Amendment 233, amendment number 17. I would like to make it clear that the nature of this amendment and the nature of this amendment is to try to follow the advice of about every witness who testified in this room in september about how to stabilize the exchanges. Among the three things we should do, make clear that the costsharing reductions what upset the cost of copays, deductibles. Make clear they are not going away for at least two years. They also said that they put in place a Reinsurance Program. For highly expensive patient care for particular patients. Number three, they said we should retain the individual mandate. If we decide not to replace it with something just as effective, getting a good mix of young and Healthy People to be part of the insurance pool within the exchanges across the country. The legislation before us apparently repeals proposals to repeal the individual mandate. Happens, that would leave us with costsharing reduction and no reinsurance. Instead of a three legged stool, which was what was called for by governors, insurance commissioners, Health Insurance folks, economists, providers, they call for a three stool approach to reduce the cost of coverage in the exchanges. My amendment, mr. Chairman, colleagues, focuses on a Reinsurance Program. Those of us who were around a decade or so ago, when we debated and voted on Medicare Part d to establish a drug program, Prescription Program within medicare, voted for a Reinsurance Program. Because some of the folks will be in the pool under Medicare Part d were really expensive. And there needed to be a Reinsurance Program to make it work. We did that. Wellare part d works very and comes in almost every year under budget and has favorable ratings, Approval Ratings that would succeed any of us in this room, 80 , 90 . That this would work. Amendmentl my would create a pool that we call a Stability Fund, 120 billion. The states could use the Stability Fund to draw down to have the resources they need to set up and visible high risk. Pools. Four states that elect not to do that, there would be a backstop. Here is the way that would work. 2020 there would be a Reinsurance Program that said for states that do not set up the high risk goals, here is how it would work, those three years, cost for an individual in between 50,000 and 500,000, 80 of the cost would be born by the Stability Fund. 2021, 2022, 20 23, 80 of the cost between those three is between 100,000 and 500,000 would be borne by the Stability Fund. The rest by the Insurance Companies. Below that numbers and above would be borne by the Insurance Companies. And the testimony in this room two months ago, by setting up a Reinsurance Program, giving the states the ability to have their own indivisible fun high risk goals, along with high risk pools, along with preserving csrs and the individual mandate or something as effective, the cost of premiums in exchanges would be brought down by as much as 35 . 35 . The reason why is because Insurance Companies would get in to begin. Into the game they would compete for business in the marketplaces. In the states where there is a lot of competition in their exchanges, what is happening is that they are not looking at 30 , 40 , 50 increase in premiums, theyre looking at singledigit increases because of the competition. We need to make it clear to the Insurance Companies that they will lose their shirts. We are not interested in offering them welfare. We want to make sure they participate. A beauty of the Reinsurance Program is that it does that and give the state opportunities to set up states to set up their own highrisk pools. A federalstate partnership, this is a good example of how that may be done. I would ask my colleagues to consider it. If we are serious about stabilizing exchanges, we need to do the three things, make sure the csrs are going away, i cant they make sense and make clear the individual mandates will go away, what would be just as effective in keeping young people and healthy. Eople participating my amendment takes care of reinsurance. This is not within the scope of the bill and not germane and i will let out of order. I rule it out of order. You thought it was a pretty good idea . [laughter] i will not go that far but i usually like everything the senator from delaware does. I would like it inserted in the record. Earlier today back and forth doceen a senator and tor, i have a quote from earlier this year on the individual mandate and i wanted i wantactual words that made part of the record. I do not know if it is still in order to if i wanted to appeal the ruling of the chair . On the amendment i just offered, could 233, amendment 17, i appeal . Roll. Ric will call the republican colleagues are chafing and ready to get into the game. They wanted to because fosters. Cosponsors. Most of them. Mr. Grassley, no. Mr. Crapo, no. Mr. Roberts, no. Mr. Enzi, no. Mr. Cornyn, no. Mr. Thune, no. Mr. Isaacson, and no. Mr. Portman, no. Mr. Timmy, no. Mr. Heller, no. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Wyden, aye. Miss cantwell, aye. Mr. Nelson, aye. Mr. Carper, aye. Mr. Cardin, aye. Mr. Brown, aye. Mr. Bennet, aye. Mr. Casey, aye. Ms. Mccaskill, aye. The chairman votes no. The amendment is defeated. Next amendment. Senator cardin. Number 1 can ask consent that3 senator stevan out senator stabenow is a cosponsor. This would set back the corporate reductions if the secretary of treasury cannot certify that the coverage for Mental Health and Substance Abuse and Health Insurance coverage has not been diminished. The concern here to my colleagues is that we have the resources to deal with the Opioid Crisis that is affecting every community in our country. My concern is that, if you look at the underlining bill, the cbo in a joint Tax Committee at a 1. 5 trillion addition to the national debt. My concern is that we know the casualties from the Opioid Crisis. We know we need to have the resources in order to deal with it. We know that there has been an abuse of opioids in every community that has led to heroin addiction. Unfortunately, the use of fentanyl, which has caused significant overdoses and all of our communities. I have had town meetings and roundtable discussion in western maryland, eastern shore, cecil county, southern maryland, the baltimorewashington suburbs. The story is the same, a rise in the increase in the opioid addiction. We do know that having Mental Health and Substance Abuse coverage is critically important in dealing with this crisis. I would think all of us would make sure that we do maintain a coverage in dealing with this Opioid Crisis. That is the purpose of this amendment, to make sure we have coverage. Thell ask consent that Psychological Association as part of a record. The issuess spells we are concerned about, american Psychological Association and the American Association of with a strong opposition to repealing the Health Insurance coverage mandate as part as the tax reform legislation. Strong, stable markets are finally important for the members and to millions of americans with Mental Health and Substance Use disorders organizations comprise newly ,15,700 members and affiliates technicians, researchers, educators, consultants, students. The reason is that in order to deal with the oprah crisis, we need to have coverage. I was listening to senator toomey as he talked about that nothing in this bill takes people off of medicaid or Health Insurance. I would point out to my colleagues that the joint Tax Committee has confirmed that 180 billion is saved in eliminating the mandate from the spent inprogram and is because ofns mark the assumption that 180 billion will not be spent in medicaid and people who were covered under medicaid will not be covered. Let me remind my colleagues that medicaid includes Mental Health and addiction coverage. That could very well be lost. That is half the story. , a 100 billion saved for subsidies not provided under the formal care act. That is spent by tax expenditures in the chairmans mark. Savings0 billion of that is spent in the chairmans mark and added to the deficit means that there will be 13 Million People with medicaid and the formal care act that will not be covered Affordable Care act that will not be covered by Health Insurance, that will lose their Mental Health and addiction coverage under their Health Insurance policy. As pointed out by the american Psychological Association, many people, because of the 10 increase in insurance premiums under the individual marketplace will be priced out of coverage and not be able to get Mental Health and addiction coverage. For all of those reasons, we need to make sure we have the capacity to deal with the Opioid Crisis as a result of the underlining bill. My amendment will make sure that we have some resources available, if the secretary of treasury cannot certify that we have maintained at least the current coverage for Mental Health and addiction. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. We agreed to 10 minutes equally divided, five minutes for each site and you used 4. 5 minutes and senator mccaskill was it you or senator mccaskill . Senator mccaskill, i call on you but please keep it short. I would like to speak. Weight wait. We will yield our time. I do not mind giving additional time but lets not take advantage of it because we agreed to 10 minutes. Your five minutes have long been gone. Mccaskill. Senator i will not do that on every vote. I want to make sure that the irony is set out loud. At the same time my colleagues want to say that the individual comes toails, nobody get insurance because of the individual mandate. Moneyu will spend the that cbo says will be generated because of people who are not coming to the marketplace. In other words, what you say does not work. And therefore it is ok to get rid of it. , it worksit a minute pretty well because it will be 180 we will not have to spend in medicated because people will not sign up for medicaid because they do not have to anymore. We