tv Senate GOP Tax Reform Plan Part 4 CSPAN November 17, 2017 3:44am-5:47am EST
flat wages, the cost of higher education is up, the cost of up,ing and health care is it seems to me we could have thought about a better use of this money than giving $39 americans thatf are making over a million dollars a year. it is year after year after year. that is why the deficits are so huge. i was in a meeting with some of my colleagues that president trump called in, i am not saying anything bad as not in the newspapers, but one of the things he said was how terrible this plan is for the rich. he had to throw in the estate tax so that the rich would get something. what we know they are getting is $68,000 on average as a result
of this plan, whereas 90 million people, not 570,000 people, 90 million people who are earning salaries of $50,000 or less are $160.g on average know what it is like in other states, but colorado's farmers and ranchers will not be full i talking about percentages and rates. they cannot eat percentages and rates. they're going to follow the money. what is even more galling about this is that it is not paid for, which means our children are going to get stuck with the bill. they do not have a vote in this. the generation after them does not have a vote in this room. have only us, republicans and
democrats working together. -- years both sides everyone in this room worries about that. i have worked on so many projects with people. i believe it. roomieve everyone in this believes this is deeply unfair and deeply unjust. the question before us is are we going to ease the burden of our children or add to it? i have said a lot tonight about my story. i note people on the other side have a different story. we have debated the specifics, and i appreciate mr. chairman, the wave of run this committee. surely we can agree it is wrong to burden our kids and grandkids 1.5 to 2.2 trillion in
debt. the same freedom our parents and grandparents had the decency to provide for all of us. that strikes me as a reasonable expectation, if not an essential duty. my mm is simple. it says that -- my amendment is simple. middle-class people in colorado, , independents,ts or republicans will not appreciate that their children are being asked to finance and economic giveaway to people who ever earned. they are at the top and i don't begrudge them for being there, but there is a better use of that money to help lift wages in the middle class, and lift our
children out of poverty. that would be a worthy goal for us to have as 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. >> you cannot tax your way out of the deficit problems we have. we have a fundamental structural problem. our entitlement programs grow faster than the economy. as long as that is the case, we are not on a sustainable fiscal path. you cannot fix that with any taxes. until we have of the agreement about restructuring these programs so that they are growing 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 deficits and debt. sen. hatch: are we prepared to vote on this? >> i have 20 seconds left. i would like to respond. to describe our position, when a bill is providing $39 billion in tax relief to the people at the very top, as punishing the rich, which is what you said earlier tonight, i think it is a unfair characterization of our position. i agree with the senators who signed the letter in 2011 saying we need tax reform, and we need to deal with discretionary funding. tonight we are only dealing with one of those things, and we are doing it in an and imbalanced way. sen. hatch: call role. >> mr. crapo, no. mr. enzi, no. thininn -- mr. mr. portman, no
mr. heller, no. mr. cassidy, no. mr. wyden, aye. ms. cantwell, aye. proxy.endez, aye by mr. cardin, aye. mr. bennett, aye. mr. casey, aye. mr. warner, aye by proxy. mr. chairman, no. 14 final tally is 12 ayes, nays. sen. hatch: the moment fails. chairman, i call up amendment nine. it this would make sure that 95% of americans are not cut out of
the tax incentives for charitable giving. this tax reform proposal has the reduceal to dramatically the amount of charitable giving, and hurt our communities and people. this tax bill is estimated that charitable giving would drop by $13 billion and it is hard to believe that colleagues would want that to happen. i'm sure that people do not want it to happen, but that is what is in this bill. byritable giving would drop $13 billion a year. that is the combined 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 is the combined charitable giving to all of those very
critical organizations. is 144 million meals for people 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 tried to help people in put more moneyto in the pockets of the wealthiest among us. that is not wise, it is not fair, it will have a serious , andt on our communities on people across the country. i urge colleagues to support this amendment. >> mr. chairman, we have made charity on this committee a bipartisan effort. i am appreciative of senator thune. we have lead a bipartisan effort, and i think our basic opposition is the charitable
deduction is a lifeline. it is not a loophole. i requested a report on taxation, and they found that the charitable deduction would be cut by 40% next year under the house plan. the bill we are marking up here today does not look much different. we are a charitable people. we are anxious to always help. the charitable deduction makes a big difference both in size of the gift and the number of the gift. when the joint committee on taxation says the house plan is going to cut charitable donation i-40 percent, that is trampling on the bipartisan effort that has been led in this committee for some 25 years. has been a great supporter of charities. sen. hatch: does anybody else want to talk? the clerk will call the role.
no.r. grassley, >> mr. chairman, i thought something was going to make the point that we're keeping the charitable deduction. it is in the bill. there are people who are taking advantage of that. if that is the reason charitable affected, iing guess you say you would like this people to not have the charitable deduction. a better economy is important for terrible giving. i support charitable giving. we keep it, and i'm glad we do. ability taking away the of people to put this on the
deduction, -- >> mr. chairman them a i was a two different things. taking away the personal exemption for each child in your family is not a good trade for most families. the reality is most families, if you have more than one child, that is a loser. i'm concerned about how that works out. doing this the way you have done in the bill means 95% of the people in our country would no longer get any kind of benefit from the charitable deduction. providinglved in really important work across our country are totally opposed to this. they estimate that charitable giving would drop by $13 billion a year, when we look at all of you theycan only tell
are adamantly opposed. mr. chairman, i cannot let these stand. people, that is not accurate. most of your constituents take the standard deduction right now. it is 70% already. we double it. let's be accurate. >> mr. chairman, i believe the senator from michigan said if you have additional children you are being denied a deduction. in addition to the standard deduction, there is a child tax credit for each child. >> double the tax credit. >> that's what i thought. >> if i might expand on that,
but has it involves putting the whole picture together, when you put the whole picture together, this is so skewed to the wealthy . it is wiped the latest numbers under $75,000 a year will end up with tax increases because there is a double deduction, but there is also eliminating the personal exemption. the child credit is double, but working people will not get the benefit of that. $1000currently refundable. it goes to $2000, but only an additional 100 is refundable. number of people, the income level that can benefit from that goes from 75,000 for an individual to $500,000, i have million dollars. increasing folks at
$400,000 a year can get this child credit. but only increasing the benefit to working people because it is not refundable. >> >> it doesn't take anything away. they get it doubling the child tax credit. because someone gets it at a higher income, isn't oork rat. >> could you tell us how much of the $2 thourk the new credit is refundable? >> the base amount that's refundable is $1,000. that's indexed so our projection is starting next year $1100 would be refundable. >> so it's $2,000 but working folks aren't going to get the benefit. >> the clerk will call the roll.
