there any other additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of a
3:02 pm
substitute? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order. >> mr. reichert reserves a point of order. mr. thompson, if you'll suspend while the amendment is being distributed. >> mr. reichert? >> i withdraw my reservation. >> mr. reichert withdraws his reservation. mr. thompson, on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment prevents a tax hike in this bill, a tax hike that's on middle class-working families pursuing the american dream of home ownership. my amendment does two things. one, it extends the tax relief for struggling homeowners who receive a mortgage debt forgiveness. this would apply to people who have home damage or lose their home in a fire or a hurricane an earthquake, mudslide, flood,
3:03 pm
whatever. and they get their mortgage reduced, because of this. and then they turn around and they get a tax hike on that -- on the amount of the reduction. so not only do they get the reduction, they get a big surprise. and that's a tax increase. and this comes when americans are struggling the most, trying to figure out how to get into a new home, how to put their life back together again. and this is the last thing that we need to do to these americans who are hard-working, middle class, and all they want to do is see the american dream of home ownership. this is a bipartisan measure. it's been coauthored by members in this committee, mr. reid was a coauthor in the past congress. i think there's 180 coauthors, bipartisan, the last time this was introduced. the second thing that it does, it under current law, there's a
3:04 pm
$500,000 for family, $250,000 for individual exclusion for homeowners who are trying to move up. they sell their home, they want to move up to provide more -- a better home, a bigger home, because they have a family. they want to move up from a studio to own their own home. and what this bill does is it increases the number of years that you have to live in your home. currently, it's two of the last five years und. under the republican bill, it increases that to five out of the last eight years. that's patently unfair. this amendment -- or this provision in the republican bill hurts working, middle class families by lengthening the amount of time they have to stay. it puts the american dream of home ownership and proved home, better home, further out of
3:05 pm
their reach. and we should be figuring out how to help middle class working families, help them achieve the american dream of home ownership, better home ownership, greater family opportunities in the home, rather than taking this away from them in order to help the wealthy and to help corporations. i would hope that my republican colleagues would see the value and the merit in this amendment and join me in helping the middle class working americans. >> mr. schweikert on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is one of those occasions where i have a little bit of expertise, at least on part of this. so, you know, for the gentleman offering the amendment, i want to actually sort of walk through one of the mechanisms here and one of the things on our side we were actually hoping would actually help create some stability in neighborhoods. understand, current law right now is really easy to gain.
3:06 pm
and here's the gain. buy a house. rent it for three years. live it in for two. the gain on it is tax-free. so you have this sort of gain going, where you're constantly rolling houses. sometimes in the same neighborhood, where you live in it, you know, you buy two houses. fix one of them up, live in the other. live in it for two years, then turn it into a rental for three and then roll it. and so the -- if you actually look at the time line on it, it's basically meant to slow down the sort of game of swapping back and forth, back and forth. so you're gaining the gain on the flipping. >> would the gentleman yield? >> absolutely, mr. thompson. >> so i don't necessarily agree with your analysis of this. >> mr. thompson, tell me -- just in part of the dialogue, tell me what part of that mechanism i
3:07 pm
have wrong. >> i don't represent a lot of people who are gaming the system. >> that wasn't the question. mr. thompson, the question -- i just want to make sure we're being absolutely honest that it right now the law is five years, you have to only live in it two. >> correct. >> so at least we have our facts right. . so. >> so if you are correct and there are people who are doing this gaming, as you call it, are you telling me that it's okay for them to game it if they just stay there a little longer? >> mr. thompson, if you actually take a look then at the mechanism of if i had to live there a little bit longer, my ability to do that concept where i'm renting this property while living in this one and then swapping them. and it's that mechanism that is sort of hiding the gain. >> but it would be okay if you lived there for a little bit longer. >> yeah. and that may be where intellectually we can find something where we're doing just what we -- i think both want to do, which is the stability for neighborhoods, and not
3:08 pm
incentivizing this sort of in and out, in and out game that actually creates the disruption. >> and the provision of my amendment that would remove the opportunity to hurt people who lose their home in a natural disaster? >> yeah, we'll come back, because at some point hopefully here we can discuss the -- when you've actually had your debt abated, that that's always been a taxable event. and we actually gave -- a for barn bearance during the mortgage crisis for lots of people. but on this one, i believe your motives are honorable. do understand, i actually see -- >> honorable enough to include you as a coauthor of my amendment? >> we can talk back acome back about it. mr. chairman, i know i'm out of time, i yield back. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. thompson. all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. pursuant to committee rule 19, further proceedings on the
3:09 pm
amendment will be postponed. are there any additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of the substitute? miss chu? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> mr. chairman, i reserve. >> mr. reichert reserves a point of order. miss chu, would you suspend while it's being distributed? . >> mr. reichert? >> i withdraw my reservation. >> miss chu, you're recognized on the amendment. >> mr. chair, there are things we could do in a tax bill to actually help the middle class. unlike the republican bill, which primarily helps corporations and the rich get
3:10 pm
richer. we can help those in need by expanding the earned income tax credit to childless workers. right now, in our tax code, working childless adults and noncustodial parents are the only groups that we allow to be taxed into poverty. specifically, about 7.5 million childless workers are taxed into deeper poverty by federal income and payroll taxes. why does this happen? well, right now they are largely excluded from the earned income tax credit. or the eitc. the eitc is one of the strongest and most effective anti poverty efforts that our country has to offer. it rewards work and provides support to the most vulnerable amongst us. yet eitc for childless workers is currently so small that none of these incentives make a tangible impact.
3:11 pm
take the situation of a 21-year-old just starting out in the work force who does not yet have a child. making poverty level wages of about $12,500 for manual labor. this worker has $956 in payroll taxes du taxes deducted from his paycheck and pays $214 in federal income taxes. the worker receives zero eitc, because childless workers under the age of 25 are ineligible. he, in fact, is taxed $1,170 into poverty. that is the taxes leave him $1,170 below the poverty line. expanding eitc would have a broad reach, helping taxpayers from every walk of life. if eitc were expanded to include childless workers, the credit is projected to reach about 716,000 veterans and military members
3:12 pm
and 971,000 workers with disabilities in the first year alone. in the past, republicans and democrats alike have lauded the expansion of this credit. in fact, our current speaker of the house, paul ryan himself, expanded the idea in his white paper just a few years ago. but this republican plan ignores this idea entirely. it completely fails to provide meaningful assistance to individuals without qualifying children. the amendment i offer today would correct this problem. my amendment would lower the ainage for the eligibility for the credit of childless workers. and it would ensure that working people, and not just the well off, have a path towards creating more wealth. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield back. >> mr. reichert, on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment. in a human resources
3:13 pm
subcommittee hearing in september, we examined the causes and consequences of men not engaging in the labor force. and here's what we found. there are roughly 11 million noncustodial fathers in the united states with close to 25% of them having no earnings. and therefore, they're unable to support and care for their children. some of the contributing factors include lack of post secondary education and training, resulting in lower wages, growing dependency on public benefit programs, discouraging work and marriage to support their families. drug and alcohol dependency rising prevalence of criminal records alongside unmet child support orders. the absence of available jobs in many depressed communities. and the weakening of social and cultural norms that expect able-bodied men to go to work. increasing work and earnings of childless adults is important, but this amendment to the tax
3:14 pm
code is the wrong solution, because it doesn't actually address any of the underlying issues. instead, we should be more directly engaging these childless workers in more effective ways, which we will be discussing when the committee moves into welfare reform. back in washington state, i worked with a group called divine alternatives for dads services. or dads, as they refer to themselves. which does truly amazing work. they assist fathers by providing resources to help them develop a sense of self, family and community responsibility. this is all done with the purpose of preventing family violence, broken homes, drug addiction, gang violence. and this is supposed to be focused on strengthening families and their communities. and that's where we need to put our energy. marvin charles, the co founder of dads, a personal friend of mine, was one of those men who put women on the street to sell their bodies. and he has changed his life
3:15 pm
through this process and has changed the life of many young men and women in the seattle area. he said one of the biggest problems that our nation faces today is fatherlessness. in september, the human resources subcommittee, we held a hearing on this challenge. the comments from the witnesses made me think about the consequences for families and children of working-age men not participating in the work force. for these men, the possibility of being unable to financially support a family or contribute to the upbringing of their children has a negative ripple effect on the entire community. we simply have to tackle the underlying issues causing this challenge, and the tax code is not the only place where we can do this. we need to make sure we are engaging fathers in the home and outside the home at every step of the policy that we develop. i look forward to working with the hr subcommittee to ensure this happens.
3:16 pm
i yield back. >> mr. neil, on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think that mr. reichert's position is offered in a very sincere vein. there's no question of it. i want to support miss chu's amendment. the problem largely in applying the earned income tax credit is needless complexity. offering it to single filers makes a good deal of sense. overwhelmingly, the problem remains in tax preparation. fraud implies a deliberate effort to move past the law. in this instance here, it's the complexity of the earned income tax credit, which we all ought to be able to agree on simplifying. ronald reagan saw it as a great vehicle. tip o'neill saw it as a great vehicle. you know what the best part about it is for all of us, the earned income tax credit rewards work. i yield back my time. >> mr. smith of nebraska. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
3:17 pm
i appreciate the remarks that have been offered already. i appreciate the intent behind the amendment itself. one thing, though, that i think is important to note is our bill does not pull back on the earned income tax credit. perhaps it doesn't go as far as some would wish that it would go. of course, that could be a number of things that i would say in other places in the bill. but i think we need to really take a deep look at how we can truly assist people out of poverty. yes, there are some good things about the eitc. but when we really look at the struggles that families face, it's a cash flow issue, not a once a year payment would fix. and so as families face these month-to-month expenses, let's
3:18 pm
look at that. how can we help them. to me, the best way to help them is to expand the economy. create more jobs. as i mentioned yesterday, the best way to increase wages is for a job applicant to have two job offers rather than a group of politicians saying what a wage should or should not be. or what should or should not be included in compensation for an employee. but that dynamic of a growing economy that can create opportunity and a brighter financial future for folks all across the country rather than having to check in with politicians on various wages or other dynamics. thank you, i yield back. >> mr. bloomen our. >> i agree with my friend from nebraska. we want the earned income tax credit, which is why it was so strongly supported by people in
3:19 pm
both parties, including president reagan, is because it goes directly to people to reward work. it rewards work. and my concern from the outset has been, if we knew that we were going to be able to spend -- borrow $1.4 trillion or $1.5 trillion or $2.3 trillion by the time you pay for interest, where would we prioritize? and i think expansion of the earned income tax credit would have been prioritized by most people on the committee in advance of inheritance tax for billionaires. it would be an opportunity for us, rather than expanding some benefits for some business through the small -- through the pass-through provision, which don't help most small businesses. we could have restructured that. a couple of good hearings here,
3:20 pm
and an honest discussion about our committee priorities. what would help the most people directly? and i hope that we can, if not -- unlikely this is going to pass. but i hope that we as a committee can return to things that has been a tried and true premise to reward work, simplify the earned income tax credit and be able to help more people directly. i yield back. >> miss willarski on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i too support the earned income tax credit. and i share the speaker's initiative, as well, in developing a bridge out of poverty. so for the last two years, i chaired a subcommittee in the ag culture committee, and it was on nutrition. but it was -- we held 17 hearings in two years. and we looked at the entire country of what worked and what
3:21 pm
didn't work, and the bridge out of poverty. and what we found as best practices and what we found that was actually working in the country wasn't just people coming in and checking a box. it wasn't just, you know -- >> i recognize in the room our former chairman, dave camp, a great american. and delighted you're here, mr. chairman. [ applause ] mr. neil, you indicated that you would like to be recognized for an inquiry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, by direction of our caucus meeting on the democratic side here, we have decided to only propose what members deem to be the most important amendment to them. the result of which is you are likely to see about 10 or 12 amendments through the rest of the markup. what we would like to propose is based upon that determination that we now come to the conclusion that whatever republicans have to offer in terms of the proposals for
3:22 pm
change tomorrow, that they do it this evening so we can digest that material. and we would further like to know if, in fact, the deliberations that now appear to be going on outside of the committee include a change to the mandate in the affordable care act. >> so as you and i spoke briefly before we gaveled in, what i'll do is defer these questions to chairman brady upon his arrival. i'm obviously not going to make a decision that binds the chairman. that said, i understand the nature of your argument. i appreciate your willingness to thin the herd in terms of the amendments that are -- the highest priority of your members. and chairman brady will engage with you substantively as the ranking member upon his return. is that acceptable? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> okay. >> are there -- are there further amendments? mr. passkral? >> thank you, mr. chairman.
3:23 pm
welcome, mr. camp. i want to just finish what i said earlier, and -- >> mr. chairman, i'd like to reserve a point of order. >> i will not -- >> he reserved a point of order. >> i will not -- you know, duplicate what i said earlier. i'll just get to the back end. >> sir, you're recognized on the amendment. >> have the amendment at the desk. >> will the gentleman suspend while it's being distributed? >> sure. the corrections, i understand, have been made, mr. chairman. >> i withdraw my reservation. >> mr. smith withdraws his point of order. mr. passkral is recognized on the amendment. >> mr. chairman, this is the amendment which goes to every disaster that has occurred
3:24 pm
recently. i was just winding this up, and winding down when the challenge came to the amendment. we have corrected that. all that needed to be corrected was that -- there was a deadline in there for the medicare aspect of this thing. we've taken that out. so there's no question. so why puerto ricans today do not file federal income taxes, most eitc recipients on the mainland do make enough in income to file federal taxes either -- do not make enough. puerto ricans pay federal payroll taxes, social security, local tax, sales taxes. this is a simple matter of fairness. and it would bring needed economic relief to families struggling to recover from hurricane maria. in addition, it ensures residents of puerto rico can receive the full child tax credit as residents of the mainland do. these credits are the greatest anti poverty measures the
3:25 pm
federal government administered today. puerto ricans are unjustifiably left out. as many of my colleagues learned the hard way, after refusing -- refusing to provide aid to victims of sandy, natural disasters can hit anywhere at any time. if my colleagues want to ensure that tax relief will be there for their constituents, whether it be fire, water, whatever, they find themselves in need, then they should support my amendment. so i yield back, mr. chairman. i made the case. let's see what we've got. >> the gentleman yields back. any members seeking recognition? i'll recognize myself. mr. neil. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a very brief statement in support of the passcrawl amendment. i have, i believe, the third-largest number of puerto rican constituents in america. totalling almost 107,000 people.
3:26 pm
and i'm very, very supportive of this proposal that has come from mr. kral. a and i think getting aid to the island is a very important consideration. >> gentleman yields back. >> seeking recognition? >> mr. larson. >> yes, sir, i would like to associate myself with the remarks of mr. pascrall, along with mr. owe neil. not only puerto ricans, but americans in general concerned about what's happening to their fellow american citizens. and so, his amendment is much-needed. and empathetic and caring. and the way that americans normally respond when americans are in trouble. and in need of assistance. >> mr. thompson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak in favor of what mr. pascrall has provided. as you know, from my earlier
3:27 pm
comments, that i experienced one of the worst disasters in the country. fires in california. that just devastated entire neighborhoods. burned entire neighborhoods to the ground. i've got constituents who had to run out of their house as their home was on fire. they didn't even have time to grab their medicines or -- and important papers. but as i said earlier, this isn't just about my district. it's not just about the hurricane areas. this is about every one of us on this dais, every one of our colleagues in the house and every single constituent that we represent. this is about the next disaster. and there's going to be a next disaster. and after that, there will be a next disaster. and we have an opportunity to make sure that with this amendment that survivors of natural disasters are treated equally. and that we can make sure that individuals and businesses are
3:28 pm
able to recover and to rebuild. the provisions of this amendment are important to the victims of a disaster, and i'll tell you, when people are trying to pick up their lives after a disaster, they shouldn't face more obstacles, and they certainly shouldn't face obstacles from the federal government. we should be supporting measures to help them get back on their feet. help them get back to work and help them rebuild. and that's what makes us a great nation. we come together and have a history of coming together to help our communities. we should leave no american alone to pick up the pieces. so i urge that this amendment be adopted, and that we stand with those that we represent and who are experiencing the just devastation brought on by a disaster. and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.
