[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] a gentle man is not recorded. [roll call] [roll call] the clerk will report the vote. 16 yeas, 23 nays. V. Amendment is not agreed to. The question now is on the amendment by mr. Pascrell of new jersey and the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the clerk will report about. The vote. 16 yeas, 23 nays. V. Amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments in regard to the amendment. For what purpose does the gentle megentleman seeking amendments . The point of order has been reserved. Ive asked the gentleman to suspend the [inaudible conversations] the gentleman continues to reserve the plaintiff worker come i. The amendment whats equitable is equitable. Equitable. Equitable. What can and does very simply as it will eliminate the state and local Tax Deduction that corporations are currently allowed to deduct from their taxes just as the underlining bill is called for the elimination of state and local taxes from million for millionsg families throughout this country including, just to show it isnt just an east coast and west coast issue over 27 of the families in large rural wisconsin districwisconsin diste and take the production at an average tax savings of roughly 10,000, so mr. Chairman, i get what you are trying to do. The tax reform for the first time is hard. In order to subscrib provide a d reduce the rate youve got to take away certain expenditures, certain tax allowances that are currently in the code. I get that but lets also be honest about the reason you are going after the provision only applying it to working families is a revenue grab. In order to help pay for the complete elimination of the estate tax that many of you claimed is a form of double taxation when in truth psd taxee estate tax is primarily unrealized Capital Gains that have never been taxed into poverty in passed on from generation to generation and many of us have a problem with that. But also the element nation for working families is being used to eliminate the alternative minimum tax which is the only buffer we currently have in the code to have some of the most wealthy individuals pay some form of taxation at the end of the day including multibillionaire Real Estate Developers who own jets and thoughts and huge towers named after themselves in new york city because we now know that with the limited return that was revealed from the 2005 tax returns, the only reason he paid any federal income tax at all that here was because of the alternative minimum tax that you would now are choosing to completely eliminate which would be a huge windfall and a bonanza for people in mr. Trumps position, but its also being used to pay for a 40 reduction of the marginal Corporate Tax rate in our tax code. If they think that this was nothing but a stop for the most wealthy corporations at their expense the political will back home in her district is not going to be very sad plain and simple and right now you have an optics problem. Its so much a relief to be included in multinational corporations at these months of working families so much of the relief is being addressed at the top with the elimination of the estate and alternative minimum tax that there is an optics problem. In fact the one industry that is the primary beneficiary of what you are calling for here today are those large wall street banks. The same very banks that put us in the brink of financial ruin as a nation back in 2008 and 2009. They especially will benefit from the provisions that you are offering to the American People today. All we are saying is what is fair is fair and as waters equitable is equitable. If you are going to do this with the elimination of salt lets ask the corporations of america to also give up a deduction that they are currently allowed to take and in fact the entertaining friendly amendment on your site if you want to illuminate the foreign tax credit which allows multinationals to deduct the taxes they pay by moving operations overseas and operating in other countries that is some additional revenue that we get closer to . 3 trillion gap. I think its reasonable and i think its fair. I think it helps in so many ways and it makes more sense to the working families who are being asked to give up the very important provisions they currently enjoy the state and local Tax Deduction. But all this together and putting the large corporations of this country. I yield back taves hymn the gentleman yields back. Mr. Nunes is recognized to speak on the amendment creates. A few mr. Chairman. Coming from the highest taxed state in the nation i want to continue to advocate that if we continue this deduction that mostly goes for really rich people especially really rich people in california so you are talking about the millionaires and billionaires from Silicon Valley. You are talking about hollywood producers. You are talking about really, really wealthy people who are taking advantage of the production at the expense of everybody else in the country including most other parts of california. I would advocate going into this amendment i would hope that all of my colleagues endorses amendment and i say that as someone who comes from the most taxed state in the nation and in fact if youd weeks ago we raised our gas tax do we will be the highest gas tax in the United States of america even higher than hawaii even though we are one of the largest holders of oil in the United States. So i ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment and send a strong message to state capitols around the country that want to continue to raise taxes on the American People. With that gentleman yield . Mr. Blumenauer. I heard what you are saying and im trying to get the connecting link why if its wrong and you