senator is defeated. senator brown. >> this -- >> i hope this is your last one though. >> unless i come up with other ideas. last one. if you were to agree, it might be the last one for months. las >> that's an offer. >> this amendment is 20 brown, 21 modified for opioids. between now and midnight in my state someone will likely die of an overdose. statistics predict we lose 11 to this epidemic -- statistics show we lose 11 every day. right now 220,000 ohioans are getting addiction treatment because of coverage they got through the affordable care act. 220,000. that is why governor casic has stood for this against the medicaid cuts and why so many have around the country. but this bill threatens their treatment. according to the congressional budget office the changes made in this bill in the dead of
night as we know will kick 13 million people off their insurance. that doesn't even count increase in premiums. that's not the issue here. the issue is 13 million will lose their insurance under this legislation. this amendment is simple. it gives anyone who loses their insurance as a result of this bill a tax credit to pay for treatment. so those 220,000 poo ohio, and i believe the number is 9 million. whatever the number is, it might be less. 5 million. 20,000 ohioance. if any of them lose their treatment because of this tax bill -- excuse me, this tax hble, they would get a tax credit to help pay for their addiction treatment. that's the least this committee could do 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? cloik call.
>> this amendment makes rmanent the provision in the chairman's modification. what is in the bill is a 2-year version of the bipartisan craft hairman's beverage bill they wrote with senator blunt. i just want to take a couple of minutes to describe why this short-term version is tax reform done wrong and a major lost opportunity. the legislation i wrote with senator blunt would give a booster shot to a growing industry that is responsible for a lot of good-paying jobs in my state and i think in 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. for example, in our state we
have people who make the equipment, truckers, the industry, big economic multiplier. senator blunt and i said we are going to give this industry a chance to grow. the bill has 55 senate cosponsors and at this point i am not sure you can get 55 senators to agree that water is actually wet. we got 55 colleagues on board. house congressmanion has 296 in terms of sponsors. but what is in the chairman's modified mark is not our whole bill. it is a two-year version of my bill, and i want to be clear because we have done some homework on this why this is a problem. first, the treasury department has told us that a two-year provision would expire before they could even write the regulations to implement it. but right out of the gate the short-term version is going to be a dud. but it is not just an
implementation issue. as i talked about last night and i discussd with my friend from ohio, i don't understand why they are interested in taking a bill that wants to make a permanent change in tax policy with overwhelming bipartisan support and send us back to yeryeer with stop and go tax extender policy. what this short-term proposal does is it puts the small brewers, the vicinity anywhere, thesider makers in a position where every year they're going to come back grolving to lawmakers to extend their tax incentive. 55 members of the senate, 296 members of the house agree that the bill ought to be permanent. but the republican plan makes it a short-term initiative, takes us back to yer year with tax extenders.
as far as i can tell talk about a full eement ployment program for lobbyists, you are going to have all of these groups coming back every year or two. i am just going to wrap up by saying i think it is especially important to note that the reason the craft beverage makers are getting any certainty really doesn't have anything to do with the merits of the proposal. it is because the majority decided to spend their $1.5 trillion deficit allowance on all of these big breaks for the ltinationals rather than something like senator blunt and i have tried to do. so instead of a permanent job-creatic bill that we put forward, craft beverage producers are something like senator blunt and i have tried to do. stuck w short-term bill that i think represents a missed opportunity, bad policy, it is unfair, it is going to stifle investment and more than anything when we talked about yesterday this is another example of how everybody on the
other side talks about how it is real tax reform but they have extenders, stuff that is permanent. it is going to be a real crazy quilt. colleagues, it doesn't have to be this way. my amendment would take us back to the proposal senator blunt and i have offered and make this permanent, and we can do it virtually everybody on this committee on both sides of the aisle is a cosponser of this legislation as well. so we can either do that or we can proceed with something that the treasury department has told us isn't going to work. it is not like we are making it up here. that the two-year provision would expire before they even get the rules right. if senator portman would like we can go back and that the for i'm ready for a vote. >> i don't recall our conversation you mentioned but i do know that we reached out to you to see if you were going to offer an amendment.
>> we never had a conversation about it. been happy to do it. >> we did have conversations. we were told your weren't going to offer an amendment. >> we have this wonderful thing called phones. >> this -- i would just like to thank the chairman for putting it in the mark, because this is an important bill. i support it. many members of this committee are cosponsors of it. the beer institute, the brewers association. wine insstutes. wine america, the american craft spirits all support the amendment. senator blunt supports the amendment. we are able to get into the chairman's mark. here of course is one that my colleagues on this side of the aisle are going to have a hard time with. i would love to work with you on this. you have been a leader as i said when we talked here of cou is one that my about the amendment having been accepted by the chairman. but reinstating the corporate
alternative minimum tax obviously is something that will actually take away a benefit from some of these companies that would be looking for a benefit that are trying to expand opportunity in this area of craft breweries and craft distillries. so it is kind of taking with and giving with another. but i would love to work with you on that. again, as i said the other day i appreciate your leadership on this. >> two points. one, we know that what the groups you've mentioned want is to make this permanent because they do not want to come back as part of an extender caubcuss and year after year completing and having to hire lobbyists. so that's the first thing. second, as far as the pay-for, looked up, 27 companies didn't pay any taxes last year. that is really the pay-for. let's go to the yains. >> -- the clerk will call the oll.
>> senator dant well. >> i would call up can't well number 8. i know you're desiring to get these things done but this is something that was just added in the last 24 hours. as i asked yesterday trying to understand how it got put in the dark of night and why it was there, my amendment would of the ection 3 g 4 mark, which is just inserted said, the staff about said, the staff about this and couldn't get an answer about what it does and who it benefits. so here is my concern. it loses 600 million in revenue. i think it would be good for us to know exactly what the benefit of this provision is. what companies, what individuals would be getting he $o 0 million. -- $060 million.