will save 185 billion in a because they aca will not sign up anymore because they do not have to. ,hat you say that does not work you cannot wait to spend the money because cbo says it does work. Just a minute or two. Senator brown wants time . Which includes all of the insurance mandate and essential health benefits. One of obamacare written in the Public Health service act. Not the Internal Revenue code. This amendment is not germane. I cannot allow 10 minutes for every nongermane amendment. I will do it in this case. Enator stabenow i will be reasonable but lets lotowledge it is asking a of the majority. Mr. Chairman, i appreciate your comments and i will say that what we are doing will impact millions and millions and millions of people. It is very serious. The discussion and tax the entire economy impacts the entire economy. Senator cornyn did a wonderful job cardin did a wonderful job. Americans will be with a Mental Illness sometime in their life. This is a critical issue for our veterans returning home who served us. To keep our country safe. They open your addiction issue is impacting every community i know in michigan and across the country. I think it is important to take a stand and say we will not allow people to lose critical services. You have one minute. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Amendment. E the when i think about opioids in my state, i think of a man sitting with his 30yearold daughter in cincinnati. He said, if it was not for medicaid, my daughter would not be alive. I think about how 200,000 people in my state are getting opioid treatment because they have insurance because of the Affordable Care act. I think we need when we make these decisions, we need to put a human face on them. I appreciate that. The clerk will call the roll. It is not germane. I know it is not germane. But this amends the Internal Revenue code. It is not amended the health code. We drafted the amendment consistent with your instructions. I would urge the chair to be fair. This amends the irs code, not the health code. I have been told it is not germane. Could i ask the reason why it is not germane . If this is not germane, how do you amend the code to deal with your Health Care Issues on mandatory coverage . Lets have some fairness. Lets put it to a vote. I am asking for a chairman ruling. I am ruling even if it is your main not germane, lets vote. The clerk will call the roll. What are we voting on . Demerit on the amendment the merits on the amendment. Mr. Grassley, no. Mr. Crapo, no. This roberts, no. Mr. Enzi, no. Mr. Cornyn, no. Mr. Burr, no. Mr. Isaacson, no. Mr. Portman, no. Mr. Heller, no. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Cassidy, no. Mr. Wyden aye. Ms. Cantwell, aye. Mr. Nelson, aye. By proxy. Ez, aye mr. Garber aye,. Mr. Cardin, aye. Mr. Brown, aye. Mr. Bennet, aye. Mr. Casey, aye. Mr. Warner, aye by proxy. Mr. Mckesson miss mccaskill, aye. The chair votes no. 14 nays. S and wyden ill go to widen 1. It is wyden 157. I want to respond to my colleague from ohio who says this is fundamental tax reform. This bill is actually taking us backwards. We are going back to the world of the crazy extenders, what we learned today is we will have all kinds of provisions that expire at different times with potential interactions. I would say that it is a retreat from what we did in 2015 on a bipartisan basis when we made important changes that both sides felt strongly about permanent on our side, income tax credit, the American Opportunity tax credit, child credit while on the republican side it was expensing, depreciation, that was fundamental tax reform being the gun. Based on what we were told today, we are going backward through the crazy world of tax extenders. These tactics vendors, a full employment program, not tax reform. With respect to my amendment. Hr1mendment is the tax of as reported by the House Committee on rules. After the last few days, the debate, i am sure people are not surprised that i am no fan of this proposal. I think it is the same basic approach taken by the senate bill. It is my view and the reason i am offering this amendment is that is is important to understand the level of support in the senate on what the full house is about to vote on. If colleagues want to speak, i am interested in hearing their views. Naysl ask for the yays and because it is important to get the level of support on what the house will vote on on the issue of taxes. This amendment serves no real purpose, i do not understand why it was introduced. This amendment would strike the mark and substitute it with a language of hr1. A bill the house has not even past yet. We have to legislative chambers for a reason. The house is moving forward on a proposal and we are working on ours and we will likely have to work out differences, if passed. Not many. I expect all republicans on the committee will a vote against the amendment. While we wish the house look at are generally supportive of what they are doing over there, we are