tv Senate GOP Tax Reform Plan CSPAN November 16, 2017 8:29pm-10:47pm EST
announcement of more ownership in the financial sector -- it was announced after the president left. i wonder if that came up in the conversation between the president and if that was part of any ongoing conversations that was reached? ms. sanders: i don't know if that specific thing came up. reporter: the president's statement yesterday that he and president xi said there will be no proposals regarding north korea. what is your understanding, the president's understanding what he and xi agreed about that and does the president stand by that statement yesterday? >> you can find these events is mandatory. back to the senate finance committee, reviewing senate tax reform proposal. >> for people living in poverty -- of,, with a most a quarter our children living in poverty, struggling with flat wages, higher education, the cost of
housing is up, and health care. it seems to me we could have thought about a better use of this money then giving $39 americans 1% of making over $1 billion a year. by the way, year after year after year. that's why this is so huge. meeting with some of my colleagues that president trump called into. i'm not saying anything that already hasn't been put in newspapers. one thing he said was how terrible he said this plan is for the rich. i don't refer to people that way , but he had to throw in that the rich would get something. we know they're getting $68,000 on average, as a result of this plan, where as people, 90
million people, not 570,000 people, are earning salaries of $50,000 or less who have been talked about here today, getting on average $160, seven dollars and $.50 a paycheck. i'm telling you, i don't know what it's like in other states, but colorado's farmers and ranchers will not be fooled by talking about percentages and rates. --y are going to have money they will see that $39 billion , a huge amount of this goes to taxpayers in america. ist gets worse about this that it's not paid for, which means our children are going to once again get stuck with the bill. they don't have a vote in this room. generation doesn't have a phone in this room. they have only us, republicans and democrats working together. for years, both sides have found
it a lot easier to/investments in our children's future, and in our world's poor infrastructure, bridges, education, innovation, while loading them with the debt . i know everyone in this room worries. that's why you are here. i have worked on so many projects with people on the other side of the aisle. i believe it. >> the question tonight is, are we going to ease the burden on our children, or add to it? when one thinks of this tax plan -- and we have debated intensely this evening, and i appreciate, mr. chairman, the way you have run this committee -- surely we can agree it's wrong to burden our kids and grandkids with another 1.5-2 $.2 trillion in debt.
we have no idea what challenges they are going to face. this is the same freedom our grandparents and parents have the same decency to provide all of us. that strikes me as a reasonable expectation, if not an essential the for those of us with responsibility of public office. my amendment is simple: it's as any american-born after january 1, 1982 would not have to pay for the 1.5-2 $.2 trillion in this new debt creating with this bill. ,iddle-class people in colorado whether they are democrats or republicans, will not appreciate the fact that they and their children are being asked to finance a financial -- an economic giveaway to people who have earned. they are at the top. i don't begrudge them, but there's a lot better use of that money to help lift wages in the middle class and to help lift our children out of poverty
three that would be a worthy goal for us for democrats and republicans, working together in a bipartisan way, not saddling them with another $2 trillion in debt. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment. say, you cannot tax your way out of the deficit and debt problem we have. we have a fundamental structural problem, which is that our big entitlement programs grow faster than the economy. as long as that is the case, we are not on a sustainable fiscal path. you can't fix that with taxes. until we have bipartisan agreement about restructuring these programs so they are growing at or more slowly than the economy, we are making this problem worse. i would be delighted to work with anybody on both sides of the aisle to change the growth rate, because it is the trajectory of those programs that is the driver of our deficit and our debt. >> repair to vote on this?
>> i like to respond, i have 20 seconds what -- left. i would like to work with you on this issue. to describe our position, when a billion in tax relief for people at the top as punishing the rich, which is what you said earlier tonight, i think it's an unfair characterization of our position. i agree with the 64 senators that signed the letter in 2011, saying we need entitlement reform, tax reform, and we need to deal with discretionary spending. tonight, we are only dealing with one of those things in a totally imbalanced way. >> the clerk will call the roll. [voting]
charitable giving. this tax reform proposal has potential to dramatically reduce the amount of charitable giving. they hurt our communities -- under this tax bill, it's estimated that charitable giving would drop by $13 billion. i'm sure that people don't want that to happen, but that's what's in this bill. charitable giving would drop by .bout $13 billion a year that's become blind total of all the donations to the united way, feeding america, catholic charities, salvation army, ymca, boys and girls club, habitat for humanity, and the american cancer society in 2016. that's the combined charitable giving to all of those critical
organizations. it's 144 million meals for people who are going hungry. our amendment will allow many more americans to receive a tax benefit from charitable giving. tax reform should not be about squeezing money for americans who are trying to help people in need to put more money into pockets of the wealthiest among us. that's not right. it's not fair, and will have a serious impact on our communities and on people across the country. i would urge colleagues to support this amendment. >> mr. chairman, we have made charity on this committee, a bipartisan effort. i'm appreciative of senator thune. he and i were -- for close to five years now, have led a bipartisan effort. basic problem with the position is, the charitable deduction is a -- it is not a
loophole. a report on taxation, and they found that the charitable deduction would be cut by 30% next year under the house plan. know, marking appear today -- this looks much different. we are shared -- charitable people. .e will always help this makes a big difference, both from the size of the gift and number of the gift. when the joint committee on taxation says the house plan will cut terror -- charitable donations, said of trampling on a bipartisan effort that they let in this committee now -- senator thune has been great. talk?they else want to clerk will call the roll. [voting]
>> thought someone was going to make the point that we are keeping the charitable deduction. >> we are. >> it's in the bill. >> that's right. >> those people who are taking advantage of that -- which is an interest interest rate for a lot of families, $24,000. these people would not like -- it like a huge tax cut. i think a better economy is very important. i support charitable giving. so, we keep it, and i'm glad we do. people were doubling their standard reduction -- deduction.
thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, if i might. i would say two different things. there was a personal exemption for each child in your family. it's not a good trade for most families. doing this the way you have done in the bill means, people in this country who father texas, would no longer get any kind of benefit from the deduction. i can only tell you that those involved in providing important work across our country are totally opposed to that. if they estimate that charitable giving would drop by $13 billion a year -- we look at all the important work that is done by
all charities, they are adamantly opposed. >> i want to get to a vote. you said just then that 95% of people now -- that's not accurate. most people take the standard deduction right now. yet, this goes up. 90% can't do it now. it's not accurate. -- here's a yield >> mr. president. >> mr. chairman, i believe the senator from michigan said if you have additional children, you are somehow being denied of the deduction. in addition to the standard deduction, there is a child tax credit for each child, correct? >> doubling the current tax credit. that's what i thought. >> if i might just expand on that, because it involves putting the whole picture
together, which is why would you put it together, this is so skewed to the wealthy and wise. the latest numbers shows folks under $75,000 a year will end up with tax increases. .s a double standard deduction there's also illuminating the personal exemption. ,es, the child credit is double but working people will not get the benefit of that. currently $1000. it goes to $2000, but only an additional $100,000 of that -- an -- only an additional $100 goes back to that. from 75,004 in individual to $500,000, half $1 million. increasing this, so it
can get a child credit, but only miniscule he increasing the benefits of working people. >> i think we want to go to a vote. let me clarify here: it doesn't take any would thing away from this. somebody gets it at a higher income also. chairman, let's vote. >> could you jealous how many of the $2000 the new credit is refundable? >> the amount refundable is $1000. $1100 would be refundable. >> working folks will get the benefit of 2000. >> the clerk will call the roll. [voting]
-- is 20 brown,ment modified ht tc. that's for opioids. tonight, in my state, someone will likely die of an overdose. statistics believe -- this includes 11 ohio wins in this epidemic -- ohioans to this epidemic every day. ohio-ans are0,000 getting addiction treatment because of coverage they got through the affordable care act. why,00 ohio-ans which is governor kasich has stood for this against medicaid cuts. bill threatens their treatments, according to the congressional budget office. changes made in this bill and the dead of night, as we know,
will kick 13 million people off of their insurance. that doesn't mean it would increase premiums. the issue here is 13 million people will lose insurance under this legislation. this gives anyone who loses their insurance -- as a result of this bill, a tax credit to pay for addiction treatment. those 240,000 people in ohio, and i believe the number is 9 million. it might be less. ohioans are getting addiction treatment. if any lose their treatment because of this tax health care bill, they would get a tax credit to pay for their addiction treatment. that's the least this committee could do, mr. chairman, to show working americans and americans that are addicted that we actually do care about them, not just talk about caring about them. >> any other comments? the clerk will call role. [voting]
senator hatch: yes. this makesen: permanent the to your craft beverage provision in the chairman's modification. this has a craft -- this is part of a craft beverage bill i wrote with sen. blunt: i want to take a couple of minutes to describe why this short-term version, the tax reform gone wrong, and it major -- a major lost opportunity. the legislation i wrote with sen. blunt: give a booster shot to a growing industry that is for good paying jobs in my state, and the states of many represented on this committee. senator blunt and i made a judgment that with this bipartisan bill, we could help this industry grow. in our state, we have grapes, people who make the equipment,
truckers, the hospitality industry. economic multipliers. senator blunt and i said we are going to give the industry a chance to grow. the bill 55 senate cosponsors. at this point, i'm not sure you can get 55 senators to agree that water is actually what -- wet. [laughter] >> we get 55 colleagues on board. the house companion has 296 for this. what is in the germans modified market is not our whole bill. it's to your version of my bill. i want to be clear -- a two year version of my bill. i want to be clear as to why this is a problem. the department has a to your provision that would expire before they could write the regulations to implement it. out of the gate, the short-term version's can be a dud. it's not just an implementation issue.