i'm very well aware of the chal ownings i'm very well aware of the chal ownings of the u.s. virgin island. we just had a hearing. i'm very interested in their economic future and the unbelievable damage that they have seen from past storms. but provisions like this being stuck in when no one really understands why or who they are going to benefit is of concern to me. so i think we need to stop and slow down, as i've said that many times about this bill overall, because of the many complexities that are in here. but some of them having to do with the international tax changes in the bill that is being rushed through. i think we need time to understand this. so my amendment simply strikes his section. >> mr. president, this amendment was a filed amendment. all members had plenty of time to look at it. as a matter of fact this is not a new issue. i think most members and their staff have been very well informed about this issue for
years now. it is a very simple and raight forward correction of a problem in our a problem in our tax code. as we all know, bonafide residents of the virgin islands are allowed to pay their u.s. the virgin ons to islands and the virgin alngeds is allowed to have an economic that ment program the virgin relates to the specific virgin island source income. the rules as to what a source virgin island source income are for the island's economic development programs have been frankly wrongly determined over the last little while and we have been working to try to solve that here in congress for a long time. t is a very simple fix that is the internal revenue service has looked at this and there is it. jection to it simply claferse what is properly it. attributable and does
one other thing. it basically creates parrot between the way capital -- parity between the way they are treated with the same way as puerto rico and other u.s. holdings. so i don't understand attributa one why the objection. >> is the senator from utah saying this is your request into the legislation? >> this is an amendment that senator hatch and i both filed. >> so it was your request. so yesterday when i asked people what it was and no one could explain it or the impact? >> i wasn't involved in that request so i don't know. >> i'll say to the the senator from utah. sorry. the senator from idaho my colleague from the pacific northwest. islands has a mir tax code. meaning when we make changes to the tax code they automatically apply there so we islands has a mir don't know exactly how this provision would work but it could create opportunity to shelter income in the u.s. virgin islands. so that it would never be
taxed. so i am interested in what the -- so much of this bill we are trying to make sure because again we are seeing it for the first time. i don't know that we have ever had a hearing in this committee about this subject. but i am not interested in creating a big loophole for hedge funds to go down to the u.s. virgin islands and start a new process of not having income taxed. so that's the measure. and as i said, i don't know if you were here yesterday when i brought this up but no one could explain it. no one knew how it just appeared overnight. so if it was so ready and so important why does it appear overnight? if it's so important i would have thought in the original whowled have put it there. >> mr. chairman. first, i have not here when you raise that e put
had question. but this did not appear overnight. it has been here in front of the committee and mens of the committee for years. the amendment itself was out there for a number of days. so i just think the characterization that when you had appeared overnight is wrong. also, the notion it allow the h assets that this is or hedge fund operations is also not correct. this amendment does not change the general sourcing rules and treasury will continue to have its regulatory authority to assert guidance over these policies. it simply tries to achieve fairness in the application of the rules with regard to the virgin islands. >> well, i know of no filed amendment. and i can tell you you that this legislation is changed daily. the fact that i can't even get a table on the distribution for taxpayers and what their going to pay in my state but i am asked to vote on an amendment i just got last night is not something i am comfortable doing. >> the clerk will call the oll.
>> the amendment fails. senator carden, you are next. thank you, mr. chairman. first, i want to correct the statement i made on the progressive consumption tax ere i indicated the rate was %, 20%, it is actually 17%. i just want to make sure that was in the record accurately. this amendment this amendment deals with changes that were made in the chairman's mark as it relates to church pension plans. i want to acknowledge that senator portman has worked on this issue and i thank him very much for his help on
as a matter of fact, this is . e newspaper in puerto rico it is today's edition and it risk 50,000 jobs are at on the island as a result of this bill. our of all people, chairman of the finance committee was the chairman of this task force. is is the task force that we did last year on what we ought to be this tax bill does did last year on what we ought to be doing for puerto rico. , it eliminates two tax extenders that were allowed to expire for no reason. one of them was a section 199
de ducks which encourages production on the island and typically hat is called the rum cover over but rebate of the excise and o encourage employment manufacturing and or other businesses on the island. and we're letting them expire. at the very time that puerto .ico needs so much help first, before the hurricane recognized in the task force chaired by chairman hatch of which this senator had the privilege being a part and we recognize so many things. in the
law where the territory is treated dencht from a state, but there were provisions in the tax law to try to encourage business and employment on the island, and they're being expired in this bill. of all places. well over 65% of the island still doesn't have any electricity, half of the island population doesn't have pottable water yet. and this is going on 2-1/2, 3 months after the hurricane. we shouldn't be doing this financially to them in a tax code. >> well, let me just add this. i fully intend to help puerto rico. right in the middle of that. i want to help them. i just don't want to have it as part of this particular bill. and i believe all our
colleagues will come together to help them when we get all the facts and information that is necessary to do a bill for puerto rico but there's a lot of thing that is have to be resolved before we do that. there is a lot of things that have been going on in puerto rico that are highly criticizeable and we are going have to have some changes before we start bolsterg some of the things that really have been going on. so i just don't think it should be in this bill but i am willing to work with my distinguished friend from florida to help solve this problem and he knows it. i would like to solve this problem. and ink -- look, i will tell you another way to solve it. let's get rid of the jones act so they have a chance to really compete. i don't see much help from my democratic colleagues with regard to getting rid of the jones act with regard to puerto rico and the other islands. but i think you ought to look at that and let's sit down and let's help puerto rico in ways
that we can. but it should not be in this a bill so i am recommending vote against it. senator cornyn. >> mr. chairman, i want to support your comments on helping those areas that were devastated by the recent hurricanes, whether they be the virgin islands, puerto rico, florida, or my home state of texas. frankly, after the outpouring of sympathy and expressions of concern that we have heard from the highest levels here in washington, d.c., we have continually been told to wait, wait, wait, and there's going to be another request coming over from the office of management and budget tomorrow which my staff has already looked at. it will be released tomorrow morning. but which my staff advises me is wholly inadequate. so i think there is going to be an opportunity here -- and you can count on me to work with our colleagues concerned about all the areas that have been
hit by natural disasters recently, because, frankly, we're all in the same boat here. and i know senator crapeo and i have talked about the fact that the omb in their request to send over a short-changed areas of the cuts hit by wile -- hit by wildfires. i know his concern about that. so you are going to have some friends working with you when it comes to the supplemental in particular that's coming over here from omb tomorrow. and we look forward to working with you and mr. chairman as well. >> i will be one of the friends. >> i just don't 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. and just throwing money at things is not the right way. ok. he clerk will call the roll.
