tv Senate Republican Tax Reform Plan Part 3 CSPAN November 16, 2017 3:49am-4:58am EST
watch our live weekend coverage of the miami book fair this weekend on book tv. >> in the third day reviewing the republican tax reform bill the senate time -- finance committee questions about the details of the tax bill and provisions that lower the corporate tax rate, increased the child tax credit, and illuminate the health insurance mandate. orrin hatch chairs the two-hour finance committee meeting. >> i will begin colleagues who
have -- i want to remind my colleagues once again that this is a tax markup. we have had quite a bit of discussion about the individual mandate and what that might mean for the impact. the individual mandate is part of the tax code. it is well within the intended scope of the market. to rule any amendments that go beyond changes to the internal revenue code non-germane. i will rule in non-germane amendments that would put the modified market out of compliance with the committee's reconciliation instruction. that we will proceed to the consideration of amendments. we will begin by debating to amendments proposed for 20 minutes. after which we will vote on both amendments. once we have voted on those we will call on to more amendments
proposed by the ranking member for 20 minutes and vote on those as well area -- well. we will see where we are. wyden: the amendments and 146, our5 transparency amendments. are we have here some of the materials that layout record compiled from the bipartisan 1986 tax reform bill. hearings, they are orderly numbered in
starting with james baker. that with this from the , a littlenistration longer than your drugstore receipt. not much more. amendments i am offering are about as radical as senator mccaskill asking for a summary of what was actually in this legislation. the first would require a hearing, the second would require a score from the congressional budget office on the impact of the individual repeal, the number of those who would be uninsured.
hours before the committee votes. should anyone be curious about , this is a copy of offered late senator with respect to the affordable care act when this committee was considering. is before wethis report a bill we ought to have all of the essential information , be able to hear from the public, make informed choices. that nowd last night we are not even talking about real tax reform anymore. about going back to yesteryear, to the crazy
world of tax extenders with different provisions at different times. all kinds of potential interaction. i believe the american people have a right to know, where does this leave middle-class taxpayers? in year five? in year 10? what does all of this mean? 1986.ure knew in we also have brand-new proposals released on thursday that go into the staggeringly complicated subject of the treatment of pass-through entities and multinational corporations. raised ancaskill extremely important question about the provision and how there is a distinction without
much of a difference with respect to how people are treated. senator brown has been raising questions about whether the international tax provision will must improve our international competitiveness but instead lead to even more outsourcing. senator cardin asked about the impacts of this will launch your double giving. it is going to result in less giving. the american people would like to know how much. over what time? anybody got any ideas on how to correct this? they certainly need to know the real impact of his policy on individual taxpayers. we have not gotten a distributional table on the modified marks. and see a look down
number of colleagues on my side of the aisle who have asked for that kind of information. have a lot more questions right now than answers. as i told the chairman, the questions we were asking were not about filibusters. they were about trying to get some information. what is the impact on the tax credit? what happened to low income folks? we have a real crunch. sen. cantwell: in a bipartisan way. we do not know what this means for low income housing. the impact on affordable housing. a lot of universities are coming through. they want to know what this means for them. we have not had a single hearing. not one on these proposals. this is legislative malpractice. contrasted to 1987.
27 hearings, starting with the treasury secretary. on top of all of that we have got a proposal to repeal a central provision of the affordable care act. the committee had not held a single hearing this congress on the aca or health insurance coverage. think about that we went through the repeal and replace bill and now the new midnight repeal provision. we have not had a single hearing on how any of this legislation will affect middle income americans and the ability to get health coverage. how will the affordable care act provision affect the health care system? have we heard from people field?geable in the those who advocate for the patients and doctors and hospitals and insurance companies? the answer is no.
we have not heard from them. the chair will not even allow us to hear from the nonpartisan experts, the congressional budget office. . --good as tom bartel to his, he is a pro, he is knowledge they had a expertise the people of the tax office do not have. the chairman said we had 70 hearings on the provisions in the bill. i have stated my admiration and affection for him so many times. the chairman's gilding that's 00==== -- gilding that lil y. provision,insurance no hearing. none. no. repeals the deduction
for state and local taxes from the federalist papers. the first deduction in the tax code in 1916. not a loophole but a reflection of the appropriate relationship between the federal government and local government. repealing the local deduction would be -- increases taxes by a billion dollars and has a found that's profound effect on the state and local governments. meet the day-to-day needs of americans across the land. it may be the biggest change in the fiscal relationship between the federal and state government in more than a century. i have more to add but i want to yield to my friend senator backr who does not take a seat to anybody in terms of being a transparency and good government guy. i very much appreciate his interest and yield to him.