want to get rid of it, why are you speaking against mr. Kinds amendment which would just treat businesses the same way you want to treat working families or rich working families. Its. As you know mr. Blumenauer we allow it they are all treated the same and they are all on the same Playing Field. All businesses are on the same Playing Field and they can all the duct business taxes and that should continue. And you would get rid of that. The gentleman from california controls the time. Thats why. Do you have another question . The thing im missing if you think its wrong for individuals individuals, why would you allow corporations to continue to take that deduction . Its not just corporations. Its all businesses in the United States who take advantage of this and therell treated the same all over the United States so if you begin to mess with that you will have huge distortions in the marketplace but as someone who pays taxes in california we have the highest taxes in the United States. I do not think its okay for us to continue to allow our politicians and sacramento to deduct those taxes. Without the somebody else wants in time over here . The gentleman yields back what effect will this have on estate taxes . If allowing states to sorry corporations continue to deduct but not individuals what effect will this have on individuals who can no longer deduct and corporations can . The point is. The people are tired of paying it so what are we talking about . The gentleman controls the time. Please mr. Chairman. We fall into the habit of interrupting nearly every speaker in some way and heres my recommendation. All members will be allowed to complete their statements and the finished for the most part we have to be respectful of each others time. I would continue, reclaiming my time i will continue to make the point that we are given advantages in state capitols to raise taxes on citizens. That is what is happening so few continue to allow sacramento to deduct they will continue to raise taxes on californians and my constituents. The fact remains these deductions go to the wealthiest people so if you are advocating Salt Productions for states to allow them to do that you are advocating are the richest citizens in your state and thats just a fact. So if you added that to businesses like you want to do i can imagine this would actually pass. If you guys are serious about this amendment but this is designed to kill the bill and i just want to make sure mr. Chairman that i am on the record opposing new taxes for california and getting rid of salt does that. The gentleman yields this time. Mr. Neil you are recognized. I support the kind of amendment tickets i think it calls attention to the grievance we feel on the side where you are subtracting a benefit for middleclass people across the country in terms of the state and local Tax Deduction and while simultaneously not addressing it in an equitable manner so once again i would repeat we are repealing the estate tax, we are repealing the alternative minimum tax for the 4. 5 million families who now pay it and we cant bring ourselves to say middleclass people ought to get a local tax reduction and allowing people to speak on this i would say to my friend mr. Nunes im not quite sure what happened and how the gas tax was raised but we live in a state where one out of eight people in america resided it strikes me the state has done well over my time in terms of infrastructure expenditure from the federal government and the partnership. Its a marvel what has happened that i look at the upkeep and i look what has happened across United States. Think we are talking about equity and fairness. Repealing the alternative minimum tax for 4. 5 Million People on the estate tax 22 . 5000 families in a nation of three and 25 million and we are taking the middleclass tax benefit away . For people who use the state and local Tax Deduction . I yield back my time. Mr. Thompson. I think the gem on for yielding. I would point out 40 of my constituents use this deduction and that means about 18,000 to them so according to my friends logic he wants to reduce their tax breaks. They are increasing the tax burden on folks in my district and as a matter fact 24 of your constituents use the seduction and by repealing it, its going to cost them about 10,000 each so you are in fact increasing the tax burden on middleclass folks. Surely wealthy people can take advantage of this too. This is something that middle last americans can take advantage of and what my friend mr. Kind is doing is trying to bring equity to this issue. We are going to repeal it for working class, middle class americans and allowed their tax burden to increase but we are going to keep it in place for businesses. I just cant for the life of me understand why we would treat them differently than we would treat the people that your side of the dais has for two days now claimed you are trying to help. This is not a help. If mr. Kinds amendment were accepted it would be equal treatment acrosstheboard and we should either treat folks equally or we should be honest about what it is we all are doing and i yield the rest of my time to mr. Blumenauer. I thank my friend for yielding and i appreciate mr. Nunes for being involved in the backandforth and truly crying trying to clarify that the clarify that and help me much. Yes i would applied uniformly across the country but mr. Kinds amendment would really apply uniformly across the country. All businesses would be treated the same way you want to treat working families. Now its not just rich people. I have 40 of the people in my district who claim this and they are not as wealthy and like mr. Thompsons folks in napa valley but its 13,000. I want his words taken down. There is no reason to not treat