senator can't well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have discussion of this yers, too. i'm offering can't well amendment number 4. the chairman's mark eliminates the foreign-based company oil related income as a category of foreign based company income. so this provision would cost the american taxpayers $3 dept 9 billion over ten years. this provision was -- or, the law, i in existing should say. in existing law. law, i uage on this
so if we go forward and repeal this provision, i wonder what and where there will be foreign oil company profits that will never be taxed by any country, here or abroad. so the mark creates a brand-new untested regime in the international taxation code. under this regime the profits of companies earned in -- profits earned in those companies will be 100% exempt from taxes in the yilingtse. this new provision in the mark will supposedly prevent companies with highly mobile incomes like intellectual profit from shifting their profits to low tax countries like the caymen islands but the oil income is highly mobile. as the committee said in their 1982 report oil income is particularly suited to move
around and finding tax haven operations. so these oil profits should be captured in the mark with new ti-abuse rules designed to protect the protect the taxpayers but clearly they won't be because we're repealing the old anti-abuse rules for the taxpayers and the $4 billion will be exempt. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. to me, perhaps, it's another reason why we should slow down here and examine the importance of this and make sure we get it right. yopt to see us opening up new tax haven opportunities and i want to make sure we are doing everything we can here. i know my colleagues are going to get into discussing this idea of bringing money back home, but there have been specific securities in the code to prevent this and now we are giving away $4 billion. so i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. >> i want to ask mr. barthold a
question because subpart f is so complicated. explain how the mark treats oil income and -- i know i'm interested in reducing any corporation to the 20% rate and for the transition. but beyond that, i'm not interested -- i hope we haven't done anything more for the oil industry. >> senator grassley, it's certainly a fair assessment to say that subpart f is a complicated part of the code. in terms of the mark, there's a couple oil concepts maybe to think about. there's the point that senator can't well brought up about foreign-based company oil elated income. it provides that foreign oil related income is currently taxable under present law.
hat's what's being repealed. it is income from sources from outside the united states from processing oil or gas into primary products such as chemical or -- it is chemicals or gasoline, from the transportation distribution or sale of oil and gas their primary products disposition or assets related to that and other related services which could include transportation of oil or gas. foge, distinct from which is income derived from the extrags of oil and gas. in other words, from the well. what the mark does is the mark as noted by senator can't well would be s but fore
subject to the new anti-base erosion rule that is the global income le low-taxed would be rule that i described in the walk-through two days ago. foe, the extraction income, is exempt from the global intangible low-taxed income rule. so income rule that within the new rule w an anti--base erosion rule, fore is subject to it again presumably on the principle that there is possibility of mobility and manipulation, whereas foge, which is extraction, are exempt as are all extraction industries. i'm assuming that that decision was based on the fact that the extraction is not in itself mobile or man iplabble. for example, there is not an oil -- you can't claim that an oil well is located in ireland, because there is not oil there. >> may i ask --
>> the senator from florida. >> may i ask mr. abraham if he would put that in everyday english. >> i'll try, senator. my colleague can feel free to chime in if i don't get this right. ut my understanding of the chairman's mark is exactly as chairman's mark is exactly as tom has explained it, and in maybe a little more plain english, to the extent you have this foreign oil related income that under current law subject to immediate tax if it falls into subpart f, 35% rate under current law. because there's no specific subpart f category it would not be subject to immediate tax at the full u.s. corporate rate, which would be 20%. it would fall into this other tax regime where it would be taxed the minimum taxed, potentially a maximum of
12-1/2%. >> i think you explained. it's less tax for the oil companies on foreign derived oil income. there was ed to if category of subpart f where it would be taxed at the full u.s. tax rate, which would be 20%, now it's subject to the new minimum tax just talking about category of subpa f where it would be taxed at the fore which would be a maximum of 12-1/2%. >> thank you. >> senator. >> another way of saying is that is that the analysis basically gave this a value of billion, a loss on revenue, as part of your score. i have $4 billion. >> under present law as noted, the foreign-based company all related income is currently
taxable. the repeal of that reflects the revenue -- the current revenue stream. >> so the answer is yes. your report it was $4 billion. so to my friend from iowa, this is a new i call it loophole, yo billion. so to gift, whatever, of $4 billion to oil companies. argue that just first of all oil companies have been getting tax breaks for 100 years in the code. i often think as we and the senator from iowa and argue tha first of all oil i are often talking about the importance of wind and solar and other alternative energies, we hear the argument we shouldn't pick winners and losers. but, frankly, oil and gas has been the winner for 100 years. they're baked into the code. they are not part of the tax extenders. they're baked into the code. they have enjoyed about 470 as a result of their
current tax treatment in the tax code, and this provides a new tax loophole, i call it offshore. it doesn't have to be in the caymen islands to be offshore. it means foreign tax loophole, $4 billion in additional support funding money in their pockets for oil companies. >> mr. chairman. >> yes, sir. understanding -- i think you mentioned, tom, that foge is related to extraction. >> that's correct, senator. >> and as i've noticed there's in oil wells in ireland nor the kay mone islands. typically in nigeria or other high tax regimes. now it's my understanding that this provision is to avoid double taxation. would you clarify? >> yes, sir, that is right. currently, under current law because a lot of oil income, as you said, senator cassidy, is
in -- is earned in very high tax jurisdictions, it generates what is known as excess foreign tax credits. and those excess foreign tax credits can be used to offset any u.s. tax that might arise from a low tax jurisdiction. the -- there could be income that arises from a low tax jurisdiction where that is other income. in transition to a territorial type system, there wouldn't be as much of a foreign tax credit regime any more. so we might find that income now not being offset with excess foreign tax credits but actually ironically and counter intuitively would rise to -- there would be a higher tax burden because of the inability to utilize foreign tax credits. >> i'm about ready to vote on
he can't well amendment. i can't let the comments of our colleague from michigan pass about oil and gas companies getic all sorts of tax goodies. the fact of the matter is i can our colleague from michigan pass about oil and gas companies getic all sorts of tax goodies. the fact of the matter is 70% of the tax benefits, the tax expenditures under the code go to renewable nrnl. now, i support all the above. we were the number one producer of wind energy in the country in texas. but it is just an urban legend that the oil and gas companies somehow get special tax breaks. in fact, oil and gas companies actually pay taxes whereas many of these other entities simply get a check from the government. so with that i am certainly -- vote against the amendment. >> i certainly agree with that. the clerk will call the roll. >> may i clarify one thing? there any other category of company sed income
>> we will now have three more in the que. senator mccaskle has amendment number 8, senator scott has amendment number in the que and number 6., amendment this will be followed by the manager's amendment and then final passage. so we're just about seeing the end of this. carble l go -- senator mc >> i'm not going to offer the amendment. i know that the house -- just briefly let me talk just for a minute about the subject matter. i know the house did something on carried interest really weak tea still exempts payroll. it is not as strong as what dave camp did in 2014 where
that republican congressman tried to make a real effort. at least the house touched it. they didn't do it very well but it would have been great to have a debate about the carried terest provisions and thai buses of these abuses. r some reason buses of them. i think president trump has talked about doing away with them. i think most people have talked about doing away with gotten really short slived in this discussion when you are desperately particularly looking for revenue that would allow you to make tax cuts permanent and take care of in some ways i think too generously some of the wealthy people in this country including my family. so i really -- i won't offer the amendment because i know how it will turn out but i really do still think this subject matter deserves a
vigorous debate on a bipartisan basis. withdrawing. or senator scott. >> i'm going to with draw my amendment as well but i do want to talk about it for just a second. i spent about 20 years in the life insurance and financial services industry, so i have a pretty good understanding and appreciation for the ins and outs of the ippedstri. without a robust risk management families will not be able to protect against life's certainties and plan for a better future. as we reform our tax code we shouldn't take a wrecking ball to the private sector safety net that so many americans depend on. i'm going to better future. as continue to work th you and jct to find the appropriate solution for pay-fors for the life insurance industry. i would appreciate the ability and the opportunity to work with you, mr. chairman, and jct
on this solution. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes, sir. >> i want to thank you for raising this. i think that -- i was watching what was done in the house was done in the senate and it is clear that when you try to do this in a quick manner, there are unintended consequences. i have life insurance companies in maryland that are extremely concerned about the manner in which is this is handled. i thank you and i hope we have a chance to work on this. >> i look forward to working in a bipartisan fashion. thank you. >> one more minute. i want to joint senator carden. every time somebody in our country prepares for their future, covers themselves thank >> one more minute. either through insurance, savings, whatever, that is one less dollar we are going to have to pay out in taxes one day to take care of them in one way or another. the insurance industry is a critical part for our citizens.