>> my thanks to both of you. >> thank you sir. i would like to ask to be added as a cosponsor. i ask to be a cosponsor to this amendment without objection. want -- during a short recess we took, i went back to my office to meet with a couple of business leaders. they had been watching the proceedings of this hearing on our television. discussedat was being , one person in the group said, we have been watching this and it seems like the roles are being reversed. i said, what do you mean? i heard you talking about
modifying the tax break that go to high income individuals and using that for deficit reduction. that is not the kind of argument we expect to hear from a democrat. he said the terms "conservative" and "liberal." what was considered a liberal is now not. i don't know what is going on here. i don't know if it is republican or democrat to say that before we take up something, legislation that affects our whole economy that we have never had a hearing on. it is one thing to have a hearing over course of a year but to say, this is the bill. these are all the big parts. answering questions, joint tax repeal, answering questions with the final product and to give us a reasonable amount of time to
discuss it. we are not talking about weeks or months but literally a couple of days. colleagues, this is common sense. my dad was a big believer in common sense. one of the things he's to say, he just say you some common sense. my dad was a republican. sense, whether you are republican or democrat, just put yourself in a position to make informed decisions. that is by having the right folks at the table. they haven't had a couple days for us to look through this fall legislation. i don't think that is asking for too much. that is using some common sense.
>> these are 10 minutes equally divided. >> they are try to make a case that everything is new. there might be some things no. new. just some things since 2011, most of which included very in-depth discussions on ways to simplify the tax code and to reform the tax code and particularly simple vacation. in 2013, the kitty just the committee bruised bipartisan papers discussing policies to fixing our tax code as a part of a blank slate approach that the committee used. at the end of 2014, a committee released a report, more than 300
pages long, discussing ideas and principles to be considered during the tax reform debate and we did that in considerable detail. in 2015, we had a bipartisan working group come all of which produced reports, outlying the various needs for tax reform. the groundwork for this legislation has been very sufficiently laid. we ought to be doing today what we are doing today. this effort has been underway and in the works for years. the democrats have all played a part in this effort. it is hard to imagine what the expect to learn an additional hearings that hasn't already been covered in the committee's extensive work on tax reform. i think we are seeing a lot of debate, delay and not much else.
they are trying to create the impression that the committee is doing something wholly new with this new bill. that is not the case. with regard to tax legislation, the committee has relied on the expertise, the analysis and the scoring of the joint committee on taxation. the information is being provided. there's no reason for this bill when he to depart -- this bill we need to depart from the tradition of this committee. we have followed all of the necessary rules. this markup while longer than most has followed the order of proceedings. we don't need to reinvent the committee process just to let the minority delay the reporting of the bill. high-yield. >> thank you, senator. >> yes, mr. senator -- thank you.
i want indicate that as my friend said, we did have bipartisan working groups. last year i was pleased to chair one of those with senator enzi and we thought we were working toward a bipartisan effort to write a tax reform bill. starting in january, now it stopped. the working group stopped. the effort to put together a bipartisan bill stopped. instead we have a purely partisan effort that is now moving with no hearings, no complete analysis of what we are voting on and in fact, we don't and so mr.e impact tworman i believe why these amendments are incredibly reasonable, and if the roles
were reversed, you would be asking as well. asking that a complete analysis of joint committee on taxation on the impact of this bill on the economy -- the whole economy -- health care is 16 of the economy. -- is 1/6 of the economy. not just for us, but for the people we represent, every american. they should have the right to look at this and get some input. sure we aremake holding hearings. mr. chairman, i strong support this. -- i strongly support this. this is the least we should be doing in terms of transparency for the public. the public has the right to deserve no less. >> mr. chairman? if i could wrap up on this. like senatordy
grassley on transparency. i really call him mr. transparency. he and i are the chairpersons of the whistleblower caucus. i would only say with respect to -- thend, that the key key distinction here, yes, there have been 70 general hearings but there haven't been hearings on actual legislative text. the senate finance committee doesn't have books like this, like they had in 1986 when james baker came in and let off the hearings. there were 27 hearings on actual legislative text. disagree with mr. transparency, but i think that distinction is really critical and why we feel so strongly about both the hearings and getting the score.