as i talked about last night, discussed with my friends from why, i don't understand there -- they are interested in taking a bill that wants to make a permanent change in tax code, overwhelming bipartisan support, and send us back to yesteryear with stop and go tax suspender policy! with the short -- what the short-term proposal does is protect cider makers, distillers, put them in a position where every year, they will come back groveling for lawmakers to extend their tax incentive. 55 members of the senate, two hundred 96 members of the house agree that the bill ought to be permanent, but the republican 296 members of the house agree that the bill ought to be permanent, but the republican plan is shortsightedness -- this
talks -- talk about a full employment program. you will have all of these groups coming back every year or two. -- i will wrapnk up by saying it is especially important that the reason that craft beverage makers are getting this doesn't have anything to do with the merits of the proposal; it's because the majority decided to spend their $1.5 trillion deficit allowance on all these big breaks for multinational, rather than something -- multinationals, rather than something senator blunt and i have tried to do. job creating bill we put forward, craft beverage producers now though are stuck with the short term bill. i think it's a missed opportunity, bad policy. more than anything, as we talked about with mr. burke told yesterday, it's another example bartel yesterday,
it's another example of how it's going to be crazy. it doesn't have to be this way. my amendment would take us back to the proposal sen. blunt: i have authored -- offered -- senator blunt and i have offered. we hope both sides of the aisle will cosponsor this legislation. withn do that for proceed the treasury department has told us is going to work! it's not like we are making it appear. they told us the to your provision expire before they get the rules right. >> if we'd like, we can go back and forth, but i'm ready for vote. : chairman hatch: if you are ready for a vote, let's vote. [laughter] >> i don't recall her conversation, but i do know we reached out to see if you would author -- offer an amendment. >> i said to my colleagues, we
never had a conversation. i would have been happy. >> we did have conversation. we were told you wouldn't offer an amendment. >> we have a wonderful thing called the phone, and you can off -- use one, colleague. >> i would like to thank the chairman for putting it in the mark. this is an important bill. men meet -- many members of this committee are cosponsors of it. the american craft spirits all support the amendment. senator blunt supports the amendment. this is of course, one that my colleagues will have a hard time with on this side of the aisle. i would love to make this permanent. you have been a leader on this senator wyden, as i said. reinstating the corporate
alternative minimum tax, obviously it's something that will take away a benefit from some of these companies that would be looking for benefits, that are trying to expand this opportunity. it sticking with one hand, giving with another dream i would like to make it permanent, work with you on that. as i said the other day, i appreciate your leadership on this. we know that: 1, what the groups you have mentioned want is to make this permanent, because they do not want to come back as part of a extender caucus, and year after year, completing and asked to hire lobbyists. that's the first thing. the second puts this up -- for 27 companies, who didn't pay any taxes last year. that's what pays for. >> the clerk will call the roll. [ voting]
up number 187. i know you're desiring to get things done, this is something just asked in the last 24 hours. as i asked yesterday, trying to understand how it got put in the dark of night, and white was there. three g4 oftrikes the mark, which was just inserted, and asks, as i said, the staff about this. i couldn't get an answer about what it does or who would benefit. here's my concern: it loses revenue. i think it would be good for us to know exactly what's the benefits of this provision is, what companies, individuals could begetting the $600 million. i'm very well aware of the challenges of the u.s. virgin islands. we just had a hearing in the energy and interior committee,
for both puerto rico and the virgin islands. i am interested in their economic future, and the unbelievable damage they have seen from past storms. provisions like this being stuck in when no one understands why, or who they are going to benefits, is of concern to me. we need to sloppiness -- stop .nd slow down of the many complexities that are in here, some of them have to do with the international tax changes in the bill, that's being rushed through. i think we need time to understand this. my amendment strikes the section. chairman? >> mr. chairman, this amendment was filed treat all members had plenty of time to look at it. this is not a new issue. ist members and their staff have been well-informed informed about this issue for years now.
it's a simple and straightforward correction of a problem in our tax code. bona fide residents of the virgin islands are allowed to pay their u.s. tax obligations to the virgin islands. the virgin islands is allowed to have an economic development that relates to the specific virgin islands source income. the rules as to what a source virgin islands source income are , for the island's economic develop and programs, have been, frankly, wrongly determined of -- for the last little while. we have been working to try to solve that here in congress for a long time. it's a simple fix, that is the internal avenue service has looked at this with no objection to it. clarifying. it basically creates parity
between the way capital gains in the virgin islands -- are treated with respect to the same way they are treated in puerto rico and other u.s. holdings. then't understand objection. >> is the senator from you was tossing this is your request?\ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> no one could explain it or the impact? >> i was not involved in that request, so i do not know. >> here is my concern. sorry. sorry. my colleague from the pacific northwest. taxu.s. virgin islands as a -- that means that they automatically apply there. this not know exactly how provision would work. it could create opportunities to shelter income in the virgin islands so that it could never be taxed. , you know, sod in
much of this bill, we are trying to make sure because again, we are seeing it for the first time. evernot know that we have had a hearing in this committee about the subject. i am not interested in creating funds to goor hedge to the virgin islands and start a new process of not having income taxed. measure.is the as i said, i do not know if you are here yesterday, but no one could explain it. it was so ready or important, why did it appear overnight? important,it was so i would have thought in the original draft somebody would have put it there. >> mr. chairman? first of all, i was not here apparently when you raise that question. it did not appear overnight. it has been in front of the
committee for years. the amendment itself was out there for a number of days. the characterization that it appeared overnight is wrong. also, the notion that this will involve the hiding of assets is not correct. this amendment does not change the general outsourcing rules, and treasury will continue to assert guidance over the policies. it simply tries to achieve fairness and the application of the rules with regard to the virgin islands. >> i can tell you that this legislation has changed daily. up fact that we have to keep with it, and that i cannot even get a table for distribution but i am being asked to vote on the amendment, is not something i am comfortable doing. and ask people to strike this section. >> clerk will call the roll. >> mr. cradle? >> no. >> mr. cornyn?