i thank and look to join him and senator carden and others to see we bring this to a clusion and get solutions for the problems long term. >> as i understand it the mccaskle amendment has been withdrawn and senator cot is withdrawing his amendment. then we're going to menendez. >> i wanted to on the can't well amendment that was set aside earlier, on the low income tax credit and this underlying mark there were two provisions to an amendment. i am happy to keep working with you on mr. chairman, if we are is that -- the issue the credits plus the depreciation losses obviously make the program less effective. and this is something we have been working on overall just to address the issue and i want to make sure that the credits plus the depreciation losses obviously make the this mark moves contin assess the damage that the impact that this will have on
depreciation rates. thank you. >> we appreciate that. we are now going to turn to the ranking member my partner and as i understand it you're going to bring up menendez 6. >> yes. hat's right. senator menendez has offered this amendment. i think it is a very important amendment. and i am offering it on his forward and we behalf. i think it would be fair to say we have seen a great number of very far-fetched claims by the trump administration through tax reform ed process. tax reform process. the one that really takes the cake though is the proposition that the corporate rate tax are going to somehow magically result. there is going to be this growth fairy that just comes out of nowhere and gets a $4,000 wage increase for american workers. now, i asked mr. barthold, he is down there consulting and i
just want to make sure i am stating his view. when i asked about this mr. barthold said and he is very profecksal. he spent some time rummaging through that vast array of tables that he has, and he said that it wud very unlikely that this could ever come about. yet my colleagues have just been nodding along all through this, that somehow this corporate rate cut is going to translate into this huge bonanza. enator casey for the workers of pennsylvania, awful middle class families. so the common-sense menendez amendment is if you actually dobble that massive handouts to corporations will cause this of magical wage growth, then you ought to be willing to support
some basic guard rails. under this amendment, tax cuts for multinational corporations are reversed if american workers' wages go down. just try that one on. we've been told by the trump this will put $4,000 into the pocket obvious middle class workers. wages says if workers go down, then the tax cuts for multinationals would be reversed. i think senator menendez is offering a common sens check on he promises that have been given middle class families for now months. i urge my colleagues to stand up for the middle class and
vote for this important menendez amendment. mr. chairman, i am prepaired to call the yains. -- yeas and nays. >> just very briefly mr. chairman just to emphasize the point again this sort of mechanism is sort of designed to produce the failure that it anticipates. what do i mean by that. the whole point, the way the wage growth is to demand for workers.
why do we want to prevent the wages from going up? this is a very bad idea. we should reject the amendment. >> senator brown. >> go back again to the historic meeting in the white house with the five most important democratic senators on this committee. >> senator widen in attendance. i'm sorry for those who didn't get invited. but what -- you always learn something in this world and whay learned from that meeting is i saw the playbook on how president trump and majority republicans were going to sell this tax cut because they know -- they fundamentally know all of you do that the public when knows that republicans are in power the first thing they want to do is give tax cuts to the rich. that is it's in when republicans are their dna. we know that. so they fundamentally. the chairman laughs but he knows it's always true. but the public fundamentally just intuitively understands
that that is what they are going to do so the tax cuts are not going to be for the middle class no matter how many times they sing that song. so the republican strategy in the white house and i know the president doesn't always find -- follow the exact script that senator mcconnell and speaker ryan write for him but the president said i'll bet you five times, and it was mimiced by a whole bunch of my colleagues that wages were going to go up $4,000 each for american workers. some will go up as much as $9,000. they said it over and over again. you know, they kind of have this give tax cuts -- hard to understand. but then you think about this. a dozen years ago when you did the tax holiday here, the corporations had all this money and of course they were going to be eager to give it out. they didn't give it out to workers. they did stock buybacks, executive compensation.
then somebody cited britain. great britain has done a series of tax cuts and their wages were flat, too. but i do know that the tv ads that are going to be run against the five most important senators on this committee, will of course say senator mccaskle and senator casey and senator stab now and senator nelson are voting against a $4,000 raise that this tax cut is going to bestow on them. we know it is coming. we know you will have way more money to promote that than we will have to defend it. but that is why the widen amendment is so important. i just think it would be nice just tonight before we go home to just acknowledge this tax cut really is not for the middle class, it is for the rich, and that whole thing about higher wages it's 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. they are sitting on a lot of
profits now. i don't see wages going up. so spare us the bank shots, spare us the sarcasm and the sat tire. >> i'm going to say to you that i come from the poor people and i have been here working my whole stinking career. for people who don't have a i really resent anybody saying that i am just doing i really resent anybody saying that i am just doing this for the rich. give me a break. i think you guys overplay that all the time and it gets old. frankly, you ought to quit it. i get kind of sick and tired of it. now true it's a nice plit can i play but it is not true. > roared mr. chairman. - regular order.
>> listen, i've honored you by allowing you to spout off here. what you said is not right. i come from the lower middle class originally. we didn't have anything. so don't do that stuff on me. get a little tired of that crap. crap. and let me just say something. if we work together we can pull this country out of every mess it is in. and we could do a lot of the things that you are talking about, too. and i think i have a reputation of having worked together. >> let's start with chip. >> i'm not starting with chip. i've done it for years. i've -- >> start with chips today. >> i've got more bills passed committee on this put together and they have been passed for the benefit of people in this country. now, all i can say is i like you personally very much but i'm telling you committee put together and they have been passed for the benefit of people in this bull crap that you guys throw out here really gets old. to do it right at the end of this, just not right.