there might be colleagues who might want to speak. chairman, if you could recognize them. grassleylet senator take track of this. senator grassley go -- grassley go -- we don't operate this committee only offer off of of our intent. these legislative text is written afterwards. >> i would only say that these hearings were on the administration detailed proposals. not only do we not have a detailed proposal, we've got this paper which is not much longer than a drugstore receipt. we don't have anything -- in fact, compare this. here's president trump and here's president reagan.
that says it all. the question is, whether you get to engage on specifics as they did in 1986. that is the difference here between our view and that of the majority. >> ok, we are going to have a vote. >> mr. chairman, to colleagues -- >> i don't think senator grassley was here in the last hour or so when i brought up the question about the changes that were made overnight to the virgin islands. that is a key example of something that was just changed last night. nobody could give me an answer on how it got in there, what it was about, what was the effect. i know that you think this is been a tammy process, but it keeps changing, the details keep changing and i have to answer to
my constituents about what is in this bill and why it is there. when i can't get an answer, i think it is time to have a hearing and understand the impacts. >> i ask for one minute. thank you. the taxes, i question to the impact it has two charitable giving, housing values, the local finance. we really do need to understand what these changes will mean for state and local government. i served 20 years in the state legislature. we have an obligation to know how these changes are going to affect state and local finance. there is no question that it will. what impact does it have on health coverage? what effect does it have on housing values and prices? we know it is going to have some affect.
what impact it has on children. these are basic questions that we should take the time to have a hearing and understand what we are doing when you're affecting so much of our economy. >> senator grassley, to my colleague from washington state, what she brought up was already an amendment that was out there. you've got to remember over a long deal of time, there always been chairman's modifications of a mark. bucks ok. clerk will call -- >> ok, clerk will call role. >> mr. roberts, no. mr. imzy, no. mr. june, no. mr. byrd, no. mr. isaacson, no. mr. portland, no. cashoomey
andfinal tally is 12 ayes, 14 nay's. >> this amendment would require a certification by the nonpartisan scorekeepers at the joint committee on taxation and the congressional budget office. they are the people that are doing independent work and that no proposal in this legislation would kick americans off their health care, increase their health insurance premiums and hiked taxes on middle-class americans. after several days of discussions, it has become clear that some members in this room want to deny the consequences of this bill that is focused overwhelmingly on tax breaks for the wealthy corporations. there has been an awful luck of rhetorical gymnastics but the
hike onine is the tax $14 million -- 14 million middle-class americans is a tax cut on average across the variety of income levels. somehow a proposal that kicks 13 million americans off their health care clobbers tens of millions of others with training hikes a year after nothing -- a year has nothing to do with health care. it is just another tax cut. i've heard some of my colleagues deny these operate. -- deny these outright. keeps just about everybody in america from even getting sick. --t is what this amendment members, don't believe the
horrible consequences of this bill are real. this amendment puts this all to the test. .et's put down some protections hasty process isn't going to hurt tens of millions of americans, particularly those who can't afford it. the amendment requires certification by the joint committee on taxation and the congressional budget office that no proposal in this legislation doesn't do three things, kicks people off health care, increase on thece premiums, hike middle classes of america. -- based on three fundamental guardrails, this proposal that we are making doesn't going to affect. colleagues, the committee hasn't had enough time to consider what is on -- especially in health care. went straight to markup,
repealing the individual mandate, the coverage requirement. certainly was never the subject of a tax reform hearing in this committee. let me repeat that. repealing the individual mandate certainly was never the subject of a tax reform hearing index many. what parachuted in they relate and turned a tax bill into a and meant thatl we were going to see billions cut in health care in order to have tax bricks for multinational corporations. never discussed here in this committee. this is a "do no harm" proposal. we ought to hear from people who are knowledgeable but the budget office, the joint committee on taxation, if the bill is going