>> thank you mr. chairman. i want to correct the statement at 20%,n the quote rate it is actually 17%. mr. chairman, this amendment deals with changes that were made in the chairman's markets as related to pension plans. to acknowledge that senator portman has worked on this issue, and i thank him for his help on this issue. i am trying to get his attention. [laughter] i was trying to acknowledge that senator portman has been working very hard on this issue, and i appreciate it. we have common issues here. there are two provisions that are critical to the retirement
savings. lay workers were affected by the underlying bill. recognize the unique earning progression of church employees who cannot aboard to save as much early in their career. now applies to section 403 -- fee up to five years in determination of employment. these are essential to ensure that workers can have adequate savings. that is just the nature of the profession. i would ask that the letter from datedurch alliance, november 10, be made part of our record. mr. chairman? i asked that it be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> and i hope this bill works its way through. we must take a look at these concerns. there are unintended consequences that need to be corrected in order to not have
that consequence on those ,ndividuals, and mr. chairman in an effort to work with the committee on this issue, i would ask consent to withdraw the amendment. >> ok. i am happy you withdrew it. who is next? senator menendez. senator nelson. >> senator nelson is next. >> i call of amendment 27, amendment number seven. we just had a discussion about the u.s. virgin islands. there is something in there, in this bill, that we are helping. awayin this bill, we take two major portions of existing law that helps puerto rico.
it's a matter of fact, this is the newspaper in puerto rico, el dio, this is today's edition. it says that 215,000 jobs are at risk on the island as a result of this bill. people, our finance committee chairman was the chairman of this task force. this is a task force we did last year. what we ought to be doing for , and in fact what this tax bill does, it eliminates to tax extenders that were allowed to expire for no reason. was a section 199
deduction, which encourages production on the island. another is what is typically cover -- the rum cover order, a rebate of the excise tax to encourage employment and manufacturing, businesses on the island. and we are letting them expire at the very time that order rico needs-- that puerto rico so much help. the task force chaired by chairman hatch, of which this senator had the privilege of being apart. recognized so many things in the law where the territory is .reated different from a state
but, there were provisions in the tax law to encourage business and employment on the island. they are being expired in this bill, of all places. 65% of the island still does not have any electricity. half of the population does not have potable water yet. this is been going on two or three months after the hurricane. we should not be doing this financially to them in a tax code. let me just add this. i fully intend to help puerto rico. i am in the middle of that. i just do not want it to be part of this to deliver bill. all of our colleagues will come together to help them when we
get the facts and necessary information to do a bill for puerto rico. there are things to be resolved before we do that. that have been going on in puerto rico that are highly criticized the bull -- criticizabl and we have friendtere, work with my from florida to help solve this problem. he knows it. i would like to solve this problem. i think -- look, another way to solve it, rid of the jobs act so they can compete. any help from my democrat colleagues with regard to that. look atyou ought to that. let us sit down and help puerto rico in ways we can. it should not be on this tax
bill. i am suggesting we vote against it. >> senator cornyn? >> i want to support your comments on helping those areas that were devastated by the recent hurricanes, whether they beat the virgin islands or puerto rico or florida or my home state of texas. sympathy outpouring of , the expressions of concern that we heard from the highest d.c., here in washington, we have been told to wait, wait, wait. there will be another request from omb tomorrow which my staff has already looked like, and which they advised me is wholly inadequate. you can count on me to work with our colleagues who are concerned about all of the areas hit by natural disasters recently.
because frankly, we are all in the same boat here. and i talked about the omb and its request for areas of -- areas that have been hit i wildfires. i know of his concern about that. have some friends working with you when it comes to the supplemental. we look forward to working with you. mr. chairman as well. just do not see, with puerto rico being as devastated as it is, why you would pick on them by eliminating these tax extenders. >> nobody is picking on them. we just want to do it the right way. that is all there is to it. throwing money at things is not the right way. >> ok, then. clerk will call the roll. >> mr. roberts?
the last few moments here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am offering cantwell amendment number four. the chairman's mark eliminates the foreign based company oil related income as a source of it. this provision would cost the american taxpayers $3.9 billion over 10 years. -- or thesion provision and existing law, i hasld say, this language been in place for 25 years in order to combat tax haven type operations. the committee report from when this vision was enacted stated, "because of complex structures involved, oil income is particularly suited to have tax haven-type operations.
petroleum companies have paid little or no u.s. tax, and there boring subsidiary operations in spite of their revenue." if we go forward and repeal this provision, i wonder what and where these profits will never be taxed like any country. here, or abroad. under this regime, the profits of multinational companies 100% exempt from taxes in the united states. this new provision in the market will supposedly prevent copies with highly mobile incomes such as intellectual property to shift from the cayman islands, but the oil income is highly mobile. as the committee said in the report, oil income is particularly suited to move around and find tax haven
operations. these oil profits should be with new anti-abuse rules designed to help the taxpayers. ,learly, they will not be because we are repealing the anti-abuse rules for the taxpayers and the $4 billion will be exempt for that. -- exempt from that. to me, perhaps it is another reason why we should slow down and make sure we get it right. to be opening up new tax haven opportunities. sure we are doing everything we can as we look at the legislation. i know my colleagues are going to get into discussing the idea of wringing money back home, but there have been specific securities and the code to present this -- to prevent this. i asked my colleagues to support this amendment. i want to ask mr. barr told a
question. barthold io ask mr. know i am interested in reducing any corporation to the 20% rate and for the transition, but beyond that, i am not interested and i hope we've not done anything for the oil industry. senator grassley, it is a fair assessment to say that some part of this is complicated. the mark, there are a couple of oil concepts to think about. the point that senator cantwell brought up about foreign-based company oil related income. cory, provides that for oil related income is currently taxable under present law.
that is what's being repealed. he is income from sources outside the united states into primary products come chemicals or gasoline. from the transportation or distribution of sale oil and gas, their primary assets related to that, and other related services, which could include transportation of the oil or gas. fogei,s distinct from which is income derived from the extraction of oil and gas -- from the well. , the markark does is as noted by senator cantwell, repeals forei. it would be subject to the anti--based erosion rule that we
described two days ago. fogei, the extraction income, is exempt from the global and tangible low tax income rule. it is in the new rule, which is an anti-based erosion rule. forei is subject to it, presumably on the principle of the possibility of mobility and manipulation. extraction, fogei, is not. i am assuming that that decision was based on the back that the extraction has to -- it is not in or of itself mobile or manipulative. you cannot claim that a oil well is located in oil -- is located in ireland because it is not there. >> senator from florida. >> may i ask mr. abraham if you
may put that in everyday english? [laughter] >> i will try, senator. my colleague can feel free to chime in. of therstanding exactly asmark is tom has explained it. maybe a little more plain english is that, to the extent that you have foreign oil-related income that under current law is subject to ,mmediate tax at a 35% rate because there is no specific fore it would not be subject to immediatei, tax at the full u.s. corporate rate, which would be 20%. if the this other tax regime where it would be taxed at the minimum tax. 12.5%. >> ok.
i think you explained it. less tax for the oil companies on foreign-derived oil income. to -- if there was a specific category to be taxed at the full u.s. tax rate, which would be 20%, now it is subject to the new minimum tax. just talking about forei. >> mr. chairman? thank you. isther way of saying that that the jct analysis gave this a value of $4 billion. a loss of revenue as part of your score of $4 billion. noted,r present law as law is currently taxable. the repeal of that reflects the
revenue, the current revenue stream. is yes.e answer in your report it was $4 billion. my friend from iowa, this is the -- i call it loophole, get, whatever-$4 billion to oil companies. that, first argue of all, oil companies have been getting tax breaks for 100 years in the code. -- the senator from iowa and i are always talking about the importance of clean energy and so on and we hear the argument that we should not pick winners and losers -- but frankly, oil and gas has been the winner for 100 years. they are baked into the code. they are baked into the code. billione enjoyed $470 as a result of their current tax treatment.