>> i'm so upset i can't even say no. >> mr. chairman the final is 12 ayes 14 nays. >> the amendment fails. i have a manager's amendment. modified that includes a series of technical fixes and clarifying fixes to mark as well as small handful of accepted member amendments. mr. barthold please walk us hrough the manager's amendment. >> quickly. >> but, mr. chairman, i would like to amendment. >> echo the chairman's request. we need this summary. we just got a 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. as far as i can tell folks on the other side went in the back
while we were taking these votes and they have been talking about making these changes and it seemed to me that would have been a natural opportunity to talk about ways to find common ground. so it looks to me like the last hour or so on this we enforce partisanship here. so we need you to take us through what these changes are. e may have some questions. >> let's move on. we did walk your staff through it. >> this is the first i've heard of it. >> that's not my problem. i get it from my staff. you can get it from yours. >> nobody had this. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> there is no roll. >> are you kid sng >> mr. chairman, you asked -- >> the walk thru. i'm so upset. let's do that. >> that will be fine. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, the chairman's
modification begins with the modification to the transition rule to the change in the mark on section 162, 162 m that relates to binding contracts. it can clarification that the excise tax on investment income of private colleges and universities 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 paid. it also adds a clarification that the interest -- the limitation on the deduction of net interest expense for which there is an exception for regulated public utilities also applies in the case of certain
electric coops. it claferse or excludes that he acaccumulated foreign earnedings from the test for the purpose of the transition ule on the transition to the participation exemption system. modification to the modification to the mark's underlying proposal with respect to the orphan drug credit. it changes the credit rate to 27% and strikes certain limitations on expenses related to drugs that had been previously approved under the food and drug and cosmetic act. if the written document before you has a line that relates to the net operating loss deduction. if it does, i would say it
informed that that is in error. that there is no change to the chairman's mark as modified with respect to the net operating loss deduction. so if you have a pen you can strike that from your copy. the chairman's mark as modified, although i mentioned it in the walk through, the description of the amendment in the mark did not have an effective date or the change with respect to meals provided. this is only clarifying for the written record that that would be effective for taxable years after december after december 2025. the amendment also then adds a reporting requirement for research and experimentation, expenditures beginning after december 31, 2024. this is in relation to the amortization of research expenses.
he cost basis of certain securities, it changes the -- it changes first in/first out rule with respect to mutual regulated investment companies. there are certain additions, so these are new starters as opposed to modifications. it extends the free file program for the i.r.s.. it provides two changes to unify -- two changes with respect to whistleblower programs. whistleblower awards other than those whistleblowers with respect to the i.r.s. as above -- allows them above the line treatment for attorney's fees and court costs paid in connection to it. so it's conforming the
treatment in other areas where there are whistleblower award possibilities to the present law treatment that is accorded to whistleblower awards in the ase in a tax case. the -- it modifies i guess the definition of collected proceeds with respect to awards to be the -- a little broader effectively making a mandatory the whistleblower programs under areas again other than the i.r.s. it increases the exeeze tax on stock compensation of officers and inverted corporations. t disallows deductions for lobbying expenses with respect to lobbying before local bodies.nt
for s a new rirpte bodies. corporate taxpayers that pay dividends to share holders. such that there is requirement to report the total amount of dividends paid during a taxable year and the first 2-1/2 months of the succeeding year. that for corporate taxpayers would be ef starting after 2018. so a year's lead time. and it imposes a three-year holding period requirement for long-term capital gains with respect to partnership interest received in connection of performing services. this is related long-term to ca interest of certain investment partnerships. and then i believe the last makes some technical changes to the provision in the chairman's -- i'm sorry.
changes to permit distribution from retirement plans without penalty, and to provide essentially above the line treatment for casualty losses with changes to permit r mississippi river delta flooding of i guess that is a year-and-a-half ago. that concludes the -- >> i have several questions. ar i'm sorry, i forgot one thing. also, it does make a modification to -- the underlying mark would reduce the historic rehab credit value by 50% of the chairman's amendment. and this 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 that the
credit may be claimed -- the credit allowable would be claimed by taxpayers in four equal pieces over the four succeeding -- >> is that written here? >> i just said it was not written there. >> so we've got yet another major set of changes, including things that weren't written down. mr. abraham was the democratic staff consulted in the development of this? i understand apparently you were shown it here after it was written. but in the development was the democratic staff consulted in any of it? >> no, we were not. >> so colleagues, once again, the partisanship starts, it is obvious. this is another opportunity late at night when we were voting for there to be discussion between democrats and republicans about how we might find some common ground. we didn't get it. now, i listened to you and you went through a lot of things, a whole lot t find
that would help middle class families. i heard about the pre-file program and that struck me as something that would be useful and senator nelson has been a leader in that. but i heard an awful lot that i can tell you a lot of lobiveses who are following this or paying attention to. could you just give me a sense of whether anything else is there that help the middle class? >> perhaps senator widen the second to last item that i mentioned related to the disaster losses in the ississippi delta flooding. >> mississippi only. right? we got clobbered in the west with fires and the like. that's for the mississippi. right? >> this is just specific rell vanity to that area. >> ok. >> well, my colleague says it is not just the state of mississippi. there's also part of texas.
>> again, i want to come back to this. we heard that we are getting brand-new material here at 10:00 at night, democratic staff not consulted. i think all of us at least on our side were trying to listen because we didn't know what was in it. it sure looked like a lot of stuff that was important to lobbyists and not a whole lot that is going to matter to the middle class. mr. chairman, i think that kind of sums it up. i think you have a closing statement. i do. some of my colleagues i think have questions as well. >> well, let me just -- i will give a closing statement, if you have one you give one, too. >> if we could, could our colleagues ask questions before you and i give our closing statement? >> who has questions? >> i do, mr. chairman. >> ok. you represent the party and you questions. >> go ahead. >> thank you.