to actually get middle-class families -- hit middle-class families hard in their pockets. if it is going to make health care worse, then this amendment says give the break, come together and do the job right. >> miss chairman. -- mr. chairman. can't sit here and listen to our friends misrepresent what the repeal of the tax on low income americans -- he says he kicks them off of health care, that is not true. what it does is repeals a regressive tax against low , because whoans can't afford to purchase the health insurance as the government mandates. what we are tempted to do is provide a 43 billion dollars
of thisyears tax cut most regressive tax against low income americans for failing to purchase government mandated health coverage. as far as the premiums are concerned, i think i'll have a pretty good idea of how to stabilize the individual health insurance market that makes a whole lot more sense than holding a gun to the head of our low income americans and forcing them to buy something they don't want. when they are unable to buy it, then taxing them for it. what thee well know individual mandate does and does not do. it certainly doesn't do what the ranking member said, kick people off their health. >> mr. chairman, if i could respond. senator murray has pointed out that her bill -- and we supported, cannot fix the consequences that you have if
you repeal the coverage requirement. what they do is something called cost-sharing. it does help insurers to pick up some commitments -- some copayments, deductibles for folks of modest means. senator murray has pointed out she joins us vociferously in opposing the effort to repeal the coverage requirement in the afford. that what she is talking about cannot fix that. the majority keeps wanting to quarrel with the facts. the facts we have gotten is 13 million people are not going to have coverage. then we are going to have millions more pay substantially higher risks -- higher premiums because what we have done is we have seen fewer healthy people go into the risk pool. deny all the facts, but the
facts are still the facts. pat moynihan, one of our great predecessors, everybody's entitled to an opinion but you are not entitled to your own set of the facts. >> we still have about 2.5 minutes to go. anybody care to talk? >> miss chairman? -- mr. chairman, there have been 7 million people as of 2015 kicked off of their health insurance. they could not afford the insurance that they were required to have so instead, they not only have insurance, they had to pay a tax penalty. a tax penalty that the supreme court said was a tax. we are eliminating a tax on the lower income groups, and that ought to be a reason for doing the bill, not for undoing the bill. the speculation about what is going to happen in the future, i
think there's going to be a lot more people laid off if we keep that provision in their. -- provision in there. insurance that they are required to buy. we are hitting them twice. they are not getting insurance, and they are paying a penalty to the federal government the cause they were required to buy more than they could afford. we need to settle that part of the law separately. i appreciate the short-term thing that senator alexander and senator murray have done that needs to be done that prevents immediate case us -- immediate chaos. there need to be some longer-term things and there are things that we could do together to make sure people don't lose their insurance. we have talked about them but we haven't had outside of this effort which i took -- which i hope this is the beginning of efforts that we haven't seen
anything yet, but there are people out there who are going to have to pay a penalty that they shouldn't have to pay. it doesn't take much of an analysis to, but that. >> chairman, if i could respond. >> first of all, my colleague from wyoming is ignored the fact that people are now signing up in record numbers. that is what we are hearing on the basis of the last few days. 20 million have already signed up and then as far as going forward, and we would like to work with senator enzi on it, this committee has a hearing on how we are going to hold down one-way pharmaceutical prices? we would love to be able to talk about going forward rather than fighting a rearguard action to stop taking away coverage for 13 million additional americans and raising the premiums 10% are millions more. >> there are two stacked votes.
we will vote on that. white number two and white number 18. >> mr. grassley, no. mr. crapo, no. mr. roberts, no. mr. imzy, no. mr. corney, no. 15, no. mr. isaacson, no. mr. cortlandt, no. mr. heller, no. mr. scott, no. mr. cassidy, no. wyden,en, no -- mr. iowa's. mr. warner, aye. ms. mccaskill, aye.
it's a chairman, -- mr. chairman, no. nay's. 14 day -- >> clerk will call the role. >> mr. grassley, no. mr. crapo, no. mr. roberts, no. mr. enzi, no. mr. cornyn, no. mr. burr, no. mr. isaacson, no. mr. portman, no. mr. toomey, no. mr. heller, no. mr. scott, no. mr. cassidy, no. mr. wyden, aye. mr. abbott now, aye. mr. menendez, aye by proxy. mr. carper, aye. mr. brown, aye.