3:29 pm
miss hooul on the amendment. >> i too want to support the amendment. i think it's really important that all of us really show the empathy that our colleagues are going through. i know that when i first got elected, my district, the university of alabama, tuscaloosa, birmingham, got struck by horrible tornadoes. and this body helped us out. you know, congress came to the rescue, and really helped us recover from that. i want to also make mention that mr. pascrall's amendment would not only deal with the puerto rico, but also the virgin island and other u.s. territories. and i think that's really important to make that -- make that point. because our american citizens in the virgin islands were dramatically affected by the hurricane, as well. so i just want to echo my support for this amendment and ask for its passage.
3:30 pm
>> the gentle lady yields back. miss black, on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and obviously when people are in disaster situations, we want to be there for them. especially when they're life-threatening. but then also to help people to get back on their feet. we are, after all, a nation of people who look after one another. we were founded upon that principle and we continue to do that. and in those circumstances since i've been here over the last seven years, i don't recall there being a time when we didn't respond when there was a natural disaster. and to help. earlier this year, congress did advance the disaster tax and relief and airport and airway ex tangs act of 2017 that addressed that devastation that was caused by harvey and irma and maria, which, gosh, we haven't seen that in a very long time.
3:31 pm
but that legislation was targeted. at those particular situations. which really is the right approach, because then all of the situations are not the same. and not the same amount of money as needed. and not the same amount of resources. as a matter of fact, i had an opportunity to be with the surgeon general, the new surgeon general, the other day. and we were chatting about these, what -- what had occurred both there in puerto rico and also the u.s. virgin islands. and one of the things that he talked about in his observation was that not necessarily were there not tools there that could be used, but just the coordination of those tools was a real problem. because there were supplies and people willing to help. but because of the lack of coordination, those in some areas were not getting the kinds of services that they necessarily needed. so i believe that we really need to take a look at our response. making sure that we are
3:32 pm
well-prepared, and i know it was extraordinary to be able to have -- or to have five -- or excuse me, i think it was three class 5 hurricanes in this short period of time. and then in different parts of the nation. really does stress the situation. however, i would say that we should determine the right relief that is necessary to exercise with respect to that new situation. >> will the gentle lady yield? >> no, i will not. i just have 30 seconds. >> oh, really? >> 30 seconds left. but for now i do urge are us to reject this amendment. to focus on some structural comprehensive tax reformulation that's in front of us, and to continue to work together for disaster relief legislation in the future. and mr. pascrall, i would be happy to work with you on a comprehensive plan. not just for the dollars, but to make sure we are having a comprehensive plan for these types of disasters that do occur. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> dr. davis on the amendment.
3:33 pm
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i join with my colleagues who have expressed support for the pascrall amendment. and i make a point that the city of chicago has circled the wagons on puerto rico. and for the last two weeks or more, many of the churches, synagogues and other public entities have had rallies, collecting money, still doing so. much of it led by the reverend jesse jackson and operation push. and and i now yield the rest of my time to mr. pascrall. >> thank you, mr. davis. i cannot believe that a young lady who i have a great deal of respect for and have worked with in the past on the budget committee is making a statement that everybody is treated the same. let me tell her what happened in sandy's case. 180 republicans voted no on sandy.
3:34 pm
that is not -- to add injury -- insult to injury. not only did they vote no, but sandy never got the aid specifics that came from katrina in terms of property damage insurance, all of that. they're all different. how can you sit there and say -- you obviously didn't -- number one, read the bill. second, the amendment -- i'm sorry. and second of all, there are so many instances i could point out where -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> people got treated differently. sure. go ahead. i'll yield. >> i think we just got this amendment put in front of us a few moments ago, so it's a lot to read. if you want to have us maybe recess, and we'll read the bill? >> well, i hope you extended the us the same courtesy to read your bill. you know what's good for one is good for all. that's all i'm saying. it's called democracy. we ought to try it once in a while. it is or it isn't.
3:35 pm
it exists or doesn't exist. all i'm saying, treat everybody the same. 180. and some of the very people who i went to their district when they had a catastrophe still voted no. you call that equality? so, oh, so what's good for this group is not good for that group. who are we kidding here? read the facts. we're not second-class citizens. nobody is in this country. nobody. i yield. >> mr. kelly on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was actually here for sandy. and when you talk about people who voted against that piece, they didn't vote against that because they didn't want to help the sandy victims. what bothered them, i'll vote for it if you throw something in there for me too. and i remember it clearly because my concern was for those folks that lived under that specific situation, that it
3:36 pm
would have been really deeply hurt. but then i watched, okay, okay, i get it. so we take a disaster and try to tap into it in the other 49 states or other areas that weren't affected. all of a sudden get our hands in a pot of cash supported by hard-working taxpayers. listen, i don't think there's anybody in here that would ever say we didn't want to help the people in puerto rico. did hee did he didn't want to help the people in texas. we don't want to help the people in california. we do, and we do it specifically to when that happens and when it occurs. right now we're involved in a tremendous effort to change our tax code so we get positive growth. so we get a huge lift in our economy. and we had this dynamic situation that america has always been known for. and i understand why you want to put these things in. i get all of that. i don't disagree with you. certainly, we want to help
3:37 pm
people. but can we keep it specific? because as these issues come up, i don't know. excuse me, it's my time. >> i was asking a question. >> okay. let me just finish, okay? >> you finish. >> so when harvey happened, that was exclusive. >> relax, don't get hot under the collar. >> excuse me, it's my time. it is my time, mr. pascrall. >> yeah, i'm asking -- >> i know you're asking, but you're interrupting me while i speak. >> when am i going to ask? >> you're out of order. >> this is a habit -- i'm glad this is on tv. so every american can actually see what's going on here. we pick on a disaster, and they say, you don't want to help these people, you turned your back on them. no, we didn't. we turned our backs from nobody. we tried to help out. and what happened? everybody else said, this is a free for all, let me grab something. then i want to help out too. i'll bring something to the picnic. listen, we can keep going on. we can go on ad nauseam about what we're trying to do. comprehensive tax reform is what
3:38 pm
we're working on right now to make sure that every american has more take home pay, that we can compete globally. i tell you this. a dynamic economy, an economy that's really going on all eight cylinders and turning things out and just really capturing what it is that we are as americans is where we have to go. i understand you're concerned. i share that concern with you. yes, i would love to help these people. you know what works? i can't tell you how many times my heart has been willing but my wallet has been weak. let's make sure we get all of those wallets healthy again so we hatch that revenue to actually get there. i will gladly get with you any time there is a disaster to try and help out those folks that are directly impacted with it. thank you, and i yield back. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered. all those in favor signify by saying aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. roll call is demanded. pursuant to committee rule 19, further proceedings of the amendment will be postponed. >> mr. chairman, can i ask
3:39 pm
anonymous consent to have this read into the record? it's from the double taxation group, and talking about the negative impact of the state and local tax deduction being removed. it's got -- >> without objection. >> numerous members of the republican party in congress are listed here, speaking out against what you're trying to do in this bill. and talking about how -- >> without objection. >> so ordered. >> thank you. >> are there any other amendments in the nature -- >> mr. chairman? >> miss del benny is recognized for the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> mr. chairman, on the last amendment. >> is this a point of order? >> yeah. >> what's your point of order? >> point of order is i want to enter into the record a crs report that determined that every provision was justified in hurricane sandy. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i have an amendment at the desk.
3:40 pm
>> i'll reserve. >> mr. reichert reserves a point of order. will the gentle lady suspend while it's being -- while the amendment is being distributed? >> mr. chairman, i withdraw my reservation. >> mr. reichert withdraws the point of order. miss del benny is recognized on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when chairman brady was advancing the path act last congress, a bill that i supported, he said, quote, as we all know too well, how our country manages its tax code makes absolutely no sense. how can families and local businesses count on tax relief each year, as long as congress can't decide what's permanent and what's not? he also said, americans will no longer have to worry each december if congress will take action to extend certain tax relief measures that they have come to rely on. end quote.
3:41 pm
now here we are. two years after that bipartisan legislation passed, with the chairman's praises for delivering certainty to families, staring down -- now staring down at a partisan bill with provisions that will expire, leaving working families with a tax increase. their piece of the bill for massive corporate tax cuts. meanwhile, we're doing nothing at all to address things like the cadillac tax. the permanent repeal of which has been a bipartisan goal for at least as long as i've been in congress. t original design was intended to be narrowly targeted tax on the most, quote, extravagant plans. instead the tax will hit working families, because of a variety of factors beyond their control. like age. geography. or occupation. that's why my amendment will once and for all repeal the tax that both republicans and
3:42 pm
democrats have agreed on and give american families some certainty so that they can plan. this tax on hard-working americans' health care plans disproportionately impacts people like the brave first responders who have been battling wildfires out west and delivering life-saving aid to people who have been impacted by the recent hurricanes. the cadillac tax would also hit family plans two times as harshly as individual plans. yet we have learned over time that families' costs are often two times more than those individuals. by leaving this tax in place, we are conceding to allowing children and families to carry an outside share of the tax burden, and that's exactly the kind of unfairness that comprehensive tax reform should be about. we should be fixing these things in the code. and yet maybe i shouldn't be surprised, as countless economists and tax experts have said since this legislation was released, this bill isn't tax reform. it's tax cuts for the very top.
3:43 pm
this amendment is an opportunity to help our children, firefighters, seniors and working families in opportunity ensure 200,000 more americans according to estimates by cbo and jct, that they would -- 200,000 more would have insurance. so many of us agree on the need for this reform. i urge my colleagues to vote yes to protecting working families from yet another tax increase on top of those they'll already be facing under this bill. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. mr. kelly, on the amendment. >> yes, thank you, chairman. and the gentle lady from washington, you and i are really in intense agreement on this. it's just too bad that only you, by the way, on that side -- you weren't here to vote on it. every single member on that side voted for this cadillac tax to be included in the affordable care act. look, as an employer and somebody who does supply
3:44 pm
insurance for -- health insurance for employees or associates, i believe in what you're doing. i believe in that 100%. and you already know that we delayed this several times. we delayed it to 2020, and recently they voted -- we voted again to delay to 2025. i'm going to object to the amendment, not because i don't believe in what you're saying. this never had to be even an issue. this all goes back to the affordable care act. it was a pay for. and what i don't understand is, we're saying today, well, you all don't want to help out on this. we do want to help out. i don't think this is the time or place. >> will the gentleman yield? >> what we're talking about today. yes, ma'am, go ahead. >> we had a conversation when we were doing the markup on the health care bill. >> uh-huh. >> a few months ago. i brought up an amendment to repeal the cadillac tax. and you said you agreed with me, and we should work on this. and yet nothing has happened. and now we actually -- >> excuse me -- claiming my time. excuse me. we have done -- we have hr-173.
3:45 pm
it's got 201 co sponsors and has a member from the other side who has actually co supporting that with me. so no, 201 of us have gotten on that piece. but i'm going to go back to, it never even had to be repealed if it had not been placed in the affordable care act to begin with. i don't know how you say on one day we have to do this -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> and then come back and say now we don't want to do it, because it was bad policy. >> will the gentleman yield? >> it was never enforced. that's part of the problem. and i will yield to you. i'm just saying to you, i don't think in what we're talking about today this should go into the health care piece, but it does not need to go in today. >> we have a tax plan right here. >> yes, we do. >> we have an opportunity to do something bipartisan. and we have an amendment right here that does it. i'm confused that you say you support doing that. >> you're confusing. no. reclaiming my time. neither one of us had to be confused. neither one of us was here at the time. and we know at the time it was terrible policy that became part of the affordable care act. there's no -- it's not a disagreement between you and i.
3:46 pm
this was put into law and passed, by the way, whenever you all were in the majority. and i find it kind of odd that all of a sudden today we say that today is the day we'll take care of it. we always have voted twice. i'm just going to object to your amendment, because i don't think today is the time or place for it. but i will be glad to work with you on this. and with that i yield back my time. mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. miss sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i'm noticing an interesting theme here, which is we'll be glad to work with that on you, but we can't vote with you on that today. well, the time to do that work was prior to hr-1:00 introduced in this committee, but we didn't have hearings and subcommittee hearings and markups there. we simply just got a closed-door process in which democrats were completely shut out, and we have now a tax bill before us that wants to give these huge give-aways to wealthy families
3:47 pm
and to corporations, and literally take it out of the hide of hard-working americans. but i believe that process of quote, unquote working together would have happened prior to this week, there's a very good chance that we would have had a bipartisan agreement on repealing the cadillac tax. i know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support that notion. we can go back and relitigate aca, you know, forever. but we have a chance to move forward, and to make the necessary fixes. and yet every time we bring that up, as miss del benny has now twice, she gets shut down and you all vote no against it. we should act now to repeal the 40% tax on working families' health benefits, because it's a problem we need to address now. employers have already started shifting costs to their workers in anticipation of the tax by increasing workers' of deductibles, their co-pays and
3:48 pm
insurance. why now when we have a chance to fix it would members of this dais want to make the situation even worse? we should help working people, middle class families in california and across the country avoid facing a massive penalty on benefits that they have earned, just to give tax breaks to wealthy individuals, wealthy families and corporations. again, repealing this tax has long enjoyed bipartisan support. it's another common sense tweak to the tax code that you guys apparently are not going to include in this bill. and i really urge my colleagues to stand with working americans and support congresswoman del benny's amendment to repeal this onerous tax instead of just offering the same platitude over and over and over again. we're happy to work with that on you, but not before we actually produce major pieces of legislation that have life-altering consequences. i really wish we could take your words at their face value, as a
3:49 pm
proffer that you really were interested in working with us. but the whole process of bringing this tax bill to this committee has proved otherwise. your actions have proved otherwise to your empty and hollow words. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentle lady yields back. mr. renacci, on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield my time to mr. kelly. >> and i appreciate the gentle lady's comments. but let me just be really perfectly clear on this. for an employer who has always used his own money, not taxpayer money, to provide health care for my associates, i really find it -- an insult to say, well, you really didn't care. and if you really had your heart in it, you would do it. why in the world did you vote for it to begin with in the affordable care act, and you voted against it in the american health care act when you could have done it then? and then to come here today and somehow try to paint us as some horrible group of people that don't want to do this. it is your health care bill.
3:50 pm
not our health care bill. as an employer, i've supplied this for folks. for a long, long time. and i never looked to the government to say, you know what, i think maybe you all ought to pick up the tab on this. taxpayers ought to pick up pick up the tab on this, i don't think it's fair that i should have to pick up the tab on it and now to try to turn it around that we don't care about these folks? are you kidding me? are you absolutely kidding me? listen to every one of you sitting at that dais voted for the affordable care act and this was in it. i watched the administration over the last eight years, the obama administration, refuse to enforce it because you knew it was bad policy. maybe you should have read the bill before you passed the bill, and as you come in to us today and say, you all don't care about folks, you don't want to do this, i don't like the fact that we do it. i love the fact that we use the term cadillac because i happen to be a cadillac dealer and most people in my life always aspire to drive a cadillac and then when we have a health care piece, an insurance piece that we say this is a cadillac health care piece, and you know why?