businesses the same as individuals. Give me some help here. Mr. Kind is trying to have uniformity across the country and not till this even more against people who dont need the help. You have concentrated the benefits at the top. You are going to make it worse by getting rid of the inheritance tax for a few hundred people a year and you are going to punish families and not have businesses treated the same. That is absolutely incomprehensible. Mr. Smith. Thank you mr. Chairman. Interesting the exchange here in the dialogue. I thought nebraska was a high property tax state and other jurisdictions are even higher as shocking as that might seem but i look at the overall tax burden burden, the ability to pay and certainly i represent a very agricultural district that has i would argue an unfair burden placed upon them created by a property tax. I can imagine, lets put these taxes and then discontinue the deductibility. Mr. Kind i assume to clarify mr. Kind if you would yield. Your amendment would place agriculture land along with all other businesses consistently. Would this apply to corporations in the agribusiness world . Yes i would. I suspect even family farms but as you know family farms usually have low Tax Liability because of the depreciation they are allowed to take so their Tax Liability usually isnt that large to begin with but i would say at least a nebraska theres a property tax burden placed on agriculture that is significant and its a book at our objective of this entire effort to grow the economy and grow the number of jobs i think its important that we continue in this direction and this amendment simply stands in the way of that. I know that their efforts to continue the estate tax that is a double tax. To me thats unfair at any level, at any rate, at any in exemption and its going to get Small Businesses and some would say well not small enough. Thats not a good argument when we are looking to grow opportunity and expand the economy and in fact its interesting that the chairman of gallup said a while back its not government that create jobs. In fact he would argue its not even employers that create jobs. Its customers who create jobs. This tax reform bill is about creating more customers. Its not about washington choosing okay which narrow group can we give this bennett at two in this benefit to them this benefit to . Its about broad based relief and we have heard that confirmed by mr. Barthold in terms of folks all across the spectrum being able to benefit and folks all across the spectrum benefit that creates more customers and those customers create more jobs. Thank you mr. Chairman and i yield back. Mr. Levin. I hope everybody is as confused as mr. Blumenauer is. Mr. Blumenauer said its confusing because we are repealing the deduction for state and local taxes for individuals but not for corporations. And why are we doing that . Mr. Nunes answer is that all corporations are being treated the same but that doesnt answer the question why are you making a distinction between the individual and the corporation . A family farm is an individual so what is the answer . You say that you want to do this because states tax people the income tax individual too high and you want to discourage that. Why doesnt that apply to taxes for corporations, state taxes and corporations . So i think somebody should answer what is the logic in this deciding individuals cannot do that there individual state and local taxes and property taxes . But letting corporations do it. I will yield to anybody who wants to explain that. Mr. Nunes i will yield to you. Explain why individuals cannot that corporations can. If the gentleman will yield you will have a chance to vote on this amendment and its hard to believe that you are advocating on your side of the aisle advocating keeping this defection that is guaranteed give to the most richest americans in the United States of america. As you know businesses dont have votes so if you really want to treat businesses differently we can entertain this if you would like this to pass but i dont believe you really want the bill to pass. Two things. This issue doesnt relate only to the very rich. I think you should stop saying that he could see were using our attack on your bill tied to the very wealthy compared to the person who is in the middle class and the facts show that we are right about that so then you try to twist it and say okay be consistent because you are worried about a bill that essentially is the biggest break to the very rich while this amendment essentially relates to the richest when it doesnt. It applies to the very richest and lots of other people so why do you keep saying that . Why do you keep saying that . I think you are so desperate to get a bill passed and when we point out your logic and we point out the unfairness you just kind of duck it. Again tell me why businesses should be a separate category from the corporation in a separate category from individuals. Somebody on your side. If the gentleman would yield. Yes. Businesses pay taxes on their profit. What they have to do is compete with their profit is. In section 162 of the Internal Revenue code it says in determining profit they sheltered that all reasonable and necessary business expenses. If you take taxes away you are distorting. Im glad to have backandforth but let me respond. The tax code also says that individuals can do. What they are paying in state and local taxes. This is what the code says. Let me finish. Hold on. Mr. Levin controls the time. Restored for 15 seconds. You dont answer the question why a corporations should be treated differently than individuals. Maybe taking away from individuals raises more revenue but give a response. Give a rationale. The gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Wright. Thank