-- mr.ennett, aye midst bennett, aye. ms. mccaskill, aye. the chairman votes no. >> the amendment was defeated. we will now recognize senator bennett for his number six code amendment. just his number sixth amendment. >> mr. chairman, if the majority's tax plan does everything -- >> let's have order. .> thank you, mr. chairman if the majority's tax plan does everything that you claim, my amendment will have no effect. for 40 years, the majority has claimed that tax cuts pay for themselves to economic growth. in 1981, ronald reagan signed major tax cuts claim they would pay for themselves. by the end of their term, the
national debt had risen 62%. in the 1990's, president clinton raised taxes to balance the budget as the chairman said today, the economy boomed and by 1999, the united states senate held hearings about what to do with the $5.6 trillion projected surplus. george w. bush was elected president. and signedo tax cuts a $40 billion prescription drug benefit without paying for it. when president obama assumed office the day he was sworn in, in inherited a 1.2 trillion annual dollar deficit in an economy in free fall. though the worst downturn since the great depression, the plug-in leaders also remembered their fiscal conservatives. now after inheriting a booming stock market and 4%
unemployment, the majority wants to borrow another $1.2 trillion from our children to pay for more tax cuts for the wealthiest people in america. these majority claims cuts will pay for themselves despite everything we have seen. if they are so confident, think they should support my amendment. here's what it does. it is a higher revenue that you are promising does not materialize for three straight years, my mm it says we cannot cut social security, medicare and medicaid. we have to fill that holds some other way. not by slashing the program, millions of americans rely on. cbo came out the report that said this would require a $25 billion cut to medicare. it is a killer -- it is unclear about how your thinking about paying it. my mm it would say -- my amendment would say if you feel
the promise, you'll be able to .ick -- keep your tax cut if you don't, you cannot touch these vital programs. this amendment is not written out of a partisan perspective. colleaguens, my old circulated a letter in 2011 during the depth of the reception -- the recession and we were concerned about where we were. that letter was signed by 64 members of the senate and it was sent to barack obama and it said addressing ourly deficit cannot be done without tax reform, without entitlement dealing withthout our domestic and military spending. i think that is what we need to do. it is impossible for us to solve this in a partisan way. it is not possible for us to put this place back on a path of
and a responsibility fiscally responsible trajectory with one party doing it alone. this bill demonstrates that marriage a yes vote. >> we cannot cut social security and this markup. could you say that again, mr. chairman? >> under the budget act of 1974, any provision on a reconciliation bill that deals with social security will be out of order in the united states senate and we will not put anything in this bill about socials earning. -- social security. >> senator grassley, thank you for that and we are not saying you will cut social security tonight but we read what martin feldstein said earlier in the year and read the comments of chairman -- speaker ryan and -- orrinbrady, at
hatch said that -- did not say we would not cut social security. if we do these tax cuts, we are almost certain you will come back a year or two or three or four and have to pay for them. we have a terrible budget deficit. that is our fear. not the process tonight. what happens a year from now? >> not as long as donald trump is president at -- he said, i think wrongly so, we should not do anything with entitlements, he will veto any bill dealing with the. >> he said he would go after the cost of prescription drugs. senator scott out, then we will -- stabbing out, then we will vote. >> i think this is relevant
because we have seen this movie before with the bush tax cuts, trickle-down economics. they said it would pay for itself but it did not do that and president bush came back immediately and tried to privatize social security. he said, we hate to do this but .e have a big debt that effort was tried but we fought back. it was not successful. this amendment was within the realm of what we have seen before, and the budget resolution that was passed that allows $1.5 trillion debt to be created by this tax bill. it then instructs the finance almost $1.5 do trillion in cuts in medicare and medicaid. this is not made up, mr. chairman. this is in the budget resolution . it has been done before.