3:51 pm
because it's the best you could possibly buy but now we say, no, those people aren't entitled to that. it's too generous. we have to somehow scale it back. then you come here today and say, well, you don't want to repeal -- you don't want to repeal the cadillac tax? absolutely. i've been fighting against it since it first came out but to come here today and try to put some spin on it that that's not who we are, i want to remind you again and teaching, coaching, and parenting comes down to you better use repetition, repetition, repetition, if you hadn't passed the health care act to begin with, we wouldn't be facing it today. i would suggest that you look at how you voted in that committee. i yield back my time. it's great to be here today with people that have a different view of the past. >> okay, let me make a suggestion. we got a lot of work to do. we got a lot of journeys together over this next several hours. and my suggestion that we be forward-leaning and
3:52 pm
forward-looking and talk about the bill in front of us. there's going to be a lot of temptations to run all over the place, to be talking about a lot of other themes. i think we would all be well-served if at 10 to 4:00, we do our best to focus in on what's before us. now, with that admonition, let's see how long it lasts. that invitation. the gentleman from connecticut, mr. larson, can you lead us now in this renewed effort for focus? ♪ amazing grace, how sweet thou art ♪ >> we thank the majority for the comedy they are providing us now. i want to say this for my good from pennsylvania, because he
3:53 pm
always leads with his heart, and he is indeed the author of a letter, along with the original sponsor this of this bill, joe courtney, and that's why i strongly support the effort, and i would say to my friend, and -- that the reason that we're going through this frustration is because we are not in regular order and because we haven't, as mr. roskam, has indicated, allowed the opportunity for one another to go back and forth. otherwise, i know that mr. kelly, who has led the effort on the republican side, who has gotten 79 cosponsors -- >> 201. >> well, total. there's 100-plus democrats, so there's 122 democrats and 79 republicans. so -- but you led that effort to bring your colleagues along, and
3:54 pm
so i commend you for that. but what has happened here, and as you indicated, and i think you're illustrating our frustration as well. because what we feel is the same kind of amendment process, and mr. neil asked a very poignant question just before we were about to begin, that we have a dark and abiding suspicion that we may be seeing, you know, yet further repeals of the affordable care act because, as we've been meeting here, and people have been meeting elsewhere behind closed doors instead of in regular order, and then we're told that what we're going to do is follow regular order throughout all of this, well, regular order only means muzzling people during a time or not being able to get the full details, never having expert witnesses, et cetera.
3:55 pm
so, that's what this is -- has come down to. yes, i will yield. >> just as a matter of clarification, i would have gladly used joe's name. he asked me in the future not to do that unless i had his permission first. it was originally his bill. i want to make sure you understand. >> i'm sure that joe courtney knows that. he's an honorable man, and so are you. and so i adhere what the chairman roskam is saying in that we should go forward on this, but there should be a full understanding by the american people. you're talking about regular order. this is not regular order. this is disorder in the kind that should never take place in this committee, and there is where the frustration stems from. i support ms. delbene. >> gentleman yields back. >> i yield back. >> dr. davis.
3:56 pm
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm one of those people who voted for the affordable care act, and i did so proudly, but i'm also an individual who will recognize that there are times for change, and i hope just as i support repealing the cadillac tax that some of my colleagues will look at some of the deductions that you have put into the tax bill and you might say the same thing to it that i'm saying about the cadillac plan. and that is, it's not going to work, has not worked, just as i don't think some of the deductions are going to work, and i would yield the balance of my time to ms. delbene if she
3:57 pm
would want to comment further. >> thank you, mr. daifvis. i want to highlight -- folks say this isn't a health care bill, but we tried to do this during a health care bill, and that wasn't the right time in another mark-up where we just got a bill dropped and then we were doing a mark-up through the night. you know, i heard mr. kelly and others said they supported this, but this wasn't the right time. now we have another bill, a tax bill, it's not the right time. you know, american people want to see us actually get things done, make things happen. this is an opportunity to do that. so this is the time we should be bringing these issues up, and actually do something bipartisan, make it happen. i also want to ask unanimous consent, mr. chairman, to enter into the record two letters in support of this amendment from the aflcio and the international brotherhood of electrical
3:58 pm
workers. >> without objection. >> does the gentle lady yield back? >> i yield back. >> ms. chu on the amendment. >> well, i strongly support representative delbene's amendment to repeal the cadillac tax. this tax will have a disproportionate impact on working families, particularly families with incomes between $38,000 and $100,000 a year while sparing the wealthy. in fact, the afl/cio found that if this tax were to go into effect, 25% of workers with single coverage in my home state of california would be impacted in the next decade, and that would be especially harmful for many workplaces with robust labor unions who have negotiated lower salaries in exchange for more comprehensive health care plans. we should not allow anti-union sentiment in washington to be
3:59 pm
used to undermine the men and women who worked hard to make ends meet and put food on the table. this tax hits right at the heart of middle america, and we must make sure that working families are made whole. we need to repeal this tax. >> gentlelady yields back. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by representative delbene. all those in favor, signify by saying aye. opposed say no. in the opinion of the chairs, the no's have it. pursuant to committee rule 19, further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. are there any additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? mr. higgins. >> yeah, thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is very simple. it would require that, as the white house council of economic advisers have said that each american's income will rise by
4:00 pm
$4,000 to $9,000 a year directly attributable to this corporate tax cut, reducing the statutory rate from 35% to 20%. if that doesn't occur -- >> mr. higgins, could i invite you to suspend for a minute while it's been distributed. >> sure. >> and mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order. >> mr. reichert reserves a point offered. point of order. >> mr. higgins, you're recognized on the amendment. >> as i was saying, so, if that
4:01 pm
goal is not achieved, that the corporate rate revert back to 35%. mr. chairman, the treasury secretary says if corporate tax cuts will pay for themselves and additionally will generate $2 trillion in new economic growth through the magic of dynamic scoring. this is a lie. but it's only the first lie. goldman-sachs economists from which the treasury secretary came, the university of pennsylvania wharton school, the tax policy center, have all categorically and unequivocally rejected this fantasy. in fact, they indicate that there will be virtually no growth, there will be big dea deficits, and the treasury secretary is off by about
4:02 pm
$6 trillion in his estimates. the white house council of economic advisers issued a report arguing that the $1.5 trillion corporate tax cut will accrue to the benefit of middle americans. they actually said this. that cutting the corporate rate from 35% to 20% will get an annual increase for every american of between $4,000 to $9,000 a year once fully into effect. that's what they said. that's lie number two. the only thing worse than these lies is the presumption on their part that the american people believe this and that they're stupid, and that's why they don't have the guts to come before this committee, and i think it's shameful to defend things that they have said. corporate america contributes about 9% in federal revenues. it was, at one point, about 30%. corporate america makes record profits today and hires
4:03 pm
expensive lawyers and accountants to hide the cash that they are hoarding in foreign accounts to avoid paying taxation and also u.s. treasury bonds. corporate america has been gutless and not living up to their responsibility to help move this economy in a efficient way. and don't tell me that corporate americans are the job creators. the american people are the job creators. the american economy is the strongest economy in human history. it's 70% consumption. the record will show clearly when there are high wages, there is high demand and when there is high demand in the economy, there is high growth in the economy. and when there's high growth in the economy, we don't have budgetary deficits, we have budgetary surpluses. we know this. because from 1992 to 2000, we
4:04 pm
had nearly 4% economic growth sustained over an eight-year period. america invested in cancer research, in rebuilding the roads and bridges of this nation, in pushing out innovation that fueled corporate america's rise to economic profits, and we expected the corporate america would do the right thing and pay their fair share. today, general electric, over the last five years, made $28 billion in profits and paid no corporate taxes. mr. chairman, this tax cut will not do what the proponents of it say they will. >> gentleman's time is expired. >> we need to do much better. >> mr. reichert. >> mr. chairman, i make a point of order to the amendment because it is not germane to the
4:05 pm
amendment in the nature of a substitute. the amendment violates house rule 16, clause 7, because it requires the secretary of labor to issue a report which is beyond the scope of this bill. it is also outside of this committee's jurisdiction. >> does the gentleman offering the amendment wish to speak on the point of order? >> yes. well, i think it's pretty clear that these assertions are the basis from which these tax cuts are being advanced. so, they're not only germane, they're fundamentally important toward the goal of accumulating the information that's necessary from which to make a responsible decision about the very item that's before us. >> i'm prepared to rule. the amendment is not germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, because it violates house rule 16, clause 7, by implicating the jurisdiction of another committee by directing the secretary of labor to make a report. point of order is sustained.
4:06 pm
the amendment is not in order. are there any other -- >> mr. chairman, i would ask for a recorded vote on the ruling. >> mr. higgins, you appeal the ruling of the chair? >> i do, sir. >> mr. reichert. >> i move to table, mr. chairman. >> the question is on the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair, all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion to agree to table is agreed to. >> can we have a roll call vote? >> roll call. >> clerk will call the roll. >> mr. johnson, aye. mr. nunes.
4:07 pm
mr. reichert, aye. mr. roskam, aye. mr. buchanan. mr. smith of nebraska, aye. ms. jenkins, aye. mr. paulson, aye. mr. marchant, aye. ms. black, aye. mr. reed, aye. mr. kelly, aye. mr. renesi, aye. mr. mian, aye. ms. nome, aye. mr. holding, aye. mr. smith of missouri, aye. mr. rice. mr. sweicher, aye.
4:08 pm
ms. wolorski, aye. mr. bishop, aye. mr. neil, no. mr. le vin, no. mr. lewis, no. mr. doggett, no. mr. thompson, no. mr. larson, no. mr. bloominauer, no. mr. kind, no. mr. pascrel, no. mr. crowley, no. mr. davis, no. ms. sanchez, no. mr. higgins, no. ms. suhl, no. ms. delbene, no. ms. chu, no.
4:09 pm
mr. nunes, aye. mr. buchanan. >> chairman brady. chairman is not recorded. chairman brady, aye.
4:10 pm
>> there being 22 ayes and 16 nos, the motion to table is agreed to. are there additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of the substitute? >> yes, mr. chairman, i've got an amendment.
4:11 pm
>> mr. doggett. >> i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. >> will the gentleman sustain while it's being distributed. mr. reichert? >> i will suspend. i just would make it clear, as i have to you informally, i saw mr. brady come in. i'm discussing an amendment, mr. brady. i want to be sure he has full notice as i believe he does, that i'm going to be discussing his amendment number one in this amendment. i didn't want to be unfair to him in any way and i want him to have an opportunity to respond. >> okay, well, that's your interaction with the chairman. all i know is i've recognized you for the purpose of the amendment. >> i'm ready to go. >> and you're going to suspend while it's being distributed. mr. reichert has reserved a point of order, and we're on pause until it's been distributed.
4:12 pm
>> mr. chairman, i withdraw my point of order. >> mr. reichert withdraws his point of order. mr. doggett, you're recognized on the amendment. >> this restores the alternative minimum tax for corporations and wealthy individuals that your bill repeals. while we need to do much more than this amendment to make sure that the wealthiest few and large companies pay their share of our security costs, repealing the a.m.t. would be a gift directly to president trump. repeal would have saved him $31 million in one year alone. like the panama papers on which the majority has refused our request for investigatory hearings, the paradise papers show that major corporations and individuals like members of the trump cabinet and many of his billionaire buddies, love stashing their millions in offshore tax havens.
4:13 pm
gary cohen, the president's designated leader on this very tax bill, has been the president or the vice president of 22 separate bermuda tax shelter entities. we need to stop the corporate giveaways. we need to stop the tax incentives for outsourcing american jobs abroad. but how have republicans responded to the startling revelations this week in the paradise papers? the same way that they've responded to those corporations who cared so little for our country's future that they renounced their corporate citizenship charter and then, in order to avoid taxes. they defend and enable these tax dodgers. on monday, five and a half hours into this hearing, the committee was presented by the chairman with a 33-page amendment that no democrat had ever seen. he would not tell us what was in the amendment, what its cost was, nor would he permit us even five minutes to review this
4:14 pm
complex amendment outside the committee. i believe that mr. levin was correct then when he called this process a mockery of the committee and essentially put us under authoritarian rule. while i have now reviewed that surprise amendment's and the joint tax analysis of it. it is a $157 billion gift to multinational tax dodgers, particularly the big wall street banks and the koch brothers who have lobbied against it. $127 million of the total $160 billion cost of this amendment number one presented in -- presented from secret endefrz and presented without anyone to ask about its contents other than mr. barthold on the technical issues, $170 billion to tax attorneys to find ways to dodge things. what we see is that 95% of the
4:15 pm
republican base erosion promises in the original bill have now been eroded by them in amendment number one. mr. reed, i'm not saying to you and your colleagues that have worried that your votes today about casting one vote after another that your constituents will oppose don't care about people. i believe you do care about people. it's just that the people you care about are a little different than the ones that i view as our priorities. >> gentleman's time has expired. mr. neal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to support the amendment that mr. doggett has offered. i think that it was corrective action that was taken here. two years ago, when we all assembled for that famous new year's eve get-together. and the corrective action that was taken that evening, part of a package that was put in front of the house the next day, which included a vote of support, i believe, from speaker boehner at
4:16 pm
the time was to fix the individual a.m.t. for middle class people. i've been on that issue for almost 14 years in congress, questioned a number of committee chairpersons, members of the -- members of successive administrations about how to handle the individual a.m.t. began in 1968, compounded in about 1979. the original vote in the house of representatives, i believe, only had two dissenters in the entire house. so, what we decided to do in that new year's get-together was to eliminate the a.m.t. for middle income people. we succeeded. there are 4.5 million individual a.m.t. filers now that actually pay alternative minimum tax. the technical term, which should be correctly used, i guess, is that it's really minimum tax, rather than alternative, simply minimum tax. we accomplished that goal, and it is now limited to such a small number of people, but it has a hefty price tag. so i think that the doggett
4:17 pm
amendment, as it relates to the a.m.t., is particularly important. >> would you yield? >> i'll yield my time, yes. >> let me just make clear how significant this $157 billion is. with the same $157 billion that is a corporate giveaway in amendment number one, through all of its secret transactions, the medical expense deduction for middle class families that mr. larson offered this morning, the education interest on student loans that are burdening so many students, the out-of-pocket cost of teachers across america, the adoption tax credit that mr. davis offered yesterday that such great interest was expressed but then voted down his amendment, the american opportunity tax credit that mr. kind offered yesterday to help veterans and others get back in our workforce. all of those, all of those could have been included in this bill, and left $1 billion or
4:18 pm
$2 billion left to spare. it is a question of priorities and it's a question of tactics. this whole approach of amendment by ambush, which is what is going on right now, and why our chairman is not in his seat, to come up with additional amendments to try to patch together what's been presented will lead to more wrongs just like this, because the debate on the entire bill will close before we ever have the cost analysis or the full implications of what any of these last-minute changes do. we need to reject that approach and adopt this amendment on the alternative minimum tax. >> time is expired. mr. paulsen on the amendment. >> mr. chairman, i'm going to oppose the amendment. i do believe that repealing the alternative minimum tax should be a priority more committee. building of what mr. neal mentioned, we know that repealing the alternative minimum tax has been a priority for us for a long time but there are millions of americans that
4:19 pm
are still covered under this so i think americans, no matter how much they earn, should not have to figure out their taxes twice. not only is it unjust to force taxpayers to do their taxes twice but it makes it virtually impossible for a family to plan how much tax they're going to end up owing at the end of each and every year. it's an entirely unfair burden for the government to impose that on people. and let's be clear on what the alternative minimum tax is. it was intended much different than it is put in place right now. that alternative minimum tax came about about 50 years ago because a very small number of wealthy people were paying very little tax because of the investment choices that they were making, and today, that alternative minimum tax now reaches down and takes from thousands and thousands of hardworking, honest taxpayers who are very far from being wealthy. it's time and it's been time for a long time for the alternative minimum tax to go completely. i'll yield back. >> mr. kind on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
4:20 pm
strike the last word. i'll be brief, mr. chairman. as i had mentioned previously in our debate, the only thing -- the only thing that was standing between mr. trump and 2005 from paying any taxes or not paying taxes at all was the alternative minimum tax. that was just in the one year where there was some leakage of his tax returns that came out. a multibillionaire -- and for the average person back home, if you asked them, they will say that's wrong. i think there would be wide agreement that when multibillionaires that own yachts and jets and skyscrapers and golf courses and whatnot, aren't paying any semblance of tax at all, that's wrong. that's why the average american, i think, feels that this place ain't on the level. because it's stacked full of special interests tax loopholes that are there to benefit the most powerful and the most connected in this country. so all we're saying with the doggett amendment is let's just establish a floor so that all of us as americans are chipping in
4:21 pm
a little bit as far as the tax code is concerned, since we all benefit from a strong defense and from a strong nation, and that's what this amendment really addresses. a lot of the tax dodging and a lot of manipulation that we see, whether it's overseas in havens or even when it's right here in this country because of how the code is skewed to the connected and the powerful special interests in washington. so i think this is an important amendment. just for the sanctity of our revenue system and for the confidence of the american people to know that when they go to bed at night, they're not being taken to the cleaners by multibillionaires in this country. i encourage my colleagues to support and i yield back. >> you know, for me, 30,000 of my constituents are impacted by this. this tax relief on an individual basis is $166 million for the sixth district of illinois and if their skyscrapers and jets, maybe, but i haven't seen a lot
4:22 pm
of enemy. that said, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. doggett. all those in favor, signify by saying aye. oppose opposed, say no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. are there additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of the substitute? mr. levin. >> would you please deliver to each of us that package on my amendment on carried interest. >> yes. will the clerk please distribute the amendment. >> and i will just hold up for a minute, okay, mr. chairman? >> thank you. mr. nunes. mr. nunes reserves a point of order.