mr. barthold, is there anything in these questions. >> 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 create tax increases or are there any that predent vsh -- >> there's nothing that directly affects tax rates or allowable exemptions or deductions that would affect individuals. >> so nothing in here -- >> there's nothing that changes the broad structure of the income tax. >> so oots way of saying there's nothing in here -- there's a lot in here, nothing affecting or people's taxes who earn $75,000 or less who get tax increases in this overall bill. affecting people's taxes i am wondering also, you talked about drug changes. what kind of benefits are we seeing coming -- what kind of benefits happen here for the
drug companies? anything? mark senator ng stab now actually reduced the tax benefit of the current law orphan drug credit. and this modification here makes some further changes that on net reduce the benefits even a little bit further. changes the credit rate, changes some of the terms of what's -- what may be allowable to be claimed as eligible purposes for the credit. >> is there anything else companies? drug >> nothing else specific to the pharmaceutical industry. compan? >> ok. thank you. mr. chairman i just have to say with great respect for you if this process were happening and we were doing this process, people would be jumping up with
their hair on fire on the other side. this is unbelievable when i the affordable care act nd the fact there were 100 hearings, 53 in the finance committee and 47 in the help committee before there was even one vote on that which was a very substantial piece of legislation, here we have something that affects the whole economy and now affects health care one sixth of the economy alone. and hearings, 53 in the finance committee and 47 in the help committee before there was even one hearings. we have a -- we get it late night. there's no we're told any amendments have to be done by supped. we come in, we do opening statements. we ask questions on night. we're tuesday on even the that isn't real bill because then it gets changed again. and then we come in and we found out that it is even the real bill because then it gets working families and now we have something in fine print multiple pages again and 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 pages again and i don't understand why we don't take the time, to come back aft thanksgiving and actually be able to know what it is folks are voting on. the impacts on people, have a chance to talk to our constituents about it who are impacted and actually do this n a more thoughtful way. i mean, i don't understand. i know -- many of these don't even take effect until i mean, 2019. so there's this rush on even ing that doesn't take effect immediately. there's time. there's time to be able to do this in a thoughtful way. so i see my friend with his chart down there again. it doesn't take the even take effect immediately. place what we see in all of the numbers here. so the most important thing is
if we are going to sort out differences in numbers and differences in ideas and people having different analysis that takes a little bit of time to be able to do that. and i know in another committee i am in with the distinguished operate the on't committee like that. we just don't. and it's very, very concerning to me. we've done things in a whole lot better way. >> i'm sorry we disappointed you. senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to congratulate you and thank you for your leadership during this challenging markup. this whole process has been especially difficult because of our -- the posture taken by our democratic colleagues that they splint don't want to contribute, they want to try to undermine what we have tried to do here, and that is a shame and a lost opportunity. but this is still the just the beginning of a legislative process.
so 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 hallenging job of dealing with pass-through business entities so we still have quite a bit of work to do there to make sure that the tax code properly addresses the needs of those important contributors to our economies and jobs in america. thank you. >> ok. enator toomy you will be next. >> just a final clarification. in light of this final amendment, a simple question. does the effective elimination of the individual mandate in e tax bill lead to anyone in any income class paying any additional taxes out of pocket?
>> senator too manyy, as i explained, the original revenue reflected a lot of economic behavior. it -- the elimination of the mandate itself is not create a new individual income tax liability. >> thank you. >> is that it? ok. senator carden. >> mr. chairman, i am going to ask for your help here, if i might. in maryland, we had a national disaster declared, a major flood, about the same time in 2016. i don't know whether it would qualify as similar to the mississippi river delta flood that er, but i would hope 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 sirblingses that occurred in the mississippi delta. would the chairman work with us? >> we certainly don't want to do it for one area if we're not doing it for a similar type of circumstance. >> would be happy to work with you. >> the disaster was devastating. it was a flash flood, totally destroyed an historic city. and the people there suffered greatly. is there a revenue estimate in regards to any of these changes? working on gues are that, so i hope to actually have a final estimate also
understand that i was in error in saying that the nol provision was stricken. have the t was to effective date moved forward one more year and the mark as modifies the limitation to 80% of -- that net operating losses are limited to 80% of net ncome. was to be effective for taxable years after 2023. this final amendment from the chairman would make that for 2022. years after i thought the provision was on here. in fact it was supposed to have the year be 2022. >> senator widen has a question. >> is that acceptable? >> that is acceptable. >> i was led to believe that
this was revenue neutral which is why i didn't ask it. now senator carden has excavated the fact that we really don't know that's the case. so we are going to be voting, colleagues, after one partisan effort after another where we in the dark thought at least when we started this discussion 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 thought at we started this discussion this was revenue neutral. there for the middle class but plenty of stuff for the business interests -- now we cannot determine when we are voting that this is revenue neutral. nothing is a clearer snapshot, colleagues, of what this has been all about than what i've just heard. >> senator thune. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman tonight is a victory for the middle class and i would argue for all americans. and to the ranking member's point he just made that there is nothing in there for the middle class, i know you have
seen this before one last time this is the joint committee taxes distribution based on their distribution tables. as you can see across all ncome categories, everybody is receiving a tax cut. and if you look at where the biggest tax cuts percentagewise come, it comes right through those low and middle class groups. and i would say that one of the measures of whether or not this has been a fair process or not is how we maintain progressively. a lot of us talked about maintaining progressivity in the code. if you look again at the distribution tables and where the tax burden falls after the changes that are made in this reform, it is very similar to what it is today with one exception, and that exception is that people who make more than $1 million a year pay a bigger share of the tax burden than they do today. progressivity in the code is something that was maintained. the share of the tax burden borne by various different
groups in different income categories remain fairly the same. i want to make one other comment and echo what senator cornyn said. senator carden and i led the business tax working group and we developed into a lot of these issues and probably the toughest issue we examined was how to deal with pass-through income. i know that there are members that have concerns about that. there are a lot of folks in the pass-through community who have concerns about that. we look forward to continuing to work with them and with coops i might add to address those concerns and see if we can perfect and refine the way that this mark treats pass-throughs. but, again, in terms of the argument that is have been made all day, we've heard them all y long that middle class get anything out of this, everybody gets a tax cut. and nfib is supporting what we
have done with respect to business income and pass-throughs as well. so we get anything out of this, everybody gets a c think this is a great start and i congratulate mr. chairman on getting us this far. >> senator roberts. >> i want to speak to the question raised by my colleague from michigan senator stab now. and that is the modification of credit for the clinical testing drugs for rare diseases. we're talking about drugs for cancer kids. the house completely repealed the orphan drug credit. we took care of a limitation. we also -- and then restored at least a 27.25% credit. i would point out that there are many other diseases that are very unique and that it takes a great deal of money to ke sure these drugs are made available, and i would assume that many middle class folks ould be taking advantage of.
the final tally is 14 ayes, 12 nays. >> the amendment is passed. we are soon going to vote on final passage of the chairman's mark as the final tally is 14 a 12 modified of the tax cuts and jobs act. i want to thank all my colleagues on both sides for their participation, particularly today as we have gone through amendments. his is a good bill that -- this bill will allow hardworking middle class families to keep more of their paychecks by nearly doubling the standard deduction, lowering rates, and did you believing 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 by nearly a decade of sluggish economic growth.