all content to chart our own course. To be quite honest, this smells like a stunt. Unworthy of the time of the committee. I would hope the Ranking Member would withdraw this amendment. No. Ot, we are happy to vote i want to explain to colleagues why i am offering this. I have given it some thought. The public is not going to get any time to seek what Congressional Republicans has ouh out in secret discussions between the house and the senate , if they managed to pass the bills. Because the public will not get a chance to see where Congressional Republicans come down because, based on the secrecy we have seen, it will be more of the same in a conference between the house and senate. I think this is important to have the senate on record. This is not something i offer lightly. I do not think the public will get time to see what Congressional Republicans hash out. I respect out that and we will call the roll. My time is not up. I have given you 10 minutes, i gave you five and we have five. One minute, six minutes left on the clock. Thank you you i would urge my as i does to vote no, not think you want to say tonight that we should cut 12 billion out of Renewable Energy credits. If you are ready to say that you do not want wind in texas or in state, in washington support the proposal. I do not want to cut 12 billion out of Renewable Energy. And i do not want to eliminate private activity bonds. It will cause one million fewer a few Affordable Housing units. We have Affordable Housing crisis and need to show our house colleagues this is an unacceptable approach to the Affordable Housing crisis we face and i urge my colleagues to vote no. Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Grassley, no. Mr. Crapo, no. This roberts, no. Mr. Enzi, no. Mr. Cornyn, no. Mr. Thing, no. Mr. Berg, no. Mr. Isaacson, no. Mr. Portman, no. Mr. Toomey, no. Mr. Heller, no. Esther scott, no. Mr. Cassidy, no. Mr. Wyden, no. Ms. Cantwell, no. Mr. Nelson, novi proxy. No. Mr. Menendez, no by proxy. Mr. Card, no. Mr. Brown, no bennet. 20. Mr. Bennet, mr. Warner, novi proxy. Proxy. By the chairman votes no. I will like to call amendment 15 and offer this. On the i am on the Health Committee and finance committee. I know about our health care system, it has not worked well in Rural America for a long time , before the Affordable Care act was passed and since the Affordable Care act was passed, it is not working well for small towns in colorado and across the country. Competition is low and prices are high with deductibles are high. Of the plans available are of little practical lose to used to individuals and their families. For years, coloradans have raised legitimate concerns about our health care system. Over the last 10 months, we should have listened and come together to address the issues in Rural America, in rural withado, instead we spent partisan attempts to repeal the Affordable Care act and replace it with proposals to slash health care for millions of americans. To finance tax cuts for those making millions in income. All year we had tax cuts masquerading as a Health Care Plan and now we have Health Care Plans masquerading as a tax bill. According to the congressional budget office, the plan in front of us with 413 million americans to lose coverage force 13 million americans to lose coverage. We are told by cbo that it believed to 25 billion in medicare cuts. This is the opposite of what i hear we need from rural coloradans. Where there is not enough coverage. Premiums have gone up and there is not enough competition. My amendment provides the backstop for Rural Communities in my state and in the country. If rural areas Lose Health Coverage or see premium hikes as a result of this plan, which is what is predicted by people who have looked at this plan, the amendment would undo this tax plan entirely. If the majority is so confident in the merits of their proposal, as they are in terms of deficit reduction, they should support the amendment and provide peace of mind the small towns across colorado and the country. The effects of passing this bill will be felt hardest in areas where there is little competition already. Where people have a hard time affording insurance and where many people rely on medicare and medicaid for their Health Insurance. All throughout rural colorado and across the country, i urge a yes vote on this amendment. I have to rule it nongermane and outside of the scope of this bill. I would argue, mr. Chairman, i respect your ruling. But i would argue that it is very much inside the scope of the bill because the individual mandate will drive up insurance prices. I understand the argument. I will relent. I appreciate that. That means a lot to me, personally. Senator carper . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Colleagues, this will be amendment 228. Carper 12 deals with veterans. Several of us on this committee are veterans and i spent 23 years in active and reserve duty. One of my favorite days of the year is veterans day. All almostat all of us back home in our respective states, probably on friday, a federal day for veterans day and saturday veterans organizations those of us who serve real veterans day at the 11th month of the year, limit our, live in today. 