you mr. Chairman. Its fascinating to me that in the face of all of this evidence and all of these studies that we have done already on this plan mr. Barthold again let me ask you in every quintile of Income Distribution in america when this plan is taken into account through tax reduction, the rate reduction, the increase in the standard deduction, the elimination of salt and all these others in the plan what is the tax effect on every quintile of the american taxpayer . Mr. Rice has reported across all our income categories theres a tax reduction. Theres a tax reduction. Let me finish and make my point. We continue to say that there is going to be a tax increase when in fact not just mr. Barthold but its also the Tax Foundation foundation, its also the Washington Post has issued statements saying at every level of income in america they were seeing a tax cut. I dont think they really care if their tax cut comes from writing off state property taxes or comes from a reduction in rates or the standard deduction. What they care about is first of all they want this thing simplified where they dont have to hire accountants for 100 an hour to take your out how it complies with the law and not go to jail and second they care about paying as little as they can to the government and having as little flash as they can exacted to the government. Finally going back to this amendment, were you propose here to take away from businesses, all business organizations the ability to write off state and local Tax Deductions in calculating their profit. What would the effect of that be . The effective that would be the taxes on the business would go up. Well gosh your recent right now we havent had tax reform since 1986 and its been 26 years now, im counting ron, 31 years now and at that time our tax code was pretty competitive that since then pretty much everybody in the world has left us by. The average tax rate for businesses in the world now is about 20 . We are trying to get down to at least be competitive and this amendment wants to raise taxes on business which as you know. Ridiculous actually because what we are trying to do is be competitive. What we are trying to do is stimulate the economy. What we are trying to do one more time is to create jobs and to restore this as the land of opportunity and what you want to do is to disguise increase in taxes on all business organizations. I dont think folks back home would like that. I dont think folks back home would understand, they have seen american jobs going overseas. One of the reason President Trump, carrier was leaving. What you are proposing to do is to take away one of their deductions and raise their rates. The whole purpose of this bill is to try to get back to at least average growth and what we have had under every single demonstrations since world war ii and since then we have averaged about 2 or less and we have left the generation of folks coming out of college behind. And instead of lowering taxes whether bill proposes is to make these Companies Competitive so they can create jobs in raise wages for middleclass americans. Want to raise taxes on businesses and make them less competitive. Then you get up there and say our bill in spite of everybody working on the stock on bella will lower taxes for the middle class, you continue to push that it will raise taxes on the middle class. We are just talking over each other. Mr. Larson. Thank you mr. Chairman and i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman. You said a falsehood. Mr. Barthold used the word average and he gave us a chart and everybody should look at it. In the year 2025 therell be an increase in taxes for 21 of people making 75 to 100 and 26. 7 26. 7 of people making 100,000. Just look at the chart. In fact so that everybody has it im going to distribute it out to everybody, this chart and to the media so that you understand whats true and what is false. Thank you very much for yielding yielding. I think mr. Levin for bringing further clarity to this discussion and i think mr. Kind whom i associate myself with my comments. The beginning he talked about his amendment as being what is fair is fair in my grandmother used to have a saying what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But what we see in mr. Kind of the reception to mr. Kind of amendment is no, thats not the case because this bill has been distorted where it takes money states and people in the middleclass states and transfers it to major corporations. So mr. Kind has said lets balance that off. Why is it that its fair to take the Salt Production away from people who itemize their deductions but still let corporations keep it . Mr. Neale responded by saying, on, how can you further along with that also further weight it might getting rid of the amt tax and also getting rid of the estate tax as well. And so it becomes a very lopsided argument that mr. Kind is trying to bring clarity to by saying what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Lets make this fair and if corporations are getting the breaks that they are shouldnt we try to level the Playing Field so all those middleclass families and we will have amendments later on will guarantee that all middleclass families will receive a tax break and it will be subject to the longterm ramifications. With that i yield to my colleague. I think the gentleman for yielding. Guys, this isnt complicated. This amendment is trying to help you. The optical problem we have right now by taking away state and local Tax Deductions for millions of working families saying we are going to ask corporations to chip in to and treat them the same way. They are after all personhoods now according to the supreme court. More importantly you have the 2. 