new, taxable -- i call it offshore, does not have to be in the caymans to the billion in $4 additional support, funding money in their pockets for oil companies. >> mr. chairman? hatch: yes, sir. >> i think you mentioned that fogei is related to extraction. is not in ireland, nor in the cayman islands. nor in nigeria. it is my understanding that this is to prevent double taxation. would you clarify, please? >> yes, sir. that is right. law, ity, under current
is earned in high tax or high tax jurisdictions. what are known as excess foreign tax credits. those excess foreign tax credits offset any u.s. tax that might arise from a low-tax jurisdiction. it could be income that arises from a low-tax jurisdiction. the transition to a , thererial-type system would not be as much of a foreign tax credit regime anymore. a rise to a higher tax burden because of the inability to utilize foreign tax credits. >> mr. chairman? chairman hatch: i am ready to
vote on the cantwell amendment. >> could i take 30 seconds? cannot let the comments on the gentleman from the michigan pass. the fact of the matter is, 70% of tax benefits and tax expenditures go to renewable energy. i don't -- i support all of the above. we are the number one producer of windmill energy and the country of texas, but it is just an urban legend that the oil and gas companies somehow get special tax breaks. in fact, they actually pay taxes. many of these other entities simply get a check from the government. certainly i would vote against the amendment. >> could i just clarify one thing? is there any other category of foreign-based income for any company repealed, or just oil? >> just oil.
14 nos. >> we will now have three more amendments in the queue. senator mccaskill has amendment number eight. senator scott has number two. senator menendez amendment is number six. this will be followed by the managers amendment, and then final passage. so, we are just about seeing the end of this. , we will go. senator mccaskill, we turn to you. mccaskill: i note that the house will, and let me brief we speak about the subject matter. still exempt's payroll. it is not as strong as what happened in 2014, where that republican congressman tried to
make a real effort to get this abuse in the tax code carried interest. the house touched it. they did not do very well. but, it would have been great to have a debate about the carried interest provisions and the abuses of them. i think president trump has talked about doing away with them. most people have talked about doing away with these abuses. for some reason, this has been given short shrift in the discussion. especially when you guys are looking for revenue that would allow you to make tax cuts of, innt and take care some ways i think too generously, the wealthiest in this country. including my family. will not offer the amendment because i don't how it will turn out. but i think this subject matter deserves a big risk to date on a bipartisan basis. >> the clerk will call the roll.
what did you say? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator scott. sen. sc iot am going to withdraw myt amendment to, but i would: like to speak for a moment. i have a pretty good understanding and appreciation of the inns and outs of the industry. families will not be able to protect against life's uncertainties. , wee reform our tax code should not take a wrecking ball to the private sector safety net that so many depend upon. i will continue to work with you to find the appropriate solution for the life insurance industry. i would appreciate the ability and opportunity to work with to, mr. chairman, and jct
work on a solution. >> would the gentleman yield just one point on that? >> yes, sir. >> thank you for bringing this up. when you try to do this in a quick manner, there are unintended consequences. i have a life insurance company that is extremely concerned about the manner in which this has been handled. i thank you for raising >> i look forward to working in a bipartisan fashion. >> mr. chairman. one minute. i want to join senator cardin. every time somebody in our country prepares for their -- their future, covering themselves the insurance, that is one less dollar we will have to pay the taxes to take care of someone. the insurance industry is a critical part of the benefits for our consumers.
i look to join senator scott and senator cardin and others to see that we get a solution for the long-term. >> thank you, senator. as i understand it, the mccaskill amendment has been withdrawn. we will go to the nanda's -- menendez. >> on the cantwell amendment earlier, on the low income house credit, there were two provisions to an amendment.i'm happy to keep working with you . thathairman, the issue is the credits plus the depreciation losses obviously make the program less effective, and this is something you and i have been working on overall to address this issue. we want to make sure this goes forward and we continue to assess the damage that the impact this will have on depreciation rates. >> we appreciate that and we
will turn to the ranking member . as i understand, you will bring -- men thenest dead. >> sen. menendez: authored this amendment. i think it is a very important amendment and i am authoring it on his behalf. i think it's fair to say we have seen a great number of far-fetched claims by the trump administration through this flawed tax reform process. the really -- one that really takes the case is the proposition that the corporate rate taxes are going to somehow magically result, there will be this growth berry that comes out be awhere, and there will $4000 wage increase for american workers. , he is downbarthold
there consulting. i want to make sure i am stating his view when i ask about this. i asked him about this and he spent some time rummaging through that best array of cables that he has. he says it is very unlikely that this could ever come about. and yet, my colleagues have just been nodding along all through , that somehow the corporate rate cut will translate into this huge bonanza. workers ofey for the pennsylvania, all the middle-class families. the common sense menendez amendment is if you actually do believe massive handouts to corporation will cause this magical wage growth, then you ought to be willing to support some basic guardrails.
amendment, tax cuts for multinational corporations workersrsed if american ' wages go down. just tried that one on. we have been told by the trump administration that this corporate rate cut is going to $4000 into the pockets of middle-class workers. so what senator menendez says, say if't we at least , not onlyges go down did they not get the $4000, but if the wages go down, then the tax cuts for multinational will be reversed. ishink senator menendez offering a common sense check on the promises of the given middle-class families. i urge my colleagues to stand up for the middle class and vote for this important menendez
amendment. -- chairman, i am prepared some of my colleagues may want to speak, but i'm prepared to go to the yays and nays. >> just to emphasize the point again, this sort of mechanism is designed to produce the failure that it anticipates. what do i mean by that? the whole point, the way the wage growth works is to increase demand for workers. when businesses compete demand for workers, they drive up the price of wages is not a sudden fairy dust of generosity, it is a need for workers. they need workers if they make investments. they make my investments if they believe taxes will be predictable for a long period. if you tell them five years from now that all bets are off, they don't make investments, they don't expand business, they don't need more workers, and
up.s do not go this is a bad idea and we should reject the amendment. >> senator brown? >> thank you. i would like to go back to the historic meeting in the white house with the five most important democratic senators on this committee. i'm sorry for those who didn't get invited. you always learn something in this world. what i learned from that meeting was i saw the playbook on how president trump and majority republicans were going to sell this tax cut, because they fundamentally and intuitively know, the public knows when republicans are in power, the first thing they want to do is give tax cuts to the rich. it is in their dna, we know that. , he knows over 40 years, it's true, but the public almost this really knows --
viscerally knows that is what they are going to do. so the republican strategy in the white house, and i know the president doesn't always follow the exact script that senator mcconnell and speaker ryan right for him, but the president says, i bet you five times it was mimicked by my colleagues, that wages were going to go up $4000 each for american workers. some as much as 9000. they said it over and over again. they have this bank shot, you give tax cuts, then it's hard to understand. but a dozen years ago when you did the tax holiday, corporations had all this money, and of course they would be eager to give it out -- well, of course they did not give it to workers. they paid out dividends. then somebody cited great
britain. they have done a series of tax cuts, and their wages were flat, too. this is wishful thinking. i do know that the tv ads that will be run against the five most important senators on this will say, the tv ads "senator mccaskill and senator casey and senator stabenow and 700 nelson -- senator nelson are voting against a $4000 wage." we know it's coming. we know you will have way more money to promote that then we will have to defend it, but that is why the wyden amendment is so important. i just think it would be nice tonight, before we go home, to just acknowledge this is not for the middle class. it is for the rich.the whole thing about higher wages is a good selling point, but we know companies don't just give away higher wages just because they have more money. corporations are sitting on a lot of money and profits now , and wages are not going up.