11th day. R, when accelerating veterans day, talking about celebrating the doomsday, talking about veterans day, then if its in delaware, i moved there in 1973 and was up for the gi bill. At the time, we had a gi bill that gave us 250 per month for the amount veterans. For vietnam veterans. Today, you want to go to a state university, it is free. Tuition is paid for. Tutoring fees are paid for. Oans. Ng l somebody on the committee from idaho, senator crapo. , 1100hs for veterans per month. Do not know what it buys and i know, but a fair up in idaho, but a fair amount of money. I am seeing if we have anybody from new york state. In new monthly housing york state is 4000. In my state, delaware, when i got there we had a veterans today, we have a world war ii relic, regarded by many as important for health care delivery. Clinicsave outpatient in northern help in every county in delaware. We may be the only state in the country where we can make that claim. As it turns out, not every veteran gets th healthcare healtheeir gets their Care Coverage through the v. A. Many get it through medicaid. Medicaid accounts for about 2 million veterans. Its about one in 10. As it turns out, since the Affordable Care act went into effect, the number of working age veterans uninsured has decreased. Not by a couple of percentage points, but 42 . No small part to the Affordable Care act establishing Health Insurance marketplaces, and expanding medicaid. Colleagues, and remember that what is before us that no veterans or their families see a reduction in access to their healthcare as a result of this bill. Again this memo would ensure that no veterans are other families see reduction in access to their health care as a result of this bill. I must have heard 100 times last , friday on veterans day or saturday and must have heard hundreds of times, people thinking one another for their service. I have been think for mind, and think a lot of people for theirs. Words . We make real those how do we know for sure that we really mean it . One of the ways we can do that is to dedicate this legislation moving forward with the stipulation, that no veterans or their families receive reduction. Everybody in this committee, in this room, thinks we have we have an obligation to honor our nations veterans. Ofy take away the benefits what they deserve. Time is up. I think senator isakson wants to speak to this. If you could turn on your i was proud to be one of the 14 people along with senator carper honored in on it last week. Mr. Chairman of the Veterans Committee, we have passed seven of the eight bills to bring in health care, and the choice bill come to full fruition. Will beining bill marked up on the 29th of november, when we fully fund this eligibility through. This is part of our Delivery System to veterans. I appreciate the critter , but the the veterans Veterans Committee is doing the insurance to see to it that every veteran gets benefits they were offered for health care. Everybody in this room has been a part of that effort, so i want the Veterans Committee to continue to do what it has done; take care of our veterans, and have expansion to our programs, make sure theirs access to affordable, Accessible Health care. I would object to the amendment on those grounds. Know for the republican comment they will call the role could i have 30 seconds to respond to senator isakson . Thank you. Im not familiar with the legislation you just described we all serve on this committee. We are all considering legislation that is going to affect whats going on in the exchanges. A lot of veterans get health Care Coverage in the exchanges. What i am asking for is a statement that makes it clear that we dont want to let anything we are doing here unintentionally reduce access to health care for our veterans. Thats what im trying to do, and i would ask for a yes vote. Mr. Grassley. Mr. Roberts. Mr. Enzi. Mr. Cornyn. Mr. Thune. [voting] 12 is 14 nays. The amendment is defeated. If this bill moves out of committee, there will be a bill out of the finance committee, the house bill. Should the bill code to to conference,o this next amendment requires a hearing on any measure with a revenue war budget impact of greater than 1 billion. I dont think thats asking too much for openness and transparency so that taxpayers this rushed process leading up to a vote on the finance committee, which i have argued this site has argued that this was driven by a tax bill, instead of being subjected to the number of hearings that Ranking Members referred to earlier in the mid 80s, where president reagans something on the order of a 490 page proposal got 27 hearings. The house bill got six hearings at the time. More review, scrutiny this amendment is appropriate to read as an old inspection there is an old expression, free from every expression, there will be a lot of suspicion and mistakes made. Im hoping we can get a yes vote on the amendment. Esther chairman senator mccaskill. 