working and middle class families will also see gains in wages as a higher result of a more vibrant economy. this is a bill i think both parties can ultimately support. as i have said many times throughout wages as a result of a more vibrant economy. 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 bipartisan proposals that have been discussd in advance by members of this committee. let's not understate the importance of that. our current corporate tax rate is a major drag on our economy. t drives businesses, jobs, and investment offshore. it slows growth, contributes to wage stagnation, that's why president obama, simpson-bowles, and even our beloved ranking member have put forward concrete plans to bring down our 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. our current system also drives companies offshore because it puts american companies at a distinct disadvantage in the world marketplace. i don't think any one of us should stand for that. we should all want america to be a good place to do business and give our job creators a chance to compete. that is how we improve wages, create jobs, and grow our economy. of course, most of the debate we have had here has been about what this bill will do for american workers and families. there have been some differences of opinion, as are two sides have interpreted the available data differently. i won't reopen that debate now. however, i do want to reiterate that all of us have sat here as
the top official at jct 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 their tax liability go away completely. let me reiterate that. a middle class family of four making the median family income will see their taxes go down by 1500 a year or more under the
modified mark. that is at least $125 in extra take home pay every month. for family with two kids making that amount could go toward their mortgage or car payments. it could help bring down credit card that amount could go balances or start a college savings account for their kids. i am personally proud of what we have accomplished here on behalf of the middle class. i won't count any proverbial chickens before they are hatched no pun intended but i think we have produced a bill that can and will pass both chambers. i said at the outset, i still hope to get some democratic votes for the bill if not here then hopefully on the floor. thags aners t while wish on my part but i still hope we can do that. i would feel good if we can start doing things together again but if we have to vote the bill out of committee with
only republican support we are prepared to do that. i want to close by thanking my colleagues on the majority side for their assistance in getting it to this point. every one of them has played an integral part of this effort and 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 that 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 once again with our democratic colleagues and i will do my best to find these opportunities. for now, let's just vote on the mark. let's take advantage of this major opportunity to do something good for the american
people. i hope all of my colleagues, republicans and democrats alike, will vote in favor of the mark. with that, i will turn to my dear colleague senator widen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you know, i and all of us on the minority side appreciate our relationship with you personally and we have stated that again and again. i believe that today will be remembered as the day that republicans worked to trade the health and well being of millions of americans for handouts, and te 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 handouts, and
what a contrast to what pockets class. today, republicans do just the opposite. and let me just repeat that because it is so critical. ronald reagan, no babbitt socialist, said that corporations should pay a little more to put money into middle class pockets. that was 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 class americans are going to get hit with a tax hike they carnt afford. 13 million americans will get kicked off their health care. premiums will 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. and it isn't going to be much comfort for any of those
americans to know that corporations are using their permanent windfalls to buy back stock and faten up executive compensation packages. now, my colleagues on this side put forward amendments 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 ruck down and with the stage of the debate a bill that was first crafted in the dark is headed back for the dark once more. next week wrks while americans to family and friends my guess is republicans will be back behind closed doors once more trying to decide what to family if final this tax scam is going to look
like when the gavel drops at the end of the debate. and what happened here bears no resemblance to the storied committee.this it is going to result in enormous deficits. it will become the excuse to attack medicare, medicaid, social security, and other programs that keep our people from falling into dest tuition. by the way, republican leaders haven't even tried to disguise their plans on that front with paul ryan saying the very first thing they are going to do after this tax bill is completed, they're going to go on to the entitlement agenda. and we have seen that movie before to get the sugar high, you have the big deficits and then you come after medicare and social security and medicaid and the programs so important to our people. colleagues, i think this is indefensible, partisan legislation, a dark day for storied committee and a dark day for our country.
the debate is going to go on, on the senate floor, and i will 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 that the relief ought to go to the middle class, shouldn't go to the folks at the top, we shouldn't explode the deficit, and we shouldn't hurt social security and medicare. the president agreed with every single one of those points. every one. and we said respectfully that's not what's been 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.
so if i might since this hasn't been a particularly cheery comment here, mr. chairman, 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. i talked often to the chairman that 2015 bill nobody thought we would do much of anything, just be more extenders. but democrats had good ideas for working families like the eitc, the american opportunity tax credit and child credit. we made them permanent. good policy. and republican's had good ideas, too. look at senator toomy. depreciation, expensing, making rd permanent but it was balanced. it wasn't taking each other's dumb ideas. it is taking each other's good ideas. so my hope is i think i have a sense of how this vote is going
to come out, that after thrfing 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 changed course and we proceed in a bipartisan way around the principle democrats are for and the president of the united states told democratic senators he is for as well. thank you, mr. chairman. >> at this time i would entertain a motion that the committee report the mark as modified. >> i so move. >> the motion has occurred. i assume that members want a recorded vote on this matter. the cloik will call the roll. he clerk will call the roll.
might be necessary to ensure it complies with the committee's reconciliation instruction. and without objection. >> 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 budgetry changes, that of course is custry and i accept that. but there hasn't been a whole lot customry about the markup. so i am perfectly comfortable staff the authority to make technical and conforming changes, but i want to make sure that the staff isn't staff the authority to being given the authority to make budgetary changes. to my mind that might allow changes such as to assure that the bill scomplies with the reconciliation instruction even if the bill we just voted to report when translated into legislative tests falls short.
i believe that the text that is filed 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. so to the extent that the chairman requests unanimous consent to go beyond technical conforming changes, to budgetary changes, i would have to object. so 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. is there -- >> i've made it very clear in my unanimous consent request that staff be granted the usual
authority to make technical conforming and budgetary changes to the mark. >> mr. chairman, i object. >> i expect to live up to what the distinguished senator is discussing. i don't want any games played on this. i just want it done right. but that also includes those that might be necessary to ensure it complies with the committee's reconciliation instructions. so -- i object because i object beca technical matters. it goes to budgetary changes. >> the clerk will -- >> i am concerned that will affect the compliance with the reconciliation instructions. >> the clerk will call the roll. i think it is unnecessary but we will call the roll.
i thank those who were involved in the process of drafting and advancing this mark. we have taken a big step today but of course there are many more steps ahead and though not every member agrees with the course we've taken 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 certainly want to thank senator -- the ranking member or his work on this committee.
and lower leaders in the capital city reyaud. we are live at the arab center starting at 9:30. senator bob menendez of new jersey spoke to reporters after a judge declared a mistrial in his federal corruption case. he thanked several people for bliving in his innocence. facing senator was charges of conspiracy, bribery nd abuse of power. >> first and above all, i want to thank god because it is by his grace that i was delivered rom an unjust prosecution. . thank my children