4:23 pm
mr. le, levin, you're recognized on the amendment. >> ten years ago tomorrow, the house approved legislation that would plug the carried interest loophole, where people who provide services not on their own money but other people's money pay a capital gains tax instead of an ordinary tax like other people who provide services. it passed november 9, 2007. it was passed three times after that. this bill is the same as the bill that was introduced in 2015. when the manager provided his amendment, and the reason we were so upset was it came out of
4:24 pm
the blue, and we weren't able to kind of look through the clouds to see what it was all about. and it turned out that the manager's amendment essentially was a fig leaf and later on, we received a score, and it turned out it raised $1.2 billion when the bill that i introduced with many others in 2015, and this bill is the same as that, raised 15.6 beside. $15.6 billion. more and more, this has become kind of the prominent loophole that symbolizes the failure to understand that those who provide services often about big, big money should not be in a different position than those who provide services, whether it's a waitress or whoever it is.
4:25 pm
and so, this bill now has support, bipartisan support, and i just want to read from a september 28 release report, and it quotes white house economic adviser gary cohen. i quote. "the president remains committed to ending the carried interest deduction. as we continue to evolve on the framework, the president has made it clear to the tax writers in congress, carried interest is one of those loopholes that we talk about when we talk about getting rid of loopholes that affect wealthy americans." that's what this is all about. and if you on the majority side are not willing to step up to the plate and eliminate this, where else are you going to step up to the plate?
4:26 pm
i think instead, you're going to duck, as you did in the manager's amendment. so, i strongly urge support for this amendment. chairman yields back. >> mr. chairman, i withdraw my point of order and would note that i believe we've made some good fundamental changes to this rule and i applaud the committee for doing that. >> mr. nunes withdraws the point of order. mr. holding on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the goal of tax reform is economic growth, and there's nothing more important to economic growth than entrepreneurism. entrepreneurism embodies exceptionalism and the aspirational nature of america, americans at their best. carried interest rewards entrepreneurism. the carried interest rewards sweat equity. carried interest encourages
4:27 pm
patient, long-term investment in businesses of all sizes across all industries. private equity and venture capital funds utilize their unique expertise to invest in businesses, create jobs, create wealth, and indeed create economic growth. now, private equity funds provide necessary long-term investment, know-how by, for many businesses, the -- as i pointed out earlier in this debate, in north carolina, where i'm from, we've got $14.1 billion in long-term private equity investment, and these private equity and backed companies employ some 188,000 people in my state in north carolina. and i would note that in michigan, private equity has some $13.33 billion investments
4:28 pm
and employ 161,105 people. in michigan -- nationwide, 11.3 million americans are employed by companies receiving similar investments. so, these investments equate to jobs. they create economic growth. now, the term, carried interest, becomes somewhat of a political hot button, a target, by politicians and media. and thinks that it's some way for a place to avoid taxes. but it's not. it's a way to reward entrepreneurism. investment, american exceptionalism, it's an unjust characterization of carried interest to say that it is a loophole.
4:29 pm
so the amendment that the chairman has offered, i think, is a very responsible step to focusing carried interest, preserving the integrity and usefulness of this provision by lengthening the holding period necessary for carried interest to be afforded, long-term capital gains treatment. i appreciate the time, and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. lewis on the amendment. >> mr. chairman, i yield time to mr. levin. >> mr. levin. >> thank you, mr. lewis. i hope everybody's listening, because this gets to the fundamental issue of what we do about loopholes. mr. nunes says that the manager's amendment made a fundamental change. that simply is not true. it's a fig leaf.
4:30 pm
it extended the holding period, and according to joint tags, over ten years, it would raise $1.2 billion, when this bill would raise $15.5 billion, and some people think it's two to three times that. so that's the fact. and don't distort the facts like you do saying that your bill is essentially a middle class tax bill. it isn't. and this isn't a bill that makes any significant change in the loophole that the president of the united states and republicans and democrats are have called a loophole. and i just want to finish talking about sweat equity. sure, there is sweat equity here, regarding other people's money, but there's sweat equity in many, many other parts of services, and i mentioned a waiter and a waitress, those who provide services of all kinds.
4:31 pm
that's sweat equity. and there's no assurance that they'll receive any just compensation for their sweat equity. so, why do you want to put sweat equity, if you want to call it that, for these managers dealing with other people's money? their sweat, but they pay a capital gains tax while everybody else, no matter what the pursuit is, pays ordinary income tax. that is simply grossly unfair. this isn't a partisan issue. i would like to present, for the record, mr. chairman, a list of republicans as well as democrats, economists of all stripes, who indicate that this has to be addressed. okay? mr. chairman, i want it entered into the record. >> without objection. >> i just want to finish, don't essentially embrace a fig leaf
4:32 pm
and claim it's something more, when that's a fig leaf you can see through. if you can't essentially address this loophole, it's hopeless that you're going to plug any other loophole in your bill. i strongly urge that we support this amendment. ten years ago, it passed the house. it's about time now that you're honest with the people of the united states of america. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. let me describe where we are right now, procedurally. here's my proposal. mr. kind is sought to be recognized on this amendment. we can recognize mr. kind, then proceed to a vote. mr. lewis has an amendment. i'm informed he will speak. we will have one -- i'm proposing we have one on the other side that speaks and we try and deal with mr. lewis's amendment before we go to vote. if people seek to be recognized, i will recognize you, but that's my proposal. let's go to mr. kind.
4:33 pm
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll try to be real quick and to the point. mr. chairman, this amendment gives us an opportunity to hit the reset button and start improving this legislation in a bipartisan fashion. you know, i've always had my suspicion that my good friend, the gentleman from michigan, and mr. trump, had a lot in common. they both have a great set of hair. and they both believe in ending the carried interest loophole. in fact, during the presidential campaign, president trump called for closing the carried interest loophole and called hedge fund managers, quote, paper pushers, who were, quote, getting away with murder, partly because of measures, including the carried interest provision that he said allowed them to shield their wealth with a minimum tax burden. so, if we're looking for some commonality as far as bipartisan amendments, i can't think of a clearer one or a better one to adopt than what my friend from michigan is offering today, and i encourage its adoption. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. levin. all those in favor signify by
4:34 pm
saying aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. pursuant to committee rule 19, further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. are there additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of the substitute? mr. lewis. >> mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, rather, i have an amendment at the desk. >> mr. lewis, would you suspend while it's being distributed quickly? mr. buchanan. >> i'll reserve a point of order. >> mr. buchanan reserves a point of order. mr. lewis, why don't you proceed as it's been distributed. >> mr. chairman, my amendment would delay the tax cut in this bill until the united states armed forces have withdrawn from the longest wars in our nation's history. and until there is no federal deficit. mr. chairman, the entire tax code is based on the question of how to pay for war.
4:35 pm
for 16 years, we buried our heads in the sand. for 16 years, thousands of our sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers, lost their lives on the battlefield. for 16 years, brave patriots put their lives on the line and their families on hold to protect our freedoms. mr. chairman, veteran's day is this week, and how does this committee respond? you pass a tax cut bill that pay for these wars on a credit radical islamists. card. just this morning, a report found our current bill is $5.6 trillion. this is more than $23,000 per taxpayers. when these bills come due, there will be no money for working americans struggling to achieve a roof over their heads. there will be no money for people trying to keep food on
4:36 pm
the table. there will be no money for military families who rely on the safety net program just to make ends meet. never before have we passed a debt or this size to our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. today, i ask my colleagues to be brave, to be bold. i asked you to join me in what is right, what is just, and what is 16 years overdue. i urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment. and with this, i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. lewis. >> mr. chairman, could i submit, for the record, just a -- the comments of historian robert dallek that reminds us that war kills off all the great reform movements. world war i, the progressive era. >> without objection, so ordered. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. lewis. all those in favor, signify by
4:37 pm
saying aye. those opposed, say no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. pursuant to committee rule 19, further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. the committee will stand in recess. we will reconvene following the house votes promptly. the house ways and kmeemean
4:38 pm
committee is taking a break for votes as they continue to mark up the house republican tax plan. this is the third day of meetings, and committee chair kevin brady has said he wants to finish work on it tomorrow. the republican leaders hope to have a completed bill on president trump's desk by christmas. if you'd like to read the house gop tax plan, go to that takes you right to our congressional chronicle page where you can read all 429 pages of the bill. also, there are mondays and tuesdays ways and means committee mark-up sessions. while we wait for members to reconvene, we'll show you some of the amendment debate in the ways and means committee from earlier today. >> the next day, i didn't get a call from my employer, but i got a call from a social worker, and she called to see how things were going, what could she do to help, to make sure that this young woman didn't fall back out of her progress of bridging out of poverty, and that was having
4:39 pm
somebody to be there, to put an arm around her and say, hey, you know what? we'll find a way. i'll help you through this. and i think that's one of the things that we've lost in our country is we're not just looking at mass numbers of people. these are people that deserve the dignity and the help that we can all come around and give them. so, i would tell you, yeah, i support the earned income tax credit, but i also support the human interaction that we've lost in this nation by just looking at volumes of numbers. these are people with real faces, with real issues, and we need to have the compassion to come around them and connect them to job skills and job training so they can bridge out just like they bridged in. that's where the hope is in the bridge of poverty in this nation. but i don't support this amendment. i support what we learned to be true in the last two years of helping people bridge back into our country in the pursuit of the american dream.
4:40 pm
thanks, mr. chairman. >> dr. davis on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i proudly join representative chu in offering this amendment. i've championed enhancing the eit to help childless workers and noncustodial parents since 2005. via the junior carson responsible fatherhood and health and families act. improvements to the economic well being of childless workers and noncustodial parents promote responsible fatherhood and help those workers who provide for their families. i'm very proud that this amendment lowers the eligibility age to 18 to cover struggling younger workers who current law excludes, such as former foster youth, apprentices, and homeless youth. by starting at 25, the eitc currently disadvantages former
4:41 pm
foster youth who enter the workforce earlier and experience higher rates of poverty than their peers. the instability, neglect, and abuse experienced by foster youth create barriers to economic stability. we know that approximately 20,000 to 25,000 foster youth between 18 and 21 age out of care annually with studies indicating that three quarters are not enrolled in school by age 21. lowering the eitc age to 18 promises to promote economic well being, reduce poverty, and increase labor force participation of former foster youth. that is why many foster youth and child advocacy organizations support my foster eitc bill that lowers the eitc to 18 for foster
4:42 pm
youths. some of these individuals and organizations are the child welfare league of america, youth villages, the foster care alumni association, first focus campaign for children, the family focus treatment association, harkness fire children, the national association of social workers, and the juvenile law center. we should do much more to give younger workers access to this critical work support that encourages and rewards work as well as offset federal payroll and income taxes. this amendment will promote economic well-being for these hardworking and qualified young workers. i support it and urge passage. and i yield back the balance. >> mr. rice.