10 minutes left. Ive never been in a markup of this committee before. Have been in a lot of markups i have never had all of the republican amendments put on the bill the night before, and all the democratic amendments, or even one party done that way. Ive never seen this done before were all republican amendments got put on in the mark, and democratic amendments have to be brought up and voted on as if there is a different set of rules for one party or the other. Im also curious, because we are being told and i dont know if this is true, and maybe you guys cant confirm it this will be conferenced next week. The house is going to vote, get this done, and you guys will conference it next week, similar to the way this bill was drafted. One of us were around nobody was allowed to give input. Be a bill we will vote on is agreed to buy the house, which is why i think this amendment is so important. If we couldgreat participate in a conference somewhere close to regular order. Know that we took a number of democratic amendments in the modified parts. Did. S what we thats where we are. We will call the role. Voting] mr. Chairman, just one question wait until the voters announced. 12 is, 14 nays. The amendment is defeated. Has quick question this been defeated to have a real Conference Committee and hearings. I would hope the fact that the entire committee voted against , they would take in the Conference Committee. Thats a strong message to the house. Thank you. Now brown number 24, i believe. Expenses. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its brown number 24, moving expenses. This amendment fixes a problem that i will bet you everyone in this room has spoken out against , has said they want to fix this problem at some point in their careers and their states. The bill is, if someone shuts down production in ohio and , ors to move to lima peru wants to move to russia, they get a tax break to make that move. If you are living in cleveland, and you moved to salt lake, for , you cant deduct your own move. This fixes two problems inequity if you personally moved to take a new job, you cant deduct this from your own personal taxes, but the other thing it does is safe, why should we encourage companies to move overseas . Planbecome the business for far too Many Companies to shut down production in Washington State or michigan, and move overseas, deduct the cost to move, set up production there, and sell the product back in the United States. This amendment will fix that. We should do something about this. I think this is something, because so many have spoken out about it in both parties for so long. I would just ask that the chairman accept this amendment by qc. Any further comments . Senator crapo looks supportive of this by the look on his face. I see that look often and Banking Committee when we work together. Maybe youve telegraphed to much here, senator. Senators of the time. I could not agree more with senator brown. Theres another way, the oneto punch would be to accept bringing home. Jobs home, which stops sending jobs overseas. You might lose your job, past things up. As a taxpayer, you pay for the move, and your whole community does. But senator brown is talking about is an inequity or we are paying taxpayers for jobs being moved overseas. If somebody is moving from Columbus Ohio to did to try for a new job, we would love as many people as possible coming to michigan. They cant deduct it. That just seems absurd. Thank you. The clerk will call the role. [voting] the clerk will announce the vote. Nays. s, 14 the amendment is defeated. To brown number five. This is patriot employers treat some of you at the white house, where all republicans at the white house only a few democrats were invited to meet the president in the cabinet room. He asked us for his ideas. I gave him to. One of them is this amendment called the Patriot Corporation act. Its pretty simple. If a company does the right providesys good wages, decent benefits, it would keep its production in the United States, they get tax benefits. The president made promises, he couldnt make social security. He said that 40 minutes ago. I know the president said he wants to help Companies Stay in this country. He would report companies that stay. They can tell the president guess they grew at that idea, it makes sense. I would close with this. I live in cleveland, ohio, zip code 44105. My zip code in 2005 2007 had more foreclosures than the zip codes in the United States other zip codes in the United States. That was less about wall street than it was declining manufacturing jobs. I go a quarter mile from my house every day, and i see the devastation brought about by factory closings, plant closings, companies that move overseas that can get tax breaks, instead of rewarding companies. One of the ways to fix