i would hope we would join together in voting for this amendment to make sure it does not happen. >> you can make fun of trickle-down economics, we had trouble -- trickle up economics the previous eight years and increasing taxes and one of 4/10 percent growth and you will not solve the social security problem with that growth. >> my dear friend -- i just want to say that people -- >> order! [crosstalk] >> i am tired of people not paying attention to the chairman and we will turn to senator portman and then vote on this, even though i do not think we should vote on it. senator portman? >> the comment was made by both of my colleagues that we have seen this movie before. , will not disagree with that the movie we saw was tax reform done right result in significant economic growth. we say that this is the first
time in 31 years that we have had a chance to make reforms to the tax code. everybody agrees that the tax code is broken. if they do not, they have not been kind attention. our constituents feel that way. american workers are losing out every single day. we have an uncompetitive and antiquated tax code. it is consigning our workers who we represent to a noncompetitive position where they are competing with one hand tied behind their back. every economist says that if you do what we are talking about to make our business is competitive and workers competitive, it will help. they disagree on how much. but the economic growth in this thing is like a movie we have seen before which was the 1986 reforms that ended up with economic growth. in the 1980's and 1990's that everyone loves to take credit for, republican and democrat. i hope is that we would look at this differently, this is not
opportunity to work together and stimulate the economy and get it moving. the congressional budget office says the growth over 10 years is 1.9%. >> mr. chairman, may i respond. >> i would like to touch on it. >> i think i have the time. what is this, mr. chairman, i get erected when i start talking. interrupted when i start talking. growth, i do1.9% not know if my colleagues think that is something that is satisfactory. 1.9% growth, we can do better. if we grow .4% more than that, 2.3% economic growth, this will not only be something that does not only affect the deficit but it starts to pay the deficit down. i think we will see that kind of growth, if we do the right
things. not every tax cut case for itself but the right tax relief does. i believe we have designed this -- there has been a bipartisan consensus on these program elements that are in this bill. the working group international with chuck schumer, this is what we came up with. having provisions on face erosion, that is what we have. this will create economic growth . we have a difference on how much but our concern is not that this proposal will cause holes in the deficit, it is we will not pass it to get our workers the ability to compete and get the economy moving again. we had 3% growth last quarter and 3% 1 -- 3.1% the last quarter before. is to part 4% to much to ask for -- is 2.4% to much to ask for? >> we have several colleagues who would like to talk. >> we will not make this an extended debate on every
amendment. >> this is particularly important. >> regular order. >> mr. grassley, no. >> mr. roberts, no. mr. enzi, no. mr. cornyn, no. mr. thing, no. mr. isaacson, no. mr. portman, no. mr. toomey, no. mr. heller, no. mr. scott, no. mr. cassidy, no. mr. wyden, aye. ms. cantwell, aye. mr. menendez, aye by proxy. mr. gordon, aye. mr. brown, aye. bennet mr., aye. mr. warner, aye by proxy. mr. mccaskill, aye. the chairman votes no. nays.es and 14
>> ok. senator casey, your next. >> this amendment relates to individuals with disabilities. country, in our work on both sides of the aisle, we hear from people with disabilities on regular basis is. . ofpennsylvania we have 9.5% people under the age of 65 with a disability. based upon the number, it is well over one million people in our state. even under the age of 65 with a disability. this amendment is designed to ensure we are supporting and making it possible for those with disabilities to have access to health care coverage and reasonably priced health care premiums. acording to the cbo repeal of key provision of the aca, the
section,sponsibility that would cause 13 million americans to lose their health insurance coverage over the decade. 4 million of those in the first year, 2019. and premiums to go up by some 10% per year over the decade. this revision to go in -- provision what rip coverage away from many american families, including individuals with disabilities. because, in addition to the coverage provided by medicaid for people with disabilities, many with disabilities use the aca marketplace for their health coverage. a are self-employed or working at low-paying jobs. they use the marketplace because they have too much in income to qualify for medicaid but not a job that provides health coverage.