spare us the bank shots, spare us the sarcasm and the satire. >> i'm going to just say to you peoplecome from the poor , and i have been here working my whole career for people that don't have a chance, and i really resented what he is saying that i'm doing it for the rich. give me a break. i think you guys overplay this all the time, and it gets old. and you ought to quit it. >> mr. chairman -- >> -- i get sick and tired of it. it's not true. >> with all due respect, i get sick and tired of the rich getting richer -- >> regular order! avel knocking] listen.
i bothered you by allowing you to start off here. what you said was not right. that's not what i'm saying. i come from the lower middle class, originally. we didn't have anything. don't do that stuff on me. i get tired of that crap. let me just say something. if we worked together, we could pull this country out of every mess it is in. we could do a lot of the things you are talking about, too. i think we have a reputation of working together. >> let's start with chip. >> i have had more bills more than the rest of this committee, passed for the benefit of people in the country. all i can say is i like you personally very much, but i'm telling you, this bull crap really gets old. to do it right at the end of this was not right.
mrs. mccaskill. mr. chairman? >> no. >> the chairman, no. >> i'm so upset i can't even say no. >> mr. chairman, the final tally is 12 ayes, 14 nays. >> i have a hedge amendment number 25, modified, including changes to mark as well as a small handful of accepted mend -- amendments. please walk us through the manager's amendment. >> mr. chairman, i would like to echo the chairman's request. we need this summary. we just got the draft to it. there are a lot of changes in it. we haven't had any time to review the changes. we haven't had a chance to ask any questions. can tell, folks on
the other side went to the back when we were taking the votes and have talked about making the changes. it seemed that would have been a natural opportunity to talk about ways to find common ground. it looks to me like the last hour or so on this we reinforce partisanship. hold,arr told -- bart we need to review with the changes are. >> let's move on. >> mr. chairman, that's the first i've heard of it. >> that's not my problem. >> that's not true,, our staff did not have it. nobody had it! >> the clerk will call the role. >> are you kidding? >> mr. chairman, you asked -- >> i'm sorry, i'm so upset, let's do this. >> mr. chairman, members of this committee, the modification
begins with a modification to transition rule to the change in a mark on section 162 that relates to binding contracts. that makes a clarification that the excise tax on investment income of private colleges and universities, it clarifies the related party rule provision of the underlying provision in the mark. it makes another clarifying amendment with respect to partner shares of charitable contributions and foreign taxes. it also adds a clarification that the limitation on production of net interest expense for which there is an expense for regulated public utilities also applies in the case of certain electric co-ops.
excludes thator the accumulated earnings from the gross income tech -- test for the purpose of the transition rule on the transition to the participation exemption system. to thes the modification marks underlying proposal with respect to the orphan drug credit. it changes the credit rate the 27%, and strikes a certain limitation on expenses related to drugs that had been previously approved under the food and drug cosmetic act. i'm not sure if the written document before you has a line that relates to the net operating loss to duction. if it does, i was informed that is noerror, that there
change to the chairman's mark as modified with respect to the net operating loss reductions. if you can strike that from your copy. the chairman's mark has modified -- although i mention it in the walk-through, the description of the amendment in the mark did not have an effective date or change with respect to meals provided from the employer. this is only clarifying from the written record that this would be effective for taxable years after december 31, 2025. the amendment also adds a reporting requirement for research and experimentation, expenditures beginning after december 31, 2024. the is in relation to research expenses. of certainsis
first ins, it changes first out rule with respect to mutual funds, regulated investment companies. additions, soain these are new starters as opposed to modifications. it extends the free file program for the irs. with respecthanges to whistleblower programs. one is that it treats thanleblower awards other those of whistleblowers with respect to the irs as -- allows them above the line treatment for attorneys fees and court costs paid in connection to it. it is conforming the treatment and other areas where there are
whistleblower work possibilities to the present treatment that is accorded to whistleblower awards in the case of a tax case. it modifies the definition of collective proceeds with respect to awards to be a little bit broader, effectively making a -- the whistleblower programs under areas other than the irs. onincreases the excise tax stock compensation of officers in advert it corporations. disallows deductions for lobbying expenses with respect to lobbying before local government bodies.
it adds a new requirement for corporate taxpayers that pay dividends to shareholders, such that there is a requirement to report the total amount of dividends paid during a taxable year and the first two and a half months of the succeeding year. that would be effective starting after 2018. it parses -- imposes a three-year holding period requirement for capital gain, with respect to partnership interests received in connection to performing purchases. -- i believe the last item makes some technical -- i'm to the provision sorry, makes some changes to
distribution from retirement plans without penalty , and to provide essentially above the line treatment for casualty losses with respect to the mississippi river delta flooding, i guess that's a year and a half ago. >> mr. chairman? >> that concludes the -- i'm sorry, i forgot one thing. it does make a modification. in the underlying mark, it would reduce the historic rehab credit valued by 50%. thishairman's amendment, was not typed in what was handed out to you, it would restore the full value of the credit, but it would make a modification to say allowable would
be claimed by taxpayers in four equal pieces. >> is that written here? >> i just said it was not written there. >> ok, so we've got yet another major set of changes, including things that were not written down. mr. abraham, was the democratic staff consulted in the development of this? understand that you were shown after it was written, but in the development, where the democratic staff consulted? >> no, they were not. theo colleagues, once again partisanship is stark, it is obvious.this is another opportunity late at night when we were voting for there to be discussion between democrats and republicans about common ground. we didn't get it. mr. barthold, i listened to you and you went through a lot of things, and i couldn't find, just from my ear, a whole lot
that would help middle-class families.i heard about the free file program , and that struck me as something that would be useful. senator nelson has been a leader in that. i heard an awful lot that i can tell you a lot of lobbyists for are payinghis art -- attention to. can you give me a sense of anything else that can help the middle class? >> perhaps, senator wyden, the second to last item i mentioned related to the disaster losses in the mississippi delta flooding -- sen. wyden: mississippi only, right? we've got fires in the west. that is just for mississippi? mr. barthold: specific to that area. says it is not just the state of mississippi,,, also parts of texas. sen. wyden: again, i want to
come back to this. we heard and we are getting brand-new material here, 10:00 at night, and aquatic staff not consulted. all of us on our side art trying -- democratic staff not consulted. all of us on our site are just trying to listen. it sounds like not a lot will matter to the middle class. i think that sums it up. i think you have a closing statement. some of my colleagues have questions as well. >> i will give a closing statement, and if you have one, you can give it, too. sen. wyden: could our colleagues ask questions before we give closing statements? >> who has questions? >> i do. >> ok. you represent the party and you ask the questions. >> thank you. mr. barthold, is there anything in these changes that would
prevent tax increases for people who earn less than $75,000 a year in income? >> prevent or create? prevent or create, either one. is there any that prevent or create tax increases? >> there is nothing that directly affects tax rates are allowable exemptions -- >> so nothing in here that would affect less than $75,000. in other words, there is nothing in here -- there's a lot in here, nothing is helping or affecting people, their taxes, who earn $75,000 or less, to get tax increases in the overall bill. i'm wondering also, you talked about drug company changes and orphan drugs and so on. what kind of benefits are we seeing? what benefits have been for the
-- happen for the drug companies? >> the underlying mark actually reduced the tax benefit of the current law orphan drug credit, and this modification makes some further changes that reduce the benefits even a little bit further. it changes the credit rate, changes some of the terms of what may be allowable to be claimed as eligible expenses for the purpose of the credit. sen. stabenow: is there anything else particular to drug companies? elsearthold: nothing particular to the pharmaceutical industry. mr. chairman, i just have to say, with great respect for you, if this process were happening and we were doing people would be jumping with their hair on fire
on the other side. this is unbelievable. when i look at the affordable care act and the fact that there were 100 hearings, i think 53 in the finance committee and 47 in the health committee before there was even one vote, that was a very substantial piece of legislation. here we have something that affects the whole economy, and now affects health care, 1/6 of the economy alone, and there are no hearings. we get it late thursday night. we are told any amendments have to be done by sunday. we, in and do opening statements, we ask questions on tuesday on something that isn't even the real bill, because then he gets changed again, and then we came in and found out it is worse for working families and middle-income families, and now we have something in fine print, multiple pages again.