4:43 pm
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i heard mrs. chu's introduction into this proposed amendment, and mrs. chu and i have worked together in the past in congress. we both served on the small business committee. and in her introduction, she said that the republican tax plan does nothing for people in poverty and that it is for big corporations, and she listed an example of a young man who worked and made $12,000 a year and he had to pay income taxes, and she said he was taxed into poverty. you know, we've talked for the last couple of days about the various analyses of this plan and how it will, in fact, give tax refunds -- more money in people's pockets for people up and down the income spectrum. including people in poverty, and how it will stimulate our economy and that that will
4:44 pm
create economic opportunities for people up and down the income spectrum. but i want to talk about her specific -- and that just is ignored. i mean, we just -- the folks on the left just completely ignore that. but i want to talk about her specific example. of this young man that makes $12,000 a year, and i think she had -- i think she said he had to pay $400 or $500 in income taxes. well, look at our plan. our plan doubles the standard deduction to $12,000, so guess what? this young man who makes $12,000 a year, his income tax immediately drops from $400 o a year to zero. zero. so that young man, despite their protestations that he receives no benefit, will receive an extra $400 in his pocket. and if you look beyond that and you accept any of these analyses that say that our economy will, in fact, grow as a result of
4:45 pm
this plan, there will be more competition for workers and wages will rise, and you know, my opinion, throughout the -- this process, is to create opportunity, and there's nothing that we can do to create opportunity for a better for folks in poverty, including the young man she describes, than to expand our economy. and that resulting opportunity lifts not only him but lifts all boats, people throughout the spectrum, throughout this patchwork of america. so, i understand her passion. i understand her wanting to lift this young man and people in his position. i simply wish that they wouldn't ignore the fact that this -- that this plan will immediately put another $400 in his pocket
4:46 pm
and give him greater opportunity to succeed in this land of opportunity in the future. i yield. >> ms. sewell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i fully support the chu amendment to extend the earned income tax credit to working childless adults and noncustodial parents. you know, the earned income tax credit is a great program that works to reward work. you know, so often, we want folks to get off of government assistance and work, and this is a program that encourages those who are working to continue to work and provide for their families. i believe this program is a powerful tool, it's shown itself to be a powerful tool for economic opportunity, bringing intergenerational benefits for working families and their children, because it promotes and is based on earnings. and the eitc encourages work and then provides a substantial
4:47 pm
refund that can be used to help families manage expenses such as child care. by extending it to those that are childless, we just encourage more work. increasing the eitc is a smart investment to promote greater economic mobility and opportunity, because it is shown by research to improve educational and health outcomes. today, the earninged income tax credit is widely recognized as the single most important public source of income support for working families and children. by expanding it to childless adults, we give the same opportunity to low income and middle income family units that do not have children. we're expanding it to aunts and uncles and cousins that are noncustodial parents to so many children. subsidizing wages for working families earning up to $43,000 is an important way that we can make a difference to working and middle class families. my state of alabama is the sixth
4:48 pm
poorest state in the country, and one out of every five people in my state live below the federal poverty line. yet, in 2015, in alabama, 18.7% of the returns claimed earned income tax credit, and if we included childless adults who were working, that would increase by thousands more. the average credit, per return, was $2,700, mr. chairman. that is substantial for those who are living on the margins. this is real money for real working americans making a real difference. i urge my colleagues to support the earned income tax credit being extended. thanks. >> mr. schweikert on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and my comments really, i'll do this quickly, are really on sort of half the amendment. i actually think there's something we -- we have a elegant solution on part of this and there's a technology solution that we may be able to
4:49 pm
move forward on that would remove some of the question about bad actors, would get rid of the delays in the speed, but we have to be willing to have a conversation of a data match model whereas someone who's turned in their tax returns, they -- the math says they should qualify, a simple data match system to a non-irs database saying, yes, it looks like they -- yes, the data matches what's out there, boom, it could be almost auto magic. this is one, i think, republicans and democrats, this sort of -- we'll call at this time negative income tax model, we believe, does incentivize work. if we, as a committee, when we get beyond tax reform here, would be willing to take a look at a piece of legislation that our team has actually had for about four, five years to use a data model to take care of some of these concerns and speed it up and then you can actually
4:50 pm
have a debate of, if there's actual savings because of removing bad actors, could that savings be used somewhere else, great conversation. i appreciate good intentions but we need to do something i think is much more holistic and much more elegant and actually would make it much more simple and efficient. with that i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by ms. chu. all those in favor signify by saying no. >> the opinion of the chair the nos have it. roll call is requested. further proceedings on the amendment be will be postponed. are there additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of the substitute? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> mr. tiberi. would you suspend while the amendment's being -- >> thank you.
4:51 pm
mr. tiberi. >> mr. chairman, i withdraw my point of order. >> mr. tiberi withdraws his point of order. mr. benning you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. housing affordability in my region is that the lowest level since 2010 and getting worse. the meeldion home price is king count is 64.5% higher than it was five years ago. while wages have only reason 25%. and this trend is getting worse due to a growing population, land constraints and infrastructure that definitely needs updating to keep up. families are struggling to have a safe place to raise their kids
4:52 pm
and put down roots. this overall lack of affordable housing is making our homelessness crisis much worse. we have people living on our streets in tent cities with public health risks and living conditions that simply should not exist in our country. yet the republican tax reform plan would worsen the state of affordable housing by eliminating tax exempt private activity bonds and missing this opportunity to expand the low-income housing tax credit. according to the washington state housing finance commission, 2,088 affordable apartments that would house over 4,000 people in six counties across my state that are currently planned for the next two years would not be built without private activity bonds. by eliminating tax exempt private activity bonds this bill is going to prevent 2,088 families earning less than 60% of median income in their area from renting housing that they
4:53 pm
can afford. private activity bonds have helped build more than 76,000 apartments across the state of washington and over 46,000 home loans for first time home buyers and yet my colleagues simply want to eliminate this for to pay for massive corporate tax cuts. that's why my amendment reinstates private activity bonds without multi-family revenue bonds, almost half of the low-income housing tax credit program nationwide will disappear and with it thousands of jobs and millions of dollars for local economies, not to mention much needed housing. so my amendment would also expand the low-income housing tax credit, an idea that is bipartisan right here in this committee and being led by chairman hatch in the senate. by making 50% more credits available, we could make as many as 400,000 more affordable housing units available over the
4:54 pm
next ten years. these policies support seniors, loans for beginning farmers to buy their part acres, nonprofit facilities like ymcas and museums all of which we finance by issuing private activity bonds. my constituents and people across the country are struggling to afford a safe place to live, cutting these critical life lines is unconscionable and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> mr. neal, you're recognized. speak on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is an excellent amendment. i've had a long history with many of the issues that she has spoken of. i raised some years ago the cap on the private activity bond allocation. she sponsored the low-income housing tax credit. we should also be restoring the new markets tax credits as well. this amendment deals with one of the most complex aspect of american life, the housing market. and she spoke of the whole issue
4:55 pm
of income elasticity and what's happened. we talk about what happens with home ownership and with those who rent. you still need to generate more units at levels that people actually will have a chance to find their way in to, so this is really amongst the debate that we're having today one of the best amendments that's offered because it speaks right to middle class frustration. even though the term low-income housing tax credit implies it's low income, it goes well beyond that in terms of people getting into the housing market. so this is a very well done amendment and i want to urge all to support it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. pascrell, you're recognized. >> move to strike the last word on ms. del ben any's amendment. the tax code has historically been a key element in our housing and infrastructure policy. and this bill seeks to decap
4:56 pm
tate those industries without so much as a hearing. when chairman camp started the process of reviewing the tax code, my friend mr. johnson from texas and i co-chaired the housing committee. we had nine meetings and then nothing happened. i know we did not come to any consensus on this ill conceived changes proposed in this bill before us. we must restore tax exempt private equity bonds which communities across the country rely on for infrastructure funding. before the majority decided to eliminate these bonds, i've been working with mr. reed and mr. meehan to expand the use of private equity bonds. what happened? where did they go? have you abandoned ship?
4:57 pm
our bipartisan bill do you remember the sustainable water infrastructure bill trying to get through 12 years, bipartisan support would allow pmes to be used for water infrastructure projects. they know that cities and towns across the country are facing a major challenge in replacing their aging and worn out infrastructure. with constraints on local budgets, private activity bonds are the best method of pumping billions of dollars of private capital into public infrastructure projects while shifting the economic risk away from municipalities and towards the private sector. these private equity bonds are used for projects across the country. airports, hospitals, schools, assisted living facility, solid waste facilities, thousands of
4:58 pm
u.s. colleges and universities and hospitals and charities and municipalities rely on private activity bonds to provide capital financing for funding infrastructure projects, including not for profit health care and higher education institutions. i ask unanimous consent to add to the record letters from the hha, the new jersey hospital association supporting the retention of private activity bonds. private activity bonds are growing source of financing below cost housing and need i remind you, without the bond financing the industries cass strof if i can -- catastrophe looms at a time when with an estimated 25 million families and seniors are paying more than 50% of their monthly income in
4:59 pm
rent. >> the gentleman's time is expired. you're recognized to spell on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chicago has lost more than 200,000 people during the last decade and one of the main reasons has been the lack of affordable housing. so when we talk about equity bonds, finance, we talk about tax credits, we talk about new market initiatives, all of these entities have been lifesavers and i'm afraid that without them they're going to be many distressed areas across the country that have been laid to waste because there has not been the redevelopment that needs to take place, so i tell me if i'm wrongly support this amendment,
5:00 pm
urge its passage and if we don't pass it right now, let's find a way to keep these resources flowing into distressed urban and rural communities throughout the united states of america and i yield to mr. pascrell. >> thank you, mr. davis. mr. chairman, there are real projects at stake if you insist on doing this. the riverside development of 245 units in my town where i live paterson, new jersey, would be significantly jeopardized because of this highly depended upon tax exempt finance. cliftton, new jersey, just got a letter from the owner of the property, 3,000 units in j
5:01 pm
jeopardy and you are probusiness. you've got to be kidding me. these bonds are used for public purposes at a time when our infrastructure is crumbling or do we disagree on that? we need more investment not less investment. there is nothing in this tax bill that would directly boost infrastructure. you didn't put a dime in there. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i want to ask you a question. >> sure, ask me anything you wish. >> i thought the gentle woman's amendment relating to low-income housing projects and you're talking about a whole bunch of other projects. >> i'm talking about low income projects. what the heck you think i'm talking about? mars? >> i'm listening, you're going off on a tangent about infrastructure and everything else. >> that's part of what activity bonds are used for. i'm just using that -- >> i do understand that but i thought the gentle lady's is on housing credit. >> and it is on private activity
5:02 pm
bonds and repealing what is in the underlying bill and on low-income housing. >> dr. davis still controls the time. he's yielded to mr. pascrell and we'll honor that. >> thank you. my turn, right? >> out of time. the gentleman has yielded back. >> oh, that was very, very coy. >> representative sewell may come to your rescue. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i keep scratching my head when i got to this part of the bill hr 1. i don't understand how we can eliminate private activity bonds, new market tax credits, advance refundings for municipal bonds. these are all programs that have worked. the private activity bond has been in the tax code for 103 years because it finances very critical public facilities.
5:03 pm
infrastructure, low-income housing, energy facilities. the uses are countless. i'm going to yield to susan to finish my statement. >> thank you, ms. sewell. i just wanted to highlight again these are programs that support seniors, loans for beginning farmers, ywcas, they all are financed by issuing private activity bonds and the low-income housing tax credit is a proven policy and we should be building on it, not letting it rot because pretending we're leaving it intact when in reality if we eliminate private activity bonds we're weakening the way the credits work and that will impact housing across our country. so let's remember tax reform, tax reform's about choices and right here we do have a choice to make. are we focused on making sure we have a lavish 15% tax cut for corporations and forcing more people to sleep on the street or
5:04 pm
we going to let proven programs continue? my constituents, people across the country, we have people struggling to find a place to live to afford housing, this is our opportunity to actually put this right again and we should actually be improving low-income housing tax credit. again that has been a bipartisan program. so i encourage people to support the amendment and ms. sewell's not here, i'll yield the remaining of the time to mr. pascrell. >> mr. chairman, the real estate in this treaty which opposes this legislation has weighed in with the senate, united states senate. affordable housing advocates have been vocal as well as in getting the message across on the elimination of the tax exempt financing and it's devastating effects on affordable housing.
5:05 pm
there is nothing in any fact that i saw or any information that i've read that would lead me to think differently, so why would you do this? at the same time we have made it clear -- they've made it clear that tools like the historic tax credit and the new markets tax credit should be retained. i've had all of these letters, entered some in the record, i've had all of these records sent to me over the last two days, no one, no one in controversy to this -- >> thank you, mr. pascrell. the gentleman's time is expired. mr. tiberi, you're recognized to speak on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to speak on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from washington state. i don't seem very worthy. she and i could put our years together in congress and we
5:06 pm
wouldn't have the experience that mr. pascrell and mr. neal have on this issue. they have been amazing leaders, both here in congress and in their previous roles in public life, amazing advocates of these programs and i can't quite frankly disagree with anything either of them said. this is -- this is a program that is supported by a lot of republicans, it's private/public partnership, it's housing that's needed and i too am disappointed that it's not in this bill. low income house tax credit still in this bill and i continue to advocate beefing it up as others on this side of the aisle but at the end of the day the chairman has a really tough job, a balancing act that would
5:07 pm
be equivalent to somebody on a circus wire, mr. chairman, and i say that affectionatly, that circus wire. but i will say that mr. neal is dead on target as is mr. pascrell, and this is something that the congress has to work on. and i -- i pledge to work with mr. neal and mr. pascrell and the gentle lady from washington as i know members of this side of the aisle, every step of the way -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will in one minute. mr. neal knows this, these bonds have been used for golf courses. i don't think anybody on this dais thinks that's an appropriate use when we have the housing crisis that we have today. for office buildings. i don't think that anybody on this -- communities in ohio that are suffering from housing units not being there and so i -- i want to just tell the ranking
5:08 pm
member honestly because he's been a champion on these issues forever, much longer than i -- when i was still a kid in college, he was an advocate along with jack contempt and ronald reagan and i will yield to the gentleman. >> thanks. i want to thank mr. tiberi for his nice words and i want to tell you this, if you vote with us on this, i will not tell chairman brady. >> taking back my time. i will -- and the chairman knows this, i'll continue to ork with the chairman to be an advocate to try to tighten up the language to stop those abuses and to make sure that we help the very people that the gentle lady from washington talked about. so i urge my colleagues a no vote for now. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we will continue to work with you on these important issues. mr. levin, you're recognized.
5:09 pm
>> we've addressed the abuses and have tried to effectively curtail any abuse over the years, but how do you end abuse by eliminating the provision. how does that work? how do you do that? and mr. tiberi you said the chairman has a major balancing act. that's true, but what we very much object to is the imbalance in this bill. this bill has this limit of 1.5 or more than that in terms of deficit increase, but what has happened here is instead of trying to address perhaps a problem in this provision,
5:10 pm
there's instead been immense benefits in so many ways for the very wealthy, so we don't deny for a minute there is a balancing act, there is in every tax bill, there was 25 years ago or 30 years ago but what we very much object to, mr. tiberi, is how you balanced and where you put things on the scale and when you put the scale up essentially what you have is the elimination of many provisions that have helped the middle class and lower income people who are trying to join the middle class -- >> will the gentleman lead? >> let me finish. and then you put on the scale, you pile on benefits for the very, very wealthy and so i
5:11 pm
don't think you should congratulate yourselves on the balance because its so imbalanced, instead you ought to join and support this amendment as a way to say you need to change the balance. i'll yield. >> so, again, big supporter with the housing tax credit and big supporter of the -- there are more people under this bill, there are more americans who at the lower end will not pay income taxes, distributionly according to joint tax, mr. bart ho barthold can answer that question based upon the tables. more americans at the lower end who will not be paying -- >> let me just say. >> i'm just refuting a statement that you made, mr. levin. i'm not going to argue with you. i am going to argue with you on the low income and middle class americans -- >> okay.