these are important members of our country's workforce. people with disabilities in the workforce, they are offering for newer's, service providers, and service workers. they are working to be economically self-sufficient. right now, marketplace coverage ensures that the same americans with disabilities can buy comprehensive and affordable health care and have equal access to much-needed health care, including examinations, therapies, mental health services, and affordable medications. the amendment is two parts, number one is the joint committee on taxation and the congressional budget office will oneify the bill will number -- not reduce the number of americans with disabilities covered by health insurance, or, two, increase premiums for health insurance for americans with disabilities.
when i think of this issue, and i think of the individuals, i am reminded of a lot of families. one family wrote to me at the beginning of the year. the mom wrote about her son and was worried about the health care debate. she talked about all the ways his life was better because of medicaid. how his life is changed because of the coverage of medicaid. that could be said of someone who is receiving their health insurance, not to medicaid with a disability, but through the exchanges. nothing in this bill, and we should guarantee and certified that, if you are an american with a disability and you have coverage -- health insurance coverage through the insurance marketplaces, nothing in this tax bill will do anything to rip that coverage away from you. this should be a simple yes vote by everyone.
making sure that individuals with disabilities who have insurance today will have it tomorrow and have it next month and next year. or as long as they needed. it is a mission worthy of a great country. we call ourselves a great country and we can guarantee that. doshould try like hell guarantee it and i hope we have an affirmative yes vote on this amendment. grassley, no. mr. crapo, no. mr. roberts, no. mr. enzi, no. mr. cornyn, no. mr. thing, no. mr. byrd, no. mr. isaacson, no. mr. portman, no. mr. timmy, no. mr. heller, no. mr. scott, no. mr. cassidy, no. mr., aye. miss kim well, aye. -- cantwell, aye.
mr. menendez, aye eye by proxy. mr. cardin, aye. mr. brown, aye. mr. bennet, aye. mr. warner, aye by proxy. mrs. mccaskill, aye. the chairman votes no. mr. nelson, aye. is -- callie is 12 -- nays.is 12 ayes and 14 >> given the confidence that my republican colleagues have that people will not lose their
insurance or see their premiums and out-of-pocket costs go up, i would hope we could pass my amendment by a unanimous vote. it simply says that no provision of the chairman's mark of modified would take effect unless the joint committee on taxation and the congressional budget office certified that the bill will not reduce the number of middle-class americans with health insurance coverage or increase health insurance premiums or out-of-pocket costs. a lot ofaring discussion about whether or not this impacts real people. we know what the congressional budget office has said. again, if colleagues are confident that that is not the case, we should be willing to support this. we know that in the last number of months, since the beginning of this year, most of the time we have said in the senate, beating back efforts to completely roll back our health care system.
in talking about low income americans, the majority are on medicaid. that is how they get their health care. that hasover again, been attacked and even in this budget resolution, $1 trillion is proposed to come out of medicaid. i also think that it is very important, mr. chairman, to indicate that while people are looking for insurance, if they are on the individual market, we have seen nothing but the providence gratian trying to sabotage -- trump administration try to sabotage and race cost, copy desk raise costs, cut the sign of time, -- raise costs, the time has been cut to three months to six weeks. we are told on sundays that the computers will be down, the most likely time people are home, not working with an opportunity to spend time looking at possible
health care options for themselves. we have seen the president say he will not do -- keep the commitments around cost-sharing that address the cost for low income people. a couple of years ago, the effort on reinsurance was pulled out, which started the increases and -- in premiums. it is very difficult to feel confident that somehow, after all the sabotage of the administration, undermining things administratively, to stop the unraveling of health care and the budget resolution, which takes $1 trillion out of medicaid and almost $500 billion out of medicare. that somehow this piece would be assumed not to hurt people, take away health insurance, and raise costs. if that is the case, everybody should be willing to come together and agree on this amendment. >> mr. chairman?