i don't understand why we don't take the time, why we aren't thoughtfully given the time to look at this over the next few days and to come back after thanksgiving and actually be able to know what it is people are voting on and the impact on people, and have a chance to talk to constituents who are impacted, and actually do this in a more thoughtful way. i don't understand. of these don't even take effect until 2019. there is this rush on something that doesn't even take effect immediately. there's time. to be able to do this in a thoughtful way. with his chart down there. it doesn't take the place of what we see in all the numbers here.
is, ift important thing we are going to sort out differences in numbers and ideas, and people having different analysis, that takes a little bit of time to be able to do that. in another committee i'm in with a distinguished gentleman, we don't operate the committee like that. we just don't. it is very concerning to me. we have done things in a better way, mr. chairman. >> i'm sorry to have disappointed you. senator cornyn. sen. cornyn: thank you, mr. chairman, i want to congratulate you and thank you for your leadership in this challenging markup. this whole process has been especially difficult because of the posture taken by our democratic colleagues, and they simply don't want to contribute to it. they want to try to undermine what we have tried to do here. that is a shame and a lost opportunity. this is still just the beginning of a legislative process. i look forward to working with
all of my colleagues as we continue to find ways to build on the good work of the committee, especially when it comes to the particularly challenging job of dealing with pass-through business entities. we still have quite a bit of work to do there to make sure the tax code properly addresses the needs of those important contributors to our economies and jobs in america. thank you. >> senator toomey, you will be next, then i will come to the site. -- side. just a final clarification from mr. barthold. in light of this final amendment, a simple question. does the effective elimination of the individual mandate in the tax bill lead to anyone in any income class paying any additional taxes out-of-pocket? >> senator toomey, as i
explained, the original revenue in economiclected behavior. the elimination of the mandate itself does not create a new individual income tax liability. sen. toomey: thank you. >> is that it? thank you. >> mr. chairman, i'm going to ask for your help. a national, we had disaster declared with a major flood in ellicott city, maryland about the same time in 2016. wouldt know whether it qualify as similar to the mississippi river delta flood hope, mr.but i would chairman, that you would work with other members, if we have similar types of national disaster declarations where
people are in a similar situation, that we would be willing to accept amendments to this section for other areas of the country that may have similar circumstances that occurred in the mississippi delta. with the chairman work with us? to do itnly don't want for one area if we are not doing it for a similar circumstance. thank you. the disaster indelicate city was devastating. it was a flash flood, totally destroyed and historic city. the people suffered greatly. is there a revenue estimate in regards to any of these changes? mr. barthold: my colleagues are working on that, so i hope to actually have a final estimate, and also understand that i was
in error in saying that the nol provision was stricken. in fact, it was to have the effective date moved forward one more year and the markets --ified, the limitation to operating losses are limited to 80% of net income. that was to be effective for taxable years after 2023. the final amendment for chairman would make that for taxable years after 2022. i thought the provision was on here in error, but in fact it was supposed to have the year be 2022. sen. wyden: with my colleague yield? >> that's acceptable. sen. wyden: i was led to believe this was revenue neutral, which
is why i didn't ask. -- set in their cardin senator cardin has excavated the fact that we really don't know. so we are going to be voting, of angues, after one part effort after another where we have been kept in the dark. we thought, at least when we started, this was revenue neutral. mr. barthold cannot tell us as of 10:00 this evening whether this additional, significant array of changes, where there's virtually nothing in there for the middle class but plenty for businesses, and now we cannot determine where it -- when we are voting or if it is revenue neutral. nothing is a clearer snapshot of what this is all about. >> mr. chairman, tonight is a victory for the middle class, and i would argue for all americans. point ranking members that there's nothing in there for the middle class, i know you
have seen this before, but one last time, this is the joint committee taxes based on distribution tables. as you can see across all income categories, everybody is receiving a tax cut. if you look at what it did -- biggest tax cuts come, it comes from the lowest and middle income groups. i would say one of the measures of whether or not this has been weair process or not is how maintain progressivity in the code. if you look at the distribution tables and where the tax burden falls, after that changes made in this reform, is similar to what it is today with one exception. that exception is that people who make more than $1 million a year take a bigger share of the tax burden than they do today. the share of the tax burden borne by various different groups in different income
categories remains the same. i want to make another comment and echo what senator cordon set -- senator cornyn said. we led a business tax working group and we delved into these issues. --bably the tough it toughest was how you deal with pass-through income. there are members that have concerns about that. there are members in the pass-through community who have concerns. we look forward to working with them to see if we can perfect and refine the way that this mark treats pass-throughs. again, in terms of the arguments that have been made all day, the middle income taxpayers, everybody gets a tax cut. reporting what we said with respect to business income and pastors. we look forward --
pass-throughs. we look forward to working with this and i congratulate the chairman on getting this far. >> senator roberts. >> sen. roberts: i want to speak to the question raised by my colleague from michigan, senator stabenow. that is the modification of credit for drugs. we are talking about drugs for cancer kids. the house completely repealed the orphan credit. limitation and a restart at least a 27.5% credit. i would like to point out that there are many other diseases that are unique, and it takes a great deal of money to make sure these drugs are made available, and i would assume many middle income folks would be taking advantage of it.
>> ok, let's vote on the amendment. >> clerk will call the roll. >> mr. grassley. mr. crapo. mr. roberts. mr. enzi. mr. corning. mr. thune. mr. burr. mr. isaacson, aye. mr. toomey, aye. mr. heller. mr. cassidy. mr. wyden. nowstamina, -- ms. stevan -- senator stabenow. mr. cardin. mr. brown. mr. bennett. mr. casey, no. mr. warner, no.
the chairman? aye.hairman votesa passed.mendment has note, i want to thank all my colleagues on both sides for their participation, particularly today. this is a good bill that delivers on a promise to provide middle-class tax relief and grow the economy. most of poorly, this will allow hard-working middle-class families to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks by nearly deduction,e standard lowering rates, and doubling the child tax credit, we have made good on our promise to produce a bill that will improve the lives of average americans who have been hit i nearly a decade of sluggish economic growth.
working and middle-class families will also see gains in the form of higher wages as the result of a more vibrant economy. this is a bill i think both parties can support. as i've said many times throughout this debate, both republicans and democrats have long supported the key elements of this bill. for example, the bill lowers the corporate tax rate to 20% in line with high proposals that have been discussed with members of the committee on both sides. let's not understate the importance of that. the current corporate tax rate is a drag on the economy. it drives as this is mrs., jobs, and investment offshore -- it jobs, andinesses, investments offshore. way we put forward concrete plans to bring down the corporate tax rate and improve our nation's ability to globally
compete. the bill also fixes our international system so that going forward, american businesses will not owe taxes on income earned by foreign subsidiaries. the current system also drives companies offshore because it puts american companies at a distinct disadvantage from the world marketplace. i don't think anyone of us should stand for that. to beuld all want america a good place to do business and give our job creators a chance to compete. that's how we improve wages, create jobs, and grow our economy. most of the debate here is about what the bill will do for american workers and families. there have been some differences of opinion as the two sides have interpreted the data differently. i will not reopen that debate now. however, i do want to reiterate that all of this said here since the top of this that jcp has
confirmed time and time again that people in the middle tax brackets will receive the largest proportional tax cuts under the mark. he has also told us several times that those at the very top will see their share of the overall tax burden go up. that isn't a random occurrence. we have worked for months to find the right combination of reforms that will allow us to make good on our promise to cut taxes for the middle class by reducing rates, growing the standard deduction, and significantly expanding the child tax credit. tens of millions of middle-class families will see their taxes go down. others will see the tax liability go 08 completely. -- go away completely. fourdle-class family of making a median income will see the taxes go down by $1500 a year or more under the modified mark.