5:12 pm
>> they will be paying less taxes under this bill. >> all middle class people will not be paying less taxes. that is become very clear. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kind you're recognized to speak on the amendment. >> i do want to speak in favor of the amendment. this amendment gets to the juice that makes a lot of the projects go back home. it's an important incentive that creates these public/private partnerships that make things happen in each of our states. what's more it's not the a huge hit in the tax code as far as the revenue implications. we're talking about a bill that's delivering a 44% marginal tax rate reduction for corporations in this country and we're taking away private activity bond incentives in the code that makes so many of the vital programs back home essentially including the low-income housing projects that we all have in our community as well? the joint committee on taxation whose been sitting here silently
5:13 pm
most of the day, that four fifth of the bills aggregate tax cut will go to corporations or business owners making over $260,000 a year and that 21% of the benefits in this bill will actually reach individuals in middle class families. you talk about a waiting that is so disproportionate to what's needed right now to help working families and the working class around the country and yet the private activity bonds is something that helps projects move forward that benefits all of our communities, so if we can at least approach tax reform in this debate under the philosophy of first do no harm because this has been a vital program that's proven its worth over and over dwaen, that would be a good place to start actually in taking a run at the code and ield be happy to yield to my friend from washington state. >> thank you, mr. kind. mr. chairman, i'd ask a unanimous consent request to submit on the record a letter from the fred hutchinson cancer
5:14 pm
research center. they -- they're letter talks about their opposition to eliminating the private activity bonds and so just ask your -- >> without objection. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. you're recognized to speak on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to first tell mill friend mr. pascrell i'm not on mars, i'm here with you and when i asked you the question, it was because let's face it, there are abuses in private activity bonds. there are abuses and we have to admit there are abuses whether it's a golf course, whether it's stadiums, all these things -- these are abuses. and i was asking the question because i also -- like my friend mr. tiberi am in support of low-income housing credits. i was asking the question because of this -- i asked you specifically does this zero in to low-income housing credits and you said, of course, but then you started down this path. i would not support this
5:15 pm
amendment because it's too broad and takes into consideration too many things that are also include of abusive issues. i do believe that we have to make sure that the -- and that's one of the reasons why i believe low-income housing credits are involved and still in the code but again, i think every time i say something to you, you tell me i'm either on mars or jupiter or whatever. i'm just trying to get the specific answers so i would not support this amendment but i will yield. i'll yield some time to you. >> thank you. my friend from ohio because the legislation is brought and not only deals with low-income housing, it deals with historic money, it deals with p.a.b. money. it deals with a lot of things. that's why i responded to it. i'm not just going to respond to one part of the piece of legislation. you've read the whole thing
5:16 pm
yourself. it is a broad part of the bill and that's why i responded the way that i did. >> again, we are friends. we need to keep it friendship here and we will, no matter what -- >> and we'll be friends on mars too. >> but i do say, you know, as i read this and of course we just get this today, it says increase in low-income housing credit and that's what i'm a supporter of. i know mr. tiberi and probably a lot of members on both sides are supportive of. but i think there's also abuses which we know there are abuses in private activity bonds it's one of the reasons i would not support this. >> no one in this group of democrats, republicans accepts or in any manner shape or form hides abuses. we with all want to get rid of it but you don't throw away the larger program because of those abuses, because if you do that, you'll think you're solving the problem but you're not. it'll only show up another
5:17 pm
place. history shows this. so we're not for advocating abuses, but private activity bonds as an example, part of all this legislation is something that i know you've supported in the past and i know that's the only way sometimes -- >> taking my time back. we're running out of time but i'll always be friends with you on jupiter, mars, whatever. >> the time is expired. mr. chairman, you know and you know my support of the low income tax credit. i think you as a member leading the committee of recognized, i would associate my comments with mr. pascrell, about the value of this program and knowing that the low income tax credit is retained, we also have to acknowledge there will be challenges with private activity bonds being removed. i hope our conversation can continue on that to making sure
5:18 pm
that we are looking at ways to making sure that it's going to be available for low-income housing or charter schools or hospitals as this process moves forward. this is not the last step today, certainly and it is true that the reform bill we have before us is going to put more money in the hands of low and middle income folks which is going to be beneficial to them but i also think we have to take a finer and sharper pencil to making sure that the low income tax credit in particular is going to be effective and strategically look at that in the future. i will oppose the amendment today. >> thank you, mr. paul'sen. you're recognizing to speak on the amendment. >> i would like to associate myself with the remarks. the gentle lady from washington is right. earl and i are together on a pab's bill. i don't know of anything that's better for us than anything that's uplifting, whether it's low incoming housing, whether it's the historic tax credits or the new market tax credits, i agree with you. those are so good.
5:19 pm
there's studies from rutgers when you get to the historic tax credits that show the upside of that and these are mostly your job bills. the amendment is so broad, when you come to stadiums, i'm so tired of hearing about some of these people that get these breaks that don't need a break and i mean that sincerely. if wem want to give me a great for building a new car dealership, that would be great. in their entirety our concern is and i'm with the chairman on this and with what mr. tiberi has said, this is such a tough thing that we're trying to keep in balance with, all the hearings that we've listened to when we have people from the corporations that come in, let's not put all these people in the same box that these are horrible people getting these huge tax breaks. when you ask them why, why we have the base erosion problem, the answer is always the same that there's a better place in the world to go where they don't get beat up on taxes the way we beat them up and if we're 23rd in the world in places to start
5:20 pm
a business, we need to look how do we bring those jobs back home. how do we keep the jobs that are here here. i think that i am so much on board with you when you talk about some of these things, jimmy what he just said and with earl, we've been to places, public buildings, our schools, our employmepolice departments, need to have these tools in there for them. i'm willing to work forward and anything that we can do to approve that situation. i just think it's too broad. i won't be able to vote for it. i think it's positive and i think it's what we look at going forward is how do we create jobs, how do we keep jobs here in america, how do we create jobs in america and are we doing what we say we need to do. i don't want the back and forth between rich versus poor and giving big breaks to corporations. i just think we lose the whole purpose of what we're trying to do. for me it's not about saving -- not taking care of our public buildings and some of the pabs,
5:21 pm
it's about making sure that the united states of america is the best country in the world to start a business and to keep your business here and not lose it to other places that gain the system and take our jobs from us and we end up with lower tax revenue because they've left. i'm with you on the bill. i can't vote for it because it's too broad and i yield back. >> next. mr. schweikert, you're recognized to speak on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and this is one of those mr. bart hohold i'm going to need y help on this because i actually want us all to think through some of the interactive effects here of the change in tax rates, the value of the credits and also the fact that -- so let's actually walk through some of this. mr. bart hoholbarthold, the lowx credits, those still exist, are we changing those? >> there's no change in the
5:22 pm
chairman's mark to section 2. >> so that part of the equation is staying. what we're talking about right here is private activity bonds side. who are the primary purchasers of this tax exempt debt? >> private activity bonds are generally purchased by individuals. >> and the -- >> some corporations but primarily individuals. >> so the basic incentive of this is if i'm a high income individual i'll purchase this if i'm able to basically use the tax exempt for i'm getting the same yield as a corporate bond, if i'm actually in a world where my tax rates, my tax liabilities have changed, do we expect tax rate to be any effects on interest rates on these types of bonds in an environment where marriage narl tax rates have been reduced? >> well, the simple answer is
5:23 pm
yes. there's multiple aspects of the legislation that would effect the market for tax exempt bonds, sir. classic supply and demand, the elimination of the ability to issue private activity bonds. you've left governmental bonds unchanged. that would change the supply of potential tax exempt instruments in the market, it would tend to reduce that supply. on the other hand, as you were noting the demand for tax exempt debt by investors is determined by competing investment opportunities and comparing the aftertax rate of return, add that to the tax exempt turn -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> there's just one little point here i want to get to. do we have any sense how many in the c corporate world right now
5:24 pm
are purchasing this type of tax exempt debt? >> i do not have that at my fingertips, tax exempt debt is held by corporations, some insurance companies use it as part of their reserves as one example. some banks, particularly some local banks hold local governmental tax exempt debt. >> okay. and mr. chairman, i was just trying to get my head around the tax efficiency and the breadth of the desire for it in the world where tax rates and those have changed and we will have to get together and sort of analyze the depth of that market and the need. >> thank you. >> i want to pick up where my friend mr. kwlelly left off. we have an infrastructure funding crisis in this country. we have not kept pace. we have a highway trust fund
5:25 pm
that cannot meet its ongoing obligations and we fill that we all sorts of gimmicks and it means that state and local don't have the partnership, the private sector is really paying a heavy price for our inaction. this is the jurisdiction of our committee and i hope that we get to the point where we're going to embrace our responsibility and we will find that there's broad bipartisan support for increasing revenues, not the deficit. but i take exception to zeroing it out the private activity bonds. i've worked with mr. kelly on this. we've seen the impact. it's grown increasingly important because congress has not kept up its responsibilities as a partner with the state and local government. so i strongly support this amendment and i hope that we will reach the point, this is an area that we actually had hearings, brought people in, we'd be able to cover a lot of ground, resolve questions and be
5:26 pm
able to come together for something that we really good for the country, rather than using this bill to eliminate it. >> yield? >> and i will yield to my friend mr. pascrell. >> in clifton, new jersey, it's part of a building that's being built for 92 seniors however they can't purchase the property till next may. this bill would go into effect december -- after december 31st, this person would not have purchased the property. all the paper work has been done. and there are 3,000 senior applications for the 92 spots. this may be just a small example of what we're talking about here and it is dependent this project on private activity bonds. this is not someone who's just come in lately outstanding, perfect record on housing,
5:27 pm
delivers when there's supposed to deliver and delivers to our seniors. what do we say to this person? do you know the anxiety that's going to be created over this? there's a tremendous amount of debt. that's the last thing the senior needs, besides wondering what his rent is going to be. he doesn't need the anxiety, nor do builders need that anxiety and that's what we're creating here. so we're talking about a wide sculpt bill. that's why we have to responds. i think you're doing an injustice and i don't think you want to do it, but you're going along to get along here and i think it's going to hurt a lot of people. i ask you to reconsider. thank you. >> thank you. mr. -- you're recognized to speak on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >>barthold, when you make -- when you came up with the cost of this program, can
5:28 pm
you walk me through a little bit of the mechanics? do you just simply look at the projected loss to the treasury of the -- assuming the maximum utilization on the bond allotment? >> are you asking just about tax exempt bond analysis, sir? >> about the pab, yeah. >> sorry. i didn't hear everything you said. we've actually had a document that explains in detail how we do estimates of changes in tax exempt bonds. we actually look at a portfolio model we try to compare what alternative aftertax rates of return are to rates of return on -- that would otherwise be tax exempt how a proposed change my shift to the holder's would be and what the effective tax rates of those are, how it might change holdings of taxable instruments by taxpayers and we
5:29 pm
measure that all relative to projections -- baseline projections of issuance of different types of tax exempt securities, so for example, we've tried to track the amount of tax exempt debt that's goes to private activity bonds as opposed to governmental and different types of private activity bonds. >> are you finding them fully utilized or is there under utilization? >> currently there's as i know you're aware there's volume cap on a number of -- on a number of types of tax exempt debt. some of the volume cap is carried forward. >> carried forward. >> it's not fully utilization. >> so could you legislatively cap the carry forward or forbid the carry forward? >> ns past the congress has modified carry forwards, changed the amount of allocation. >> so you could effect the
5:30 pm
overall cost to the treasury by several mechanisms? >> there's -- at some times congress is considered sunsetting certain types of private equity bonds while leaving the rest in place. >> so congress -- >> have a budgetary effect. >> congress has the ability to look at that -- the broad use of that and make a determination on what is the highest and best use for pabs and legislate that? >> the congress in my time here has had a number of hearings related to the use of tax exempt securities. >> okay. thank you. >> the gentleman yield back. thank you. mr. thompson you're recognized to speak on the amendment.
5:31 pm
>> would you wish to speak on the amendment? questions on dwraeg to the amendment offered by representative deben any? the opinion the chair the nos have it. liked to give members a little outlook for the rest of the day and tomorrow so we expect floor votes around 1:30, between 1:30 and 2:30. we will as we did yesterday come back and vote on the committee pending amendments. we'll continue through the rest of the day. they'll be a second series of votes later in the afternoon. we'll come back and again address those pending votes. that will conclude today. tomorrow, we will conclude the markup at a time certain to be determined and i will get that to mr. neal as soon as we know. >> mr. chairman? >> yes, sir. >> couldn't we go longer
5:32 pm
tonight? >> yes we could for a certain period. >> let's make sure we can get to as many amendments as we can and we also have the option of moving the two minutes per member during the amendment debate that might also try to accelerate how many amendments are offered as well. let's look at those options. are there additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of substitute? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. pascrell for what does the purpose the gentleman seek -- >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> point of origin, the ask the gentleman to suspend while the clerk distributes.
5:33 pm
5:34 pm
the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. >> every disaster in our country is a tragedy. mr. thompson saw it first hand last month when the wildfire devastated his district. i've been fighting for disaster relief for hurricane sandy victims since 2012, relief that never came. there are still families not back in their homes today, five years later. and while we have to fight for every penny of assistance, the same tax relief afforded to the victims of hurricane katrina, the major hurricanes going back years was denied victims of sandy. this year the chairman of this
5:35 pm
committee put forward without any debate or committee process selective tax relief for victims of hurricanes maria, irma, harvey and attached it to the faa reauthorization. amazingly the bill before us today eliminates provisions from that tax relief plan passed just six weeks ago, preserving only property casualty loss deductions and only for the year's hurricanes victims. this bill is another opportunity to snub victims of dafts across the rest of the country. hurricanes don't discriminate. they don't ask if you're a republican or a democrat before wrecking devastation -- wreaking devastation. pligz should never be the determining factor in who gets relieve and who doesn't. selectively choosing relief for
5:36 pm
victims in texas, while you would deny victims in new jersey, new york, connecticut, west virginia, the carolinas, utah, is not a good policy. that's why i've worked with my friend mr. reed of new york on the bipartisan national disaster tax relief act. mr. reed can confirm to the committee that our bill takes politics out of the equation, making available robust tax relief provisions for every federally declared disaster area. victims can be assured that assistance will be there when disasters strike. it wouldn't require an act of congress every time a disaster hits. this amendment retroactive tax benefits to taxpayers who suffer from past natural disasters 2012, 2015 while also providing a package of relief provisions that are effective for all natural disasters from 2016
5:37 pm
going forward. this includes relief for victims of the recent wildfires in northern california, hurricanes harvey, irma and maria. this bill would ensure that u.s. territories impacted by natural disasters like puerto rico and the u.s. virgin islands still reeling from the devastating storms had the adequate tools and economic support. one area far from full recovery is puerto rico, our fellow citizens of puerto rico are still without water, clean water, infrastructure from after hurricane maria devastated the island in september. this hurricane came after an economic hurricane nearly a decade of recession. this bill would bring parody to puerto rico while puerto ricoens today do not file federal income taxes, most eitc recipients on the mainland do not make enough in income to file federal tax income. i ask you -- >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> i continue to reserve my point of order.
5:38 pm
this amendment is 102 pages long. i think our whole tax bill is only 429 pages long. so it's going to take it a while to get through it so i continue to reserve. >> mr. neal you're recognized to speak on the amendment. >> i think this is a very good amendment and a very good proposal by mr. pascrell. the american family in puerto rico and in the virgin islands are really suffering and i think that the difficulty that we've had in getting assistance to them considering the fact that here we are weeks later and the power for the majority of the people has not been restored. we can talk about the nature of the grid but beyond that an infusion of support here from the capital would be very helpful to the people who live on the island of puerto rico. and i heard the debate which still stuns me, when i heard people on the floor of the house say, this is a down payment.
5:39 pm
a down payment on food and water? a down payment? we should be coming to the aid of puerto rico in the virgin islands not the least of which is because it's part of the american family and when they're suffering like we've done throughout our work with the national principal whether it was texas or california or my own constituency of massachusetts just a few years ago, we want to come to their assistance very quickly and honoring the whole notion of the national principal simply says, we don't ask what your political affiliation is, we don't ask whether you live in a red state or blue state, we don't ask about gender, we simply say, we're coming to your assistance forth wiwit forthwith. >> mr. nunez. >> i make a point of order on the amendment because it's not germane to the amendment. the amendment violates house
5:40 pm
rule 16 because it amends the social security act. >> does the gentleman wish to speak on the point of order? >> if this isn't germane's nothing germane. we ought to go home right now, hit the gavel, good-bye and pass whatever you want to pass. this is talking about our citizens. this is saying puerto ricans aren't second class citizens and jersey people aren't either. this is saying to you, you have a responsibility to, everybody mr. nunez. me included. and you discriminate against me because i'm from new jersey, we'll settle that outside but we'll settle it right here and now. that's what this is about. don't give me the baloney about what's germane and not germane. we could go every one of these amendments to talk about germane, harry. >> will the gentleman like to yield? >> i yield back.