that is the patriot employer act. I would hope this committee would agree with this president , his promises, Forbes Magazine article, comments to me in the cabinet room. Ask the chairman to accept this amendment by qc. What is the score and whats the offset . We will get that you, mr. Chairman. Score on not seen a much of anything in this committee on this bill. Of the clerk will call it. The clerk will call the role. Not german. You start called start the role. So taken with senator grassleys emphatic no the chairman has the right to do that. So, what do you want to do . You can appeal the ruling. Its actually the tax code. You can appeal the ruling of the chair. [voting] the final tally is 9 is, 13s nays. The amendment is defeated. Mr. Chairman, was mr. Warners name called . No proxies were called. Are they not allowed . Not to overrule the chair. I dont like when we see what senator brown was talking about hes talking about amending the Internal Revenue code. There was nothing provided. He has been trying to get a revenue out for quite some time, as i understand it. Mr. Chairman, you have given us a long time to consider this bill. For you to penalize us because we dont have time to get, to get any kind of documentation when you have given us you have changed the bill every day. First it was last thursday, then it got more specific, then it changed again. Then you changed it at midnight last night. This is a farce, mr. Chairman. To say we didnt have a score because i didnt move fast enough, when we are trying to get this overworked staff who you have put all this work on in such a short time, because Mitch Mcconnell give you some artificial deadline, and you want to jam us . Is that the way this committee i love this committee this is the last amendment for tonight. Ok. I dontndment know it whether task you are senator white. Finish onr desire to thursday, friday, or saturday. I would like to finish tomorrow. We might have to go late. Mr. Chairman and center, you can see the frustration on our side if i could just finish, because we are raising substantive issues, because we are talking about making 10 trillion worth of changes in tax law on the fly. We want to get answers and offer real amendments. I think senator browns last ndment was your main germane because it was going to change the Internal Revenue code. Tomorrow, we are going to be here tomorrow. I am concerned about going thats why offer the amendment, going to a new conference. We have serious questions, and well talk about them tomorrow. Friday and saturday. We are going to go late tomorrow, in my projection. We may go into friday and saturday. That is your right ask linda. That is your right to bring up what you want to. There is a limit to everything. I think its pretty apparent are, so its we hard to think senator brown has number 11. We will turn to senator brown for his amendment on opioids, i believe. Number 11,amendment opioids. ,ike many senators here tonight my state has been devastated by deal. Crisis why the opioid has been devastated by the Opioid Crisis. Funding is needed to address the situation. Acted,ate, house have but we have not put much money behind our action. We also played defense for much of the year, when people were trying to cut medicaid, knowing 200,000 i stand with on fightingich back against the cuts in medicaid that would have threatened to hundred thousand people that would have people. Ed 200,000 this makes it harder for people. O donate to local institutions by eliminating this amendment reinstates the Charitable Giving deduction for state certified with medicare, medicaid, nonprofit Addiction Treatment senate centers. Surely, that is something we can support. Any rebuttal, comments . Mr. Chairman did you want to Say Something . Its ok mr. Chairman. I was pointing out whats have the vote. Will recognize you. Chairman, i want to Say Something. About the amendment . Yes. I will be happy to recognize you in advance. Thank you. States not ordinary, but go ahead. Each of our states has a terrible problem with opioidaz. S. Did you know that a pregnant woman on opioids transfers the dependency to the unborn child, and when born, that child has a not addiction a dependency on opioids. The only way to get them off in 60e, in the hospital is 30 days on morphine. Thats the only way to get a child off. Im not sure if that. Therefore, i certainly support the senators amendment. The senate will call the role. [voting] [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] [voting] the final tally is 12 is, 14 nays. The amendment is defeated. Like to thank members for being here. Emotions are running high and can, i want to keep things organized and civil. Moving forward, this isnt going to work if people dont want to be recognized before speaking. It isnt going to work if we are not respectful of each others time to speak and a right to express our views. Things got unruly here a few times, and that is inappropriate. I think all of you know i want to be fair, and it