that's at least $125 next are take-home pay -- in extra take-home pay every month. for a family with two kids, that can go towards mortgage or car payments and help to bring down credit card bills or start a college savings account for their kids. i am proud of what we accomplished here on behalf of the middle class. won't count any proverbial chickens before they are hatched, but i think we produced a bill that can and will pass both chambers. onset, i stille hope to get some democratic votes for the bill, if not here, then hopefully on the floor. that is an erstwhile wish on my part, but i hope we can do that. i would feel really good about it if we can start doing things together again. if we have to vote the bill out of committee would only republicans in support, we are
that.ed to do i want to close by thanking my colleagues on the majority side for their assistance in producing the bill and getting it to this point. everyone of them has played an integral part of this effort. most of them, like me, have been working on this for a number of years. every member on the republican side has brought unique perspectives and expertise to this process, and it would not have gotten this far without them. as for the democratic members of the committee, i will say i admire their commitment to their beliefs and principles, and for their participation in this debate. let's be clear about something. i want this committee to work in a bipartisan fashion. i look forward to having an opportunity to lock arms with the democratic colleagues and i .ill do my best to finding opportunities for now, let's just vote on the mark and take advantage of an opportunity to do something good for the american people.
i hope all my colleagues will vote in favor of the mark. with that, i will turn to my dear colleague, senator wyden. sen. wyden: thank you, mr. chairman. i and all of us on the minority side appreciate our relationship with you personally, and we can state that again and again. i believe today will be remembered as the day that republicans worked to trade the health and well-being of millions of americans for massive corporate handouts. what a contrast to what ronald reagan did years ago. a generation ago, ronald reagan worked together with democrats on bipartisan tax reform to simplify the tax code and ask corporations to pay a little more in order to put money into the pockets of the middle class.
today, republicans do just the opposite. let me just repeat that, because it is so critical. , not a socialist, said corporations should pay a little more in order to put money into middle-class pockets. that's what tax reform was all about. today, republicans are doing exactly the opposite of what ronald reagan did. because of this bill, millions of low income and middle income americans are going to get hit with a tax hike they can't afford. 13 million americans are going to get kicked off of their health care. premiums are going to skyrocket for millions more. the middle class that is fortunate enough to avoid those consequences are stuck with temporary tax cuts instead of the permanent cuts that we argued for. be much going to comfort for any of those americans to know that
corporations are using their permanent windfall to buy back upck and find no -- fat in packages. my colleagues put forward an amendment for the middle class to protect medicare, social security, children's health, veterans, and bring some sunshine, some real sunshine, to the way this committee has traditionally worked. our common sense ideas were struck down, and a bill that was first crafted in the dark is headed back for the dark once more. next week while americans give mynks to family and friends, guess is republicans will be back behind closed doors once more trying to decide what the stem version of this tax
is going to look like when the gavel drops at the end of the debate. what happens here there no resemblance to the storied bears no resemblance to the storied history of this committee. this will become an excuse to attack medicare, medicaid, and social security, and other programs that keep our people from falling into destitution. way, republican leaders haven't even tried to disguise their plans on that front, with paul ryan saying the very first thing they will do after the tax bill is completed, they will go onto the entitlement agenda. we have seen that movie before. high, you havear deficits, then you come after medicare and social security and medicaid, and the programs important to the people. colleagues, i think this is indefensible, partisan legislation, a dark day for a storied committee and a dark day for our country.
the debate is going to go on on the senate floor. that this hasn't been exactly an encouraging note. if our republican colleagues come back from the thanksgiving holiday saying that they want to work on a bipartisan tax reform proposal -- and by the way, senator brown made note of the meeting with the president. the president agreed with every single one of the principles we brought up. go to the folks at the top, we shouldn't explode the deficit, we should not hurt social security and medicare. the president agreed with every one of those points. everyone. and we said, mr. president, respectfully, that's not what was written down on paper. it is still not what is written down on paper. it is still not what we are going to vote on.
and so, if i might, since this hasn't been a particularly cheery comment, i hope my colleagues will come back from the thanksgiving holiday and say that over the holiday they remembered what this committee does best, which is find common ground. bill, nobody thought we there wouldh, that be more extenders. but democrats had good idea for working families, like the american opportunity credit and the tax credit. republicans had good ideas, too. look at senator toomey. rnd permanent. but it was balance. it was not taking each other's dumb ideas, it was taking each other's good ideas. i have a sense of how the vote
is going to come out. that after thanksgiving, my colleagues will come back and say they have rediscovered what this committee is all about when we are at our best, and that we change course, and we proceed in a bipartisan way around the principles. the president of the united states told us that he is for it. thank you. >> the committee has modified an amendment. >> some moved. >> i assume we want a vote on this matter. >> mr. crapo. mr. roberts. mr. cornyn, aye. mr. thune, aye. mr. isaacson, aye. mr. toomey, aye. wyden, n ms.o.
o. mr. nelson, no. .r. menendez >> no by proxy. >> no by proxy. mr. brown, no. mr. bennett, no. mr. warner, no. mrs. mccaskill, no. the chairman votes aye. ayes, 12 nays. reported.dment is if we could have order? consent that i ask staff be granted the usual authority to make technical, and budgetary changes to the mark, including those that might be necessary to ensure it complies
with the committee's reconciliation instruction. >> mr. chairman, reserving the right to object. >> go ahead. mr. chairman, i understand that in the committee to agree by unanimous consent to give the staff the authority to make technical, conforming, and budgetary changes, that is customary, and i accept that. there hasn't been a whole lot customary about the markup. i am perfectly comfortable giving the staff the authority to make technical, informing changes, but i want to make sure the staff isn't being given the authority to make budgetary changes. to my mind, that might allow changes such as to ensure the bill comply with reconciliation instructions, even if the bill we just voted to report, when translated into legislative testing, falls short.
i believe the text that is file should reflect what the committee just voted to report, which consists of the proposal submitted by the chairman in narrative form, along with the modification and amendments that have been made. to the extent that the chairman requests unanimous consent to go beyond technical conforming changes, i budgetary would have to object. i think it is important before we leave for the majority staff to confirm that the chairman's unanimous consent request is about technical conforming changes and will not touch on budgetary changes. i have made it very clear in my unanimous consent request that staff be granted the usual authority to make technical, conforming, and budgetary
changes for the mark. sen. wyden: mr. chairman, i object -- sen. hatch: i don't want any games played on this, i just want it done right. that also includes those that might be necessary to ensure it complies with the committee's recommendation instructions. so that's -- sen. wyden: i object because it is not technical matters, it goes to budgetary changes. i am concerned that will affect the compliance with the reconciliation instructions. sen. hatch: ok, the clerk will call the roll, but i think it's unnecessary. >> mr. grassley. mr. crapo. mr. roberts. mr. cornyn. mr. thune.
involved in the drafting and advancing of this mark. we have taken a big step today, but there are many more steps ahead. although not every member agrees with the course we have taken as a committee today, i am glad to serve among so many accomplished members of the senate and i look forward to our next opportunity to work together. i want to thank the ranking member for his work in this committee in helping us to get this far.