5:41 pm
>> the gentleman yields back. >> mr. thompson, i'm prepared to rule. i will make this clarification. >> i'm prepared to rule at this time. so the amendment's not germane because it violates house rule 16 clause 7 by amending the social security act. point of order is sustained, amendment is not in order. >> i think mr. chairman, if i may? i appeal -- first of all, i appeal the ruling of the chair and second of all, i'm going to walk out of this place if this isn't germane because you got a legal problem on your hand now. >> mr. chairman. will the gentleman appeal the ruling, mr. pascrell. >> i yield the opinion of the chair. >> mr. nunez, you move the table? >> i move the table. >> all those in favor signify by saying aye.
5:42 pm
>> aye. >> those opposed no. >> no. >> the ayes have it. >> let's be fair about mr. chairman. >> are there other amendments? >> i asked unanimous consent to put into the record my statement that i was going to make on this amendment and it impacts my district as mr. pascrell stated very much and i believe it is incumbent upon this committee to deal with these issues. they're not partisan issues and it's not just about my fire or puerto rico's hurricane, this is about every community that every one of us represent. we don't know when the next natural disaster's going to hit, nor do we know who's district that natural disaster's going to take place -- >> thank you, mr. thompson. >> i would also like unanimous
5:43 pm
consent to place into the record this letter from the mayor of the city of sonoma in my district who also takes exception to the way your bill handles people who have been effected by a natural disaster in her city. >> without objection. further amendments -- >> mr. chairman? >> what purpose? >> i'm going to strike from the bill that you just laid aside for a few moments the part dealing with the medicare section. i'm going to strike that part from the bill. i'm coming right back with that amendment again. >> thank you very much, mr. pascrell, we welcome that discussion. >> we want a recorded vote. >> are you seeking a recorded vote? a recorded vote is requested. we'll call the roll.
5:44 pm
>> mr. johnson? >> i know he's back there. mr. johnson, aye. mr. nunez? >> aye. >> mr. tiberi. >> aye. >> mr. riek conservative. >> aye. >> mr. ras couple. >> aye. >> mr. buchanan? aye. mr. smith of nebraska. aye, ms. yen kins aye. >> mr. paulsen aye. >> mr. mar comment eye. >> ms. black. >> aye. >> ms. black aye. >> mr. reed?
5:45 pm
mr. kelly? mr. kelly aye. mr. renasty? >> aye. >> ms. nome? >> ms. nome, aye. mr. holding? mr. smith of missouri? mr. rice? mr. rice aye. mr. schweikert? mr. schweikert, aye. ms. walorski? aye. mr. curbelo? aye. mr. bishop, aye? mr. neal, no mr. levin, no. mr. louis? >> no. >> mr. louis, no. mr. doggett? >> no. >> mr. doggett, no. mr. thompson. >> no. >> mr. thompson, no. >> mr. larson. >> no. >> mr. larson no. >> before blumen our. >> no. >> mr. kind?
5:46 pm
>> no. >> mr. pascrell no. mr. crowley? >> no. >> mr. davis? >> no. >> mr. davis, no. ms. sanchez? mr. higgins? >> no. >> mr. higgins, no. >> ms. sewell? >> no. >> ms. sewell, no. >> ms. chu? >> no. >> mr. reed? mr. smith of missouri? ms. sanchez? chairman brady? >> aye. >> chairman brady aye. >> strike the last word. >> what? >> the gentle lady's note recorded. >> no. >> ms. sanchez, no.
5:47 pm
>> all right. the gentlemen's not recorded. >> aye. >> mr. reed, aye. mr. chairman? mr. chairman?
5:48 pm
>> clerk will call the report -- report the vote. >> 23 ayes, 16 nays. >> there being 23 yeahs the motion talk is agreed to. are there further amendments to the nature of the substitute? ms. sewell, what does the gentle lady seek -- >> clerk reserve the amendment. i ask the gentle lady to success pent while the clerk
5:49 pm
distributes. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i withdraw my point of order. >> mr. chairman, i'm offer this amendment that would fully restore advanced refunding bonds as a formal public finance lawyer i know how importance advanced refundings are. i'm quite familiar with the fact that tax exempt -- tax exemptions for advanced refundings to municipal --
5:50 pm
>> we saw it today. tonight, we'll pull back on some of our amendments, streamline it. >> they all agree, big priority amendments. and we'll stick to one person
5:51 pm
speaking. we're not going to work any longer tonight, we vote on these amendments. and i can assure you the plan was to go through tonight. we'll finish tomorrow. the question here is -- i'd ask them to -- >> your speculation is that
5:52 pm
they're undergoing a pretty thorough revision of this bill at this point based on everything that's happened in the last -- >> something happened here today. given the nature of the chairman moving in and out. >> when did you say we're going to pull back on amendments? is that before they took the recess in the afternoon. >> around 3:00 or so when we came out of caucus. i urge that we now get down to the specifics in terms of messaging. i think by the way part of the reaction is the press accounts, what they're trying to do. they're reacting on a daily basis to what you folks are reporting. i was willing to give up my amendments.
5:53 pm
i gave up a couple, and we also will look at a couple. we are going to do 10 or 12 amendments. we weren't asking anyone to take anything off the table. then all of a sudden, we're told they're not coming back until 6:00, and we have eight or nine amendments here to vote. the result has really been, it appears to me the substantial change is coming. in their proposals. >> you think the mandate repeal is on the table for them? >> i don't know. i don't know how you could turn down our amendments opinion. >> what go think is likely to be put back in? >> i can't imagine we're not going to end up with a medical
5:54 pm
deduction for the disabled and elderly. i think one of the members of congress said, what's the big deal in giving students $200. i think we really touched a nerve. after having been here for so long. my idea is find your allies on that issue, and not lock yourself in. my allies include the home builders, realtors. that's not an unusual meeting, by the way those of us that have come from local government, we have a long history in understanding those issues. >> do you have more amendments that democrats will be offering
5:55 pm
in the morning? >> the minority has very few tools notice house. they were saying we were positioning them. you don't have a lot of tools available to you. not like the senate. you use messaging to make your argument and hope the other side may acquiesce. >> what do you think is on the table? i don't know. i can't conceive of it. this has been lopsided from day one, given the fact that you borrow a trillion $500 billion, and then you try to squeeze in all of these tax issues. it's hard to do under the best of circumstances.
5:56 pm
this could have been done if we started on this in february. it gets more raw every day that falls off the calendar. last night i don't think helped them. >> so you can be sure i'll be very interested in the 6:00.
5:57 pm
>> you just heard comments from house ways and means committee member as this hearing is still in recess, following a series of votes on the house floor. members have continued to mark up the house plan. go to our website, you can read all 429 pages of the bill.
5:58 pm
also there, mondays and tuesday's sessions. while we wait for the members to reconvene, we'll show you events from earlier today. the gentleman from new york is recognized to speak on his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman if
5:59 pm
homeownership is the american dream of this gop tax scam is the american nightmare. gop tax scam raises taxes on people who want to buy a home. tax inkreeszs solely on middle class families, as they are the ones who aspire to own their own home but can't put the cash down to buy the house. even if you can't afford your house, the gop tax scam allows you too deduct your local and state taxes paid. even if you own your home outright you will have to pay a higher tax to live under that roof. but gets who gets to keep their state and local tax deduction? corporations do.
6:00 pm
these tax changes would lead to a 10% drop of the value of a home. if you're one of the 1100 million americans that lose in a rental house, you may think you're in the clear, but you're not this bill exacerbated the crisis in afford abable housing. my amendment would make it more affordable. it creates a first time home buyer's tax credit it provides a tax credit toward people that live in rental housing and pay more than 30% of their income in and rent. finally, to help those families that live in government subsidized housing, the bill
6:01 pm
creates a new refundable tax credit. this would provide a safety net to families, seniors on fixed incomes and families in section 8 house iing. the cost of housing is growing at an unsustainable rate. congress must address this trend. i believe we can start to address this harmful trend by passing the amendment we have before us at this moment. my amendment will do just that. >> the gentleman yields back. thank you, mr. crawly about. >> i certainly appreciate the spirit of mr. crawly's amendment he here. certainly homeownership is something that we should pursue, and something we should prefer
6:02 pm
in our tax code. people can deduct interest up to $10,000 homeownership is the way most americans build equity and wealth. it certainly gives them a stake in society and all these things are things we should pursue again, this is almost the form of another entitlement, i think that the american people would prefer instead of entitlement, they would prefer opportunity. i think that's what our bill does. we use the limited dollars that we have to give middle class taxpayers $1200 or more every year in their pocket. and by stimulating the economy and creating jobs, we give people the ability to lift themselves up, they can use that money if they choose to to put a downpayment on a house.
6:03 pm
you know, as a your honor tax lawyer in muyrtle beach, south carolina, i got involved with homelessness early in my career. i became the president of the local homeless shelter. and ran the thing out of my law firm, kept the books and did the administrative work for 10 years, i saw firsthand the effects of homelessness, and i also saw, we in our homeless shelter, we had a policy that you couldn't be there unless -- you could only stay for a limited time. and you had to be either working or looking for work. they took us through that challenge.
6:04 pm
we gave them opportunity. and i think that -- i think that is the best way to help people is to give them opportunity not entitlement. i believe that at it's core, that is what our bill is all about. our bill for stimulating the economy will bring more jobs. bring some of these 90 million americans that will try to find a job back in the workforce. it will raise wages. it will also put $1200 a year in the average family of 4's pocket. all these things give them the opportunity to move up the ladder and acquire their own house without the need for another entitlement. i yield back. >> the gentleman from south carolina said that this credit would be more of an entitlement than an opportunity.
6:05 pm
and i beg to differ. the reality is, this amendment would reinstate an $8,000 tax credit for taxpayers purchasing their first home. what we're doing is incentivizing homeownership. it's the cornership of our democracy, it's definitely the cornerstone of working class middle class families. we should be giving people the opportunity to see the behavior we want to see. we want to see individuals and families get homes that they own. >> the committee will come to order. >> at this time we'll consider
6:06 pm
postponed amendment votes. questions on the pasquale amendment and the clerk will call the role. >> mr. johnson? mr. nunes? mr. nunes no. mr. tea berry. mr. reichert. mr. reichert no. mr. rascom? no. >> mr. buchanan no. mr. smith of nebraska no. miss jenkins? miss jenkins no. mr. paulson? mr. paulson no. mr. marchant no. ms. black no. mr. reed no.
6:07 pm
mr. kelly? mr. ranacy, no. mr. meehan? mr. meehan no. ms. nome no. mr. holding no. mr. smith of missouri? mr. smith no. mr. rice? mr. rice, no. mr. schweichert no. mr. cabello. mr. bishop? mr. bishop no. mr. neil, yes. mr. levin yes. mr. lewis. mr. lewis yes. mr. dogget. mr. thompson? aye. >> mr. larson.
6:08 pm
mr. blumenour, aye. >> mr. kind? >> aye. >> mr. pasquale yes. mr. crawly aye. >> mr. davis? mr. davis aye. ms. sanchez? ms. sanchez aye. mr. higgins? mr. higgins, aye. ms. sewell, aye. ms. chu, aye. mr. johnson?
6:09 pm
mr. johnson no? the gentleman is not recorded. mr. doggit, aye? mr. teaberry? mr. teaberry, no. mr. kelly? mr. kelly no. mr. carbello? >> no. >> mr. carbello no. mr. larson? chairman brady? >> no. >> chairman brady, no.
6:10 pm
>> mr. chairman? 15 yays, 24 nays. >> the agreement is not agreed to. at this time we'll consider questions on the amendment. and the clerk will call the role.
6:11 pm
>> mr. johnson? mr. johnson, no. mr. nunes? mr. nunes, no. mr. teaberry? mr. teaberry, no. before reichert? mr. reichert no. mr. buchanan? mr. buchanan, no. mr. smith of nebraska, no. ms. jenkins, no. mr. paulson, no. mr. marchant, no. ms. black? >> no. >> mr. reed? no. mr. kelly, no. mr. renacy? no. mr. meehan, no. ms. nome? no. mr. holding? mr. holding, no. mr. smith of missouri? mr. smith, no. mr. rice? mr. rice, no. mr. schweikhert, no.
6:12 pm
mr. carbello, no. mr. bishop, no. mr. neil, mr. neil yes. mr. levin. mr. levin yes. mr. lewis? >> yes. >> mr. lewis, yes. >> mr. doggit, yes. mr. thompson? >> aye. >> mr. larson? >> yes. >> mr. larson, yes. >> mr. blumenour, aye. mr. pasquale, yes. mr. davis? aye. ms. sanchez, aye. mr. higgins? mr. higgins, aye. ms. sewell. >> aye. >> ms. delbenny, aye. >> ms. chu, aye.
6:13 pm
>> chairman brady? >> no. >> i was unavoidably detained and i would like to record an affirmative on that vote. >> clerk will report the vote. >> 16 yays, 24, nays. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the question now is on the doggit amendment, and the clerk will call the role. >> mr. johnson? no many mr. nunes? no. mr. teaberry? no. mr. reichert? no. mr. rascom? no. mr. buchanan? no.
6:14 pm
mr. smith of nebraska? no. ms. jenkins? no. mr. paulson, no. mr. marchant no. ms. black? no. mr. reed, no. mr. kelly, no. mr. renacy, no. mr. meehan? no. ms. nome? no. mr. holding? no. mr. smith of missouri? no. mr. rice? no. mr. schweichert, no. mr. carbello, no. mr. bishop? no. mr. neil? yes. mr. levin? yes. mr. lewis? yes. mr. doggit? yes. mr. thompson? aye.
6:15 pm
mr. larson? yes. mr. blumenour? aye. mr. kind yes. mr. pasquale, yes. mr. crawly? yes. mr. davis? yes. ms. sanchez? aye? mr. higgins? aye? mr. sewell, aye? ms. chu, aye. chairman brady? no. mr. chairman. >> the clerk will report the vote. >> 16 ayes, 24 nays.
6:16 pm
>> the agreement is not agreed to. the question now is on the levin amendment, and the clerk the call the role? >> mr. johnson? mr. johnson? no. mr. nunes? no. mr. teaberry. no. mr. reichert? no. mr. rascom? no. mr. buchanan? no. mr. smith of nebraska? no. ms. jenkins? no. mr. paulson? no. mr. marchant? no. ms. black? no. mr. reed? no. mr. kelly? no. mr. kelly no. mr. renacy? no many mr. meehan? no many ms. nome? no.
6:17 pm
mr. holding? no. mr. smith of missouri? no. mr. rice? no. mr. schweichert? no. ms. walorski, no. mr. carbello, no. mr. bishop no. mr. neil? yes. mr. levin? yes. mr. lewis? yes. mr. doggit? yes. mr. thompson? yes. mr. larson? yes. mr. blumenour? yes. mr. kind? yes. mr. pasquale? yes. mr. crawly? aye? mr. davis aye? ms. sanchez? aye. mr. higgins?
6:18 pm
aye? ms. sewell? aye? ms. delbenny, aye? chairman brady? no. >> the clerk will report the vote? >> 16 yays and 24 nays. >> the question now is on the lewis amendment, and the clerk will call the role. >> mr. johnson? no. mr. nunes? no. mr. teaberry? no. mr. reichert? no. mr. rascom? no. mr. buchanan? no. mr. smith of nebraska?