will be fair and accommodating to everyone, but it want the committee to function as well. Tomorrow, we will start again at 10 00 a. M. We will continue with amendments , and as long as debate remains productive, im ready to go into friday to consider more. I would like to finish by tomorrow. If we cant, we move into friday. I just want to say how much i appreciate everybody on this committee. This is not easy for any of us. We all feel aggrieved in some these problemsof that have come a. People on both sides are very sincere, and deserve to be. Onsidered let me senator whiten. To the pointell mr. Chairman, what is the process for my colleague probably within an hour of that marketing filed last night filed an amendment, then asked for a score . Itjust got ruled out of order , because he didnt have one. What do we do about that in this process here, so that we can were not going to close the debate yet, because people havent been able to get scores who couldve asked for a long time ago. Were going to go through it. Brown movedenator as quickly as he could with the information that he had on hand. We asked for the score thursday, before the bill was paper. Before to we could see the bill, we began right then. Its asking too much of the staff. Ive never heard one of them complain, but i also know they cant get everything done. We are rushing this through, mr. Chairman. I have heard a number of my colleagues talk about 1986. They actually went through regular order, they had discussions, hearings, lots of time to do it. They did it bipartisan lee. Theres been no effort like that here. We are going to end up with this bill written in a back room and senator mcconnells office with lobbyists. The American Public isnt going to understand us, and members of Congress Wont understand it. Its not 1986. We know we have to move ahead and we know it wont please those who disagree. Frankly, we are going to move ahead tomorrow. Mr. Chairman mr. Chairman, i want to, as we wrap up, make it clear that side, thepped on her idea that you cant have bipartisanship from the very beginning. We said the tax code is broken. If i could just finish. We said we want to work in a bipartisan way. 2050, were ofced but he just said, its going to be a bunch of extenders. What we said is, both sides ought to come together to work , insensible policies that effect, would lay the foundation for doing bipartisan tax reform now. We have shown here in the last couple of years you remember that. Nobody thought we could get a bill with sensible policies on both sides. Principled bipartisanship present will bipartisanship. , i appreciate senator hatch had not been on the committee the long, setting up working groups, he made senator crapo and the cochairs. Cochairs. Both senator crapo and i were charged to do a proposal and savings and investment, the beginning of our working relationships and helped us get to know each other for the Banking Committee. We came back with specific it was not earthshaking but specific proposals. We gave it back to you and have never seen any movement. That is not in this bill. That could have been the beginning of a bipartisan effort , we wouldve had bipartisan effort and language but we have heard nothing from you. We try to be bipartisan. I understand the argument. It is time to go. Insenator grassley will run three hours. I hope everybody will call down overnight calm overnight. We have tried to you this the best we can. We have tried to do this the best we can. We will recess. The Senate Finance committee continues work on its version of tax reform, watch the meeting live at 10 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan3 here on cspan, live coverage of the house at 9 00 a. M. As they debate their tax reform bill, followed by the vote on final passage. This weekend on book tv, live coverage of the Miami Book Fair. Starting saturday at 10 30 a. M. Eastern, Msnbc Chris Matthews on the political life of the kennedy. Walterlling biographer isaacson on leonardo da vinci. Newss katey turner covering the truck campaign. Campaign. Smear tactics. A political commentator with his thoughts on the conservative movement. Ones on partisan politics. And the president emeritus of feldman college on Race Relations in the United States. Watch our live weekend coverage of the Miami Book Fair this weekend on cspan2s book tv. House will finish floor debate on tax reform and vote on final passage of the bill. Live coverage on cspan at 9 00 a. M. Eastern is part of yes here is part of yesterdays bill on the debate beginning with a congressman, this is about one hour. Look, you cannot have it both ways. I just heard it said. You cannot have it both ways. What i suspect will happen after i get done, as has been the case with every one of the speakers onthe side, the gentleman the other side will say that residents in my hometown will get a tax break of x, 1000. I would ask if he would add to that, the amount of the debt i
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.