>> the committee room is clearing out and out. this is the fourth and the senate finance committee has been considering a tax reform measure under review, wrapping up tonight. democrat thing they did not have enough time to review changes being made and republicans moving forward to get legislation to the senate floor to further debate as soon as possible. the house passed its tax reform bill today. no democrat voted for the measure. ,3 republicans voted against it as well. we will take your calls on the tax reforms making their way through congress.
the house passing the most sweeping tax overhaul in three decades as the new york times reports, taking a significant step toward $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for businesses and individuals here to the house approving it two weeks after it was unveiled without a single hearing, consisting of more than 400 pages. our first color is mary from north carolina, republican. please go ahead. caller: good evening. i want to say i am very happy, i'm very emotional. it has been 31 years. i think the gravy train is dry. this is overdue. the democrats may be upset, maybe other people, libertarians, whatever, but i do believe it is a step in the right direction and i pray this
is bipartisan and when the house bill and senate bill come together they can work together. life, i 37 years of my left no time for watching television. i have been watching c-span, i just thought a few months ago on c-span, and i am shocked by what i have seen. i have been so disappointed because it is like the democrats republicans say black, and they cannot find consensus, they cannot find the grade. have to come together. forget about politics and that donald trump is the president. we are all americans and we have to work for america. and the people of this country. there are people i see who do not have enough money month-to-month that have to go to a dollar store and have to buy a can of vienna sausages or tuna or whatever.
they are in very difficult situations. , from what i have heard, i agree with everything the republicans have said. i know the democrats have good points, but why not work together? every morning, it is like mcconnell says one thing and schumer says another thing, and close he says one thing and ryan says another thing and they do not come together. i told you, i worked 37 years. unemployment, i never got welfare, i never got nothing. i never got food stamps. i have never dependent on anyone. at one time i have three jobs. i just think we need to come together. host: mary, thanks for your call. i want to get some other colors in here. we are glad you are with c-span. hope you don't get to
disappointed in watching, and keep staying informed. we are going to try and get a caller from hershey, pennsylvania, independent line. go ahead. and 84-year-old, watched thed i have proceedings on the tax proposals all the way through. i am a little bit disappointed with the lack of certain information such as some of the provisions we normally have, exemptions,sonal old agedy, for citizens, using schedule are --schedule r, and social security that is taxed now but it should not be.
beforenot taxed president clinton was in charge. he started taxing social in 1993, and it should not be taxed. text -- id for after taxed dollars. there is no information coming out about the provisions i mentioned. host: thank you for your call. i want to go over some of the points in usa today made out. but good call from the democrat line first. we have a caller from north carolina. what is your take with what has been happening on the tax reform proposals? caller: thank you for taking my call. i am totally against it. number one, the reason i am against and is everything the
republicans have done everything has been in the dark. we the american people should be brought to the light. every time you turn around, they brought more stuff in. tonight, they were showing on the finance committee this was not even in their last night. why are the american people in the dark? if you want to bring everybody together, everybody should know about it. if it is such a big deal, why is it in the dark? why are they going to hurt senior citizens? why are they going to hurt our veterans? why are they going to hurt children? both parties, come together, work together, get a better system for all of the americans. health care. they always say, everybody will have health care, everybody is not going to have health care. , when it trickled down in the past, it did not work. why can't we move forward?
it seems that were moving backward. for the call.u usa today laying out some of what is in the house reform tax bill. individuals will not be able to deduct their state income taxes. companies would be able to continue deducting business related state and local taxes. individual tax bracket, they would be compressed to four, with a rate of nearly 40%. the top corporate rate would top off at 20%. you can read more outlined in usa today. we are getting your phone calls on the tax reform bill. the house passed its measure. out ofate passing its committee and moving on to the full floor of the senate. we are getting your phone calls and thoughts. jimmy is going from oklahoma. democrat line. go ahead. caller: first thing i would like to say is, i wish i was one of those big corporations getting
all of those tax breaks. because i don't see anything that the american people are getting, unless you are one of those big businesses. i was appalled at everything i heard all day long, and have been hearing. for thesee anything american people, unless you are a big corporation, because that is what it is all about. that's what it has been all about. and yes, i agree with some of the other colors, one of the other colors saying they are just bringing this and at 10:00 at night, and doing all of this other stuff. forone thing i heard was the middle or lower class people, especially lower-class people. the elderly like my mother, social security, you know, medicaid, medicare. that is where everything is going to end up taking away from. i have two grandchildren that
depend on medicaid because of heart conditions. one of them had to have open heart surgery. part of his heart was gone and depends on medicaid. i am appalled at all of these accusations that, you know, the middle class is going to get a tax break. i have not seen it in any of the examples of their that have up there on their board showing anything. it's all about the rich. as far as i concerned, the rich don't need anything. they never have. that is all i have to say about that. they don't need anything and they never have. host: thank you. we have chris from oregon on the line for republicans. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to mention that i have been watching the entire tax debate on the senate throughout today, and it is
really amazing to me, two things, one, how partisan it has been on the vote. 12- what isike it? host: 12-14 on the committee? yes, almost every time. i'm a republican, but i think some of the democratic ideas are worthwhile. thata little bit dismayed some of those ideas, not all, but some of them were not taken into further consideration. that, wanted to say basically, i thought there were a few good ideas from the democratic side that i thought should have been considered further. host: do you remember which ones? caller: i don't right now. --ept for just helping
mainly middle-class people, a little more closely, as opposed to other things. i did not take notes. but i do feel like there were a few good suggestions from the democratic side. i thought those should have been taken into further consideration. host: thank you for the call in oregon. we will take a few more minutes of your calls for -- call, find out your thoughts, your feelings about the tax reform measures making their way through congress. the house passed its measure earlier today and the senate, its version is coming out of committee a few months ago -- few minutes ago. we have basil on the line from tennessee, independent or other. caller: thank you for taking my call. retail management almost all my life, i am never tired.
-- i am now retired. were saythe democrats make the businesses accountable if they don't raise wages. if they don't, they should be fine. but of course, republicans win against the -- went against that. i know from personal experience that any of the businesses i welled, whenever it gets up and beyond, where they took , tomoney was to ceo bonuses the stockholders, it did not trickle down to hourly employees. tennessee,state of and if you make $30,000 working full-time, you are lucky. i'm looking at this tax bill and wondering why in the world would i never -- what i ever vote for another republican, which i have done in the past? they are doing these backroom deals that are so underhanded. i was looking at the one man
come i think he is from michigan, if you get $1000 or $1100 more per year and you take away the student exemption, if you have a student loan or the medical, you are losing money. the middle class is getting hurt with the tax bill and set of protecting the middle class. they are actually protecting the businesses. making a way for growth. i think it will do like it did under reagan, trickle down economics does not work. we have seen it in the past. want $10in our country million bonuses every year, the last company i worked for, he made a $10 million bonus, where the employees cannot even get a tencent raise. i think the rich are not that help. host: thank you.
i will read this from the washington post, the rich do very well with keeping charitable deductions and no longer paying the alternative minimum tax. as the washington post reports, more than 400 american millionaires and billionaires are sending a letter to congress urging lawmakers not to cut their taxes. a favorite gop is making a mistake i reducing taxes on the richest people at a time when the nation's debt is high and inequality at one of its worst levels since the 1920's. trying to get another call on here, nora on the democrats line from florida. go ahead. caller: hi. i was appalled when orrin hatch had the nerve to say that middle-class people are going to get an additional $1500 in their pocket, which is $125 more per they can do a lot of
things with that $125 per month. they can pay their mortgage, pay a car payment -- where does he have the nerve to say something like that? $125 per month does not get you anything. i was really appalled that is the way they think. i am very upset about the whole thing. way they sneak things and and expect a vote, not debating it with the democrats, and they want the democrats to be on their side. i am just very upset over this whole thing, and i think we are going to be, down the road, like the one democrat senator said, down the road they are going to cut our social security, health care and medicare and all of that, because they will have a big deficit because of this tax plan. host: we will let you have the last word, but our phone lines
will be open again tomorrow morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern time, we will bring you any updates on the tax reform. you can always check c-span.org. is where youngress will find our congressional chronicle, all of the congressional activity happening in one place. right now, we will take a look at the last hour of debate from the house floor right before they passed their version of the tax reform bill by a vote of . 2018. the speaker pro tempore: when proceedings were postponed earlier today, 29 1/2 minutes of debate remained on the bill. the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, has 17 minutes remaining. without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal, has 12 1/2 minutes remaining. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from alaska, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. congress establ