6:19 pm
no. ms. jenkins? no. mr. paulson? no. mr. marchant? no. ms. black? no. mr. reed? no. mr. kelly? no. mr. renacy? no mr. meehan? no. ms. nome? no. mr. holding? no. mr. smith of missouri? no. mr. rice? no. mrs. schweichert? no. mr. carbello? no. mr. bishop? no. mr. neil? aye. mr. levin aye? mr. lewis? aye. mr. doggitt? aye. mr. thompson? aye. mr. larson? yes.
6:20 pm
mr. blumenour? aye. mr. kind? aye. mr. pasquale? yes. mr. crawly. aye. mr. davis? aye? ms. sanchez? aye. mr. higgins? aye. ms. sewell? aye. ms. delbenny? aye? ms. chu? aye. chairman brady? no. >> clerk will report the vote? >> 16 yays and 24 nays. the vote is not agreed to.
6:21 pm
>> on monday i raised concerns about discrepancies in terms of an answer i got from mr. bartold in terms of whether there was a loophole in terms of treatment of the pass through entity. at the same time, i'm told -- i think. it seemed like he was saying no. the committee was issuing a statement saying that loophole did exist. that businesses could claim deduction deductions when employees con the. i brought that to you and mr. bartold and said i didn't want to blindside anybody, this seems like a big deal. i left that. i raised it yes. seeking clarification. because it appeared to be a
6:22 pm
direct contradiction between joint tax and what your committee put out. you're rushing toward wrapping this thing up that you're writing the bill that we'll see maybe tomorrow. some of us will not have the ability to be fully participating in the legislative process. i'm perfectly willing to wait here, work with the committee for another hour or two or three or four. i would like the courtesy of an answer to the question i raised monday and tuesday to clarify when mr. bartold's interpretation is right, and there is not much of a loan hole or the committee which appeared to indicate that it was. could i get an answer in writing? >> yes, i think a letter if a letter is a good way to resolve it? >> no, i want to be able to see it, and understand it.
6:23 pm
and not have if drop out the door when the committee is leaving. we need to know what the revenue estimate was based on. this could be not just unfair to employees, but it's a potential way to game the system and lose revenue? you need to know. the committee needs to know what basis mr. bartold or the committee so that we understand what number we're working with, i don't think that's an unfair request, i don't know why i can't get an answer. >> i'll do my best to get a letter to you as soon as to believe. >> well, tom, could i ask tom right now, did the committee issue information that was contrary to what i thought your answer was to me? >> this was a question of privilege which i'm glad to honor. i would like to be able to look at the issue, make sure we get
6:24 pm
the letter to you, and if it is not satisfactory, if you would like to raise with mr. bart old, i think we'll be on the same page to have the full discussion. >> could he just tell us? >> well, because we've not been -- >> i gave him the information monday. and the committee -- in that information i gave him and you the committee appeared to issue something that was different? >> thank you -- >> i'm just asking if we could have him clarify? did the committee put that unite? did you look at it? this should not be rocket science? >> so again. i think your request is, could you get a letter in writing to your request. even though it's not required, i'd be glad to do that? and then if at some point you'd like to question mr. bartold now that you've seen the response, that would be a more fruitful
6:25 pm
discussion. >> would it be possible to ask him yes or no, if he took into account what the committee issued? >> so again. we will respond to your request. then we can have that discussion. >> well, mr. neal -- >> i understand you're not satisfied. >> mr. chairman, let me just say, i respect you, and i try to play here fair. i did not try to ambush anybody monday. i didn't try to ambush anybody tuesday. you're in the process of shutting this committee down. and you won't let me ask him a simple question that could resolve it? i think that's a good precedent to set. because you're selling me in the future you should pounce on it or try to embarrass you or the committee. i didn't do that for three days. i think you ought to give me the courtesy of him saying yes or no. after three days. >> again, mr. blumenour, you are
6:26 pm
more than a fair person. i would like to look at the issue, get you a response, and then to be able to engage myself and other members with mr. bartold on that issue, i think that's a fair request as well. we'll do that as soon as possible and give you ample time. mr. neal, you're recognized. >> just to speak up for mr. blum blumenauer here. he won't give a different issue? >> no, i think it's fair i examine the response. >> this has been a day full of suspension for members on our side. the suspense has been based on aepgsz and alteration in the schedule that is by standards that we agreed to earlier in the week. but have kept us here late tonight. in a good faith effort, members
6:27 pm
on our side began to curtail their amendments. and they came to the conclusion that they would prioritize what they felt most strongly about. and we started with about -- almost 100 amendments. after working our way through some of them, we came to the conclusion that 60 made a good deal of sense. and right now based on prediction, it looks like we may only get to 22 of those amendments, even though we caucused and said, look, in order to find a common purpose with the majority, anticipating a substantial change in a manager's amendment. we wanted to get right to the crux of these tax issues that separate the two sides. we came here beginning on monday with the walk-through, with one determination, that is we were going do focus and emphasize the
6:28 pm
middle class. and in a good faith effort, we brought those amendments up entirely consistent with that argument about the middle class who has fallen behind for years now. in terms of wage stag nation, opiate crisis. we acknowledge the issues that hold the middle class back. we wanted this to be a spirited conversation largely based upon the facts. we use the questioning period with mr. bargeold to illumen aid the issues before us, and then we went back and forth, legislative process. of contrasting opinions. now we discover here at 6:30 we are going to finish for the evening. we are likely to wait until a
6:29 pm
pretty rad can change in what has been proposed. on monday night, we were presented a 34 page document that altered the fundamental equestioning that we have come to anticipate as being presented to us. you can't do tax policy with one party in four days. how could we contrast the idea that we harkin back and herald the achievement of 1986, when witness testimony numbered 450. 30 hearings, from the time mr. bradley and mr. gephart and the time ronald reagan and jim bakker accepted the decision. four years elapsed. we did it in four days. we have a lot of amendments we would still like to put forward. we're willing to work into the night. but we don't want the surprise
6:30 pm
coming tomorrow morning that again, all of the suggestions we've had have been for naut. coupled with the fact that we've watched the revenue forecast be altered. understanding how difficult it is as i have said repeatedly, to squiz a size 12 dpoot into a size 7 shoe. our amendments have been routinely swatted away. when we sought again rgenuinely try to approve the package in front of us. i hope you can give us an idea as to how we will proceed. and you might want to tell us what transpired during the day to bring this change in schedule. >> so, mr. neal, we have adhered exactly to the schedule you and i agreed on. you asked we would do this
6:31 pm
during the daytime hours, which we have. you asked we would find ways to accelerate these amendments. we tried several approaches there. we said we would role the votes for every member's convenience. we've done exactly that. concluding after the last vote series in the house. we followed that request exactly to the point. thome intention is, as scheduled as discussed on monday, that we would reconvene at 9:00 a.m. we will continue with those amendments. when they are concluded, i do expect to offer an amendment as required brings our committee's product within the budget reconciliation number of 1.5 trilli trillion. and i'm hopeful, in fact i intend for members to be able to travel home so they can be --
6:32 pm
can meet their commitments for the veteran's day weekend as well. >> mr. chairman, we did agree, you exceeded to the wish that we had, to do the markup during the day. and that by the way is good policy for all of us. >> i agree. >> now, at the same time in our discussions, which were more than cordial, we were led to believe that we would work until about 7:00 or 8:00 on monday, same on tuesday, but we would go late into wednesday. i exceeded to that wish, understanding that people wanted to go home for veteran's day. we would try to finish late wednesday night. we did come to that accommodation that we would go late into the night. we were prepared to do that. and i'm just hoping and anticipating that we're not going to shut down the amendment process or the opportunity for our members to again offer some very important amendments they've worked hard on for a long period of time, and then all of a sudden see a manager's amendment tomorrow, when we've really undertaken an exercise in
6:33 pm
academic leather by. >> perhaps there was a misunderstanding. earlier this afternoon, i was told there were a dozen amendments left for the democrats to offer. we all worked very diligently toward those to give full and open debate. whatever is left of those dozen key amendments, we would take it up in the morning, finish them as we go forward, and then consider an amendment to come within the reconciliation number. to the extent practicable, can you see it in request. i'd like to accommodate that request. >> i'd like to ask you then -- >> i yield to you, mr. levin. >> i think you're seeing we
6:34 pm
would see the manager's amendment as far in advance as practical? >> yes, sir. >> could you tell us what that means in terms of how much notice -- the minimum amount of notice we'll have. >> i don't have a time period for it, no. the extent that we have it sooner rather than later, i think it's important you be able to look at the full picture. to the extent we can do that successfully for you, we will. it is not required. let's be clear here. it's not required by committee rules. you laid out a one-page amendment here yesterday or today without notice. >> what was the 100 page? >> on the give back act? >> i think mine was 50, 60 the
6:35 pm
same as introduced several years ago. a manager's amendment is different than a specific amendment. >> the committee rules are very clear about that. we honor those rules, but i am willing to go an extra step to try to get you an opportunity to either review it in advance as we have it -- or to be able to analyze it as a committee. we will follow regular order. not extra order. >> you're talking about the honorable thing, i think is to give us time to look after and look over a manager's amendment. so let's say the manager's amendment and the scoring isn't ready until late morning or early afternoon, will we have at least one hour to look it over and if need be, caucus about that? >> well -- >> at least one hour? >> i will not aseed to
6:36 pm
extraordinary order. i will try to give you advance -- or to give you time to study it. that is in direct contrast to this committee's practice during the affordable care act. where we were given 900 pages the night before. 300 page manager's amendment at midnight. and we began voting at 9:00 a.m. in the morning. let me be clear that we are not doing that. and so we will give you this manager's amendment as to the extent practicable for you to analyze. >> that is a continuation dispute here in the committee and congress. >> well, i -- >> that debate went on for months. >> no, the markup was not over three days. it was continuous long into the night, exactly the opposite of what you asked us to do, which we adhered to. >> there were scores of hearings
6:37 pm
that took place on the affordable care act. >> and there have been 40 on the tax bill -- >> not on this bill. >> well -- not on that bill either. it was various forms of the affordable care act all put together. it's an exact comparison. >> is the manager's amendment complete? >> it will be when we continue tomorrow. >> it's not complete. >> we've been listening very carefully to our members concerns and improvements on both sides of the aisle. we want to make sure this amendment is scored. it is within our budget instructions. that's this committee's instructions. and so we continue to make those improvements. >> mr. neal, will you yield? >> yes, i do. >>. >> mr. chairman, we remember well the discussion of aca.
6:38 pm
we remember how many hearings we had. >> not on the bill itself. >> on the drafts -- >> no, not even on the drafts, mr. levin. they were concepts, just as we've worked through 40 hearings on tax reform. >> okay, i just want to finishish. >> i just want to finish. i think what you're doing is proceeding in a few days to bring up a bill where we had very brief notice and never had a hearing on that bill, never. and now -- >> and that is coming -- >> let me finish. >> now what you're doing is saying that as soon as you're ready, you will -- >> follow regular order. >> yeah, but -- look, there's something more important than regular order. and that is effective back and forth on a bipartisan basis,
6:39 pm
respecting each other. regular order requires respect for each other. you're notth to commit to give us time. the last time -- there were several parts that were complicated. and several parts later on one of them on carried interest was misrepresented. when it came to presenting it on television. and the other one was also not laid out. and we had to spend days deciphering what was in it. you're not even willing to give us an hour on a manager's amendment which we have never seen. i don't think -- you can call regular order, you can't hide -- if i might say so. behind that without the respect of the minority of this committee. >> mr. neal -- >> i appreciate your newfound interest in extraordinary order because i was here for the aca.
6:40 pm
in fact, you were sitting right here. we received no notice of any of these amendments. we worked straight through the night, i don't know how many hours. nonof the courtesy we've provided in these three days and soon to be four was ever afforded to us. we bent over backwards to make sure these amendments could be offered, to proceed in regular order, and we have followed the schedule as laid unite opinion and so again, to the extent -- even though it's not required. i will do my best for you to either see it as it -- in advance or give you a chance to analyze it. >> i won't debate the past with you. you hope to provide us unlike monday a score on this proposal. >> to the extent practicable,
6:41 pm
and as this bill leaves the committee, i want to make it clear we are within the budget reconciliation -- >> you were within the budget reconciliation on monday, were you not? >> yes. >> the only reason we're not now, is that your amendment number one was added? >> yes, it was. as you know from your own hearings on the aca. as amendments are added or deleted, those scores are likely to change. nothing new there. and we let the process there go. >> i want to make it clear, the only reason we're not within reconciliation limits now is your one amendment. >> final question. do you anticipate that this manager's amendment could include anything, concerning the individual mandate in the affordable care act? >> in the morning, you will have -- or when this is completed, to the extent practicable we will provide you that notice, and you'll be able to analyze it. >> thank you. >> with that, the which the is recessed until 9:00 a.m.
6:42 pm
6:43 pm
6:44 pm
6:45 pm
>> so no point of order to try
6:46 pm
to change the budget? before the -- >> no. >> mr. chairman, does senate -- >> why would he vote to send the bill over to the senate to begin with? >> at the end of the day, the house and senate are driving -- there's bound to be differences there, and at the end of the day, we want them to pass off their best tax reform efforts, and we'll find common ground p.m. >> are republicans in the committee meeting further tonight to work on the amendment? >> i don't anticipate that. >> are you going to hold me to
6:47 pm
it? >> i don't anticipate that. >> are staff members working on this? >> i'm sorry? >> are staff members working on finalizing this? >> so is the chairman. members are as well. we're just -- as you know, you're always waiting for -- i want to make sure the final scores are right. and joint tax has been remarkable. so -- i don't know how they -- i'm not sure they sleep. >> is there any sort of deal to put the adoption tax credit back in to your amendment or a final product? >> we're weighing all that, because we have a lot of good feedback -- >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir.
6:48 pm
6:49 pm
that wraps up today's coverage of the house ways and means committee hearing. as members continue to mark up the house republican tax plan. chairman brady announced a fourth day of meetings will begin tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. eastern. we'll have live coverage here on c-span3. c-span's washington journal live every day, with news and policy issues that impact you, coming up thursday morning, virginia republican congressman tom garrett discusses homeland security and immigration issues, following the recent violent attacks in texas and new york city. then, journalist and author dan rather discusses his new book, what unites us, reflections on
6:50 pm
patriotism. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live 7:00 eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. 50 years ago, the united states was at war in vietnam. and this weekend, american history tv on c-span3 looks back with 48 hours of coverage. starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern, we're live from the national archives, among the backdrop of three vietnam era helicopters to talk with veterans who flew them. then prom 11:0030 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., we're taking your phone calls and tweets live with mark edward lawrence about the war in 1967. at 1:00 p.m., from washington, d.c.'s vietnam veterans memorial, a ceremony featuring remarks by former defense secretary chuck hagel and memorial designer maya lynn. on sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on reel america, a 1967 cbs news vietnam war special report. >> whether it's due to the enemy's clever tactics or the bad fighting conditions, the
6:51 pm
weather or the terrain, it seems clear that the american military offenses along the dmz has bogged down. like the marines in the mud. >> then, at 6:00 on american artifacts, we'll tour the national archives exhibit remembering vietnam. and at 8:00, on the presidency, the 1967 president lyndon johnson vietnam war press conference. >> made our statement to the world of what we would do if we had communist aggression in that part of the world in 1954. we said we would stand with those people in the face of common danger, and the time came when we had to put up or shut up. and we put up, and we're there. >> watch the vietnam war, 50 years later. this weekend on american history tv. on c-span3. >> earlier this week, veterans affairs secretary david shulkin sp


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on