>> senator grassley. >> obamacare increase taxes 21 different times. we want to repeal one of those tax increases. and all of a sudden it becomes a health care debate. iowa, 52,000f people will benefit from this because they are paying that tax on the obamacare tax penalty. 85% of those people are under $50,000 for your income. it should be quite obvious that we are reducing taxes to help the people at the lowest end of the income scale. fromould not be detracted it by somebody making a health care debate of a tax bill. >> mr. chairman? senator mccaskill? >> the reason this is relevant
-- this discussion about health care is because the reason you are doing this is so you can -- your $320 billion leader said it out loud yesterday to the ceo group, so you could make the corporate tax cuts permanent. you needed the money. let's look at the document where the money comes from. if all you are doing was getting rid of a tax, this would not get you any money. getting rid of a tax cost you money. if we were just getting rid of the tax, you would be $43 billion in the hole, because that is how must this generates. rather than being $43 billion in the hole, you have $320 billion to spend and where does it come from? $185 billion in reduced subsidies. the only people entitled to the subsidy are people who make less than $50,000 per year. billion in reduced medicaid
subsidies. coming $364 billion directly out of subsidies and medicaid. that is where you are getting your $320 billion. that is why this debate is relevant. those numbers are cbo numbers. that is why it is important to have a debate because what will happen is that those people will get sick and they will still so -- show up at hospitals and all of our constituents will pay bill through higher premiums. >> we are trying to get this government under control. it is not under control. one reason is not because of this continual plethora of spending. senator toomey? >> the operative part of this amendment asks for the joint committee on taxation, the congressional budget office to certify the bill will not reduce the number of middle-class
americans with health insurance coverage. today,testified earlier there is not a word in this bill that causes anyone to lose their coverage. we do not change any rules about medicare, medicaid, nothing of the sort. what we are doing is repealing a tax on people who cannot afford obamacare policies. 83% of the state, people who pay the tax on less than $50,000. that is not the only way we are saving people, working-class, middle income americans will save significantly. and the fact they save significantly on the tax bill will make health insurance more affordable for them. i urge my colleagues to vote no. >> if i may close -- >> then we will vote. >> thank you. the folks who can answer the questions on coverage were not allowed to be here. that is the congressional budget office. ones that have
indicated that we are talking about 13 million people losing their health insurance. there is a whole range of groups that know a little bit about health care, from the american academy of family physicians, aarp, the american academy of pediatrics, the american college of physicians, osteopathic associations, march of dimes, heart associations, cystic fibrosis association, american cancer society, multiple sclerosis society, it goes on and on and on. who of close this. knowpose this because they it will affect people losing health insurance and other people seeing rate increases. we have heard this, 10% per year, the bottom line with this is that people still get sick whether they have health insurance or not. , walk into the emergency room
we have cut in half the number of people that walk in and cannot pay which as stabilize the small group market in my state, the small business association of michigan says it has been stabilize the last five years and we have seen things stabilized or go down in the larger markets because they're not paying for folks walking in that do not have insurance and cannot pay. this reverses that. i would have to say that in michigan right now, 97% of our children can see a doctor and mothers and fathers can take your kids to the doctor. that is a good thing. reduction in a 50% people who walked into the emergency room that cannot pay. that is a very good thing. if my colleagues believe what you are saying that this will have no impact, this amendment should not matter to you. we would feel a lot better if we knew there was a guarantee that people were not going to lose
insurance and that their premiums and co-pays were not going to go up as a result of this. >> the joint committee on taxation has identified how this for low andefit middle income earners. and for small business as well. at this point the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. grassley, no. mr. crapo, no. esther roberts, no. mr. indy, no. mr. cornyn, no. mr. burr, no. mr. isaacson, no. esther portman, no. mr. jimmy, no. as for scott, no. esther cassidy, no. -- mr. cassidy, no. aye. wyden,
proxy.endez, aye by mr. garber, aye. mr. cardin, aye. mr. brown, aye. mr. bennet, aye. mr. casey, aye. mrs. mccaskill, aye. mr. chairman, no. >> the clerk will report the result. >> 12 ayes and 14 nays. >> the amendment is defeated and we will take a 10 minute break and come right back. >> cockrum we are taking a 10 minute break -- how come we are taking a 10 minute break? >> i do not know.