3 trillion hole that needs to be filled. This is one way to help fill that. You have a role in the senate side is going to. You in the face because they are not want to be able to deliver what you are trying to offer the American People on this though. Its the budgetary rules out there and get ready to get stabbed in the back by the senate with the corporate rates they are going to come up with. Thats coming and we all know it is. Lets also be honest. A former republican chair of this committee recently introduced comprehensive reform that was paid for the called for corporate rate of 25. He thought that would enable them to be competitive on a local scale. I think hes right. Its a generous marginal rate deduction for corporations in this country and it makes them competitive with the oecd nations where you guys conveniently ignore the carbon tax for these multinationals subjecting you along with the corporate rate overseas. By the time you make those tax adjustments 25 is looking pretty darn generous and that would go a long way and closing the 2. 3 chilean dollar hole that you have but also being able to put these families and and say you nor we are asking them to chip in for simplification and double the standard deduction and we are asking Corporate America to do the same thing. When you exclude them from the business they are doing both here and abroad you have a political problem and thats showing up in all the polling and all the feedback we are getting from our constituents coming into our offices right now. Im not trying to be cute or fancy or malicious. Im trying to make your job easier when it comes to tax reform knowing whats coming up in the senate in short order. I yield back. Mr. Renacci. Arent itemized options interest medical expenses chervil contributions miscellaneous deductions is that the list of itemize deductions . Those are the major ones. The miscellaneous ones so on a tax return at taxpayer lists all of those items and today and her current law because somebody on this committee whether its 50 years ago or 100 years ago would have attacked code was written decided to simple diet and said if you get to 12,600 which is the same deduction today and we list all of that as long as you dont exceed that we are going to give you that deduction. Is that correct . That is the way the law works. Somebody on this Committee Years ago said we want you to come up with those deductions but if you dont get over 12 then you dont even have to keep the documentation. We are going to give you that deduction. Today 70 of americans and im using your number now, they dont itemize because they dont get to 12 because we replaced all their miscellaneous deductions with the standard deductions. That correct . So when we double it, 95 of the people dont have to worry about itemizing because we have replaced that, correct . Thats your number so we have actually benefited by this law 25 of people who have not gotten a deduction. We have actually benefited under this law by doubling it and taking it to 95 . Would you agree with that . Mr. Renacci for some people it would be a wash and you do leave, its probably a little more subtle than that he coups you do leave itemized deductions for charity and property tax of this would be a choice to make. People that previously had been claiming mortgage interest eduction sent house deductions, what have they lost relative to the increase in the standard deduction and in making that choice . The standard deduction is much higher so there is 25 of people now. Would the gentleman yield . Not at this time. Im trying to get to a point. 25 more people are getting deductions based on those numbers. More people will elect to choose the same deduction. Overall these out of my state and local taxes. So this bill helps 25 more people and i keep bringing this up we are not eliminating deductions. Where replacing it with a higher standard section so many individuals will not be able to take this deduction and by the way 25 more will be able to get it to the action that they would be able to get on average. Is that correct . Is certainly true of standard tour standard deductions. We have not taken it to eduction away and we have replaced it with the greater itemize deductions so mr. Kind i would ask you i heard you say geek with treatment and level the Playing Field. Do you want to give the business as the standard deduction . Thats fair. Thats equal treatment. I will take that deal. If you want to play the doubling on Corporate America that 2. 2 trillion would disappear overnight. We need to look at that. If you want fair is fair. More importantly lets have some hearings to discuss this because this is where it gets complicated. That is something that is lacking before this committee today. I am out of time but what is interesting here what is fair is fair and what is equal treatment and lets level the Playing Field all the words that my friends are neither side said if you were going to come up with an amendment like this you wanted to be fair you got to come up with a standard deduction. I oppose this amendment because this is a onesided amendment could come up with a standard deduction. He fair is fair and equal is equal and maybe somebody on the side. We can work with you on that. Would the gentleman yield . Id be happy to work with you on that. Mr. Crowley. Thank you mr. Chair. I would like to attempt answer the question that our colleague sandy levin asked. Why is it that colleagues on the other side wont answer the question why are you willing to give middleclass families, take away their state and local tax eduction but not willing to do the same for businesses . As i said in my Opening Statement this is about value. What do you value . What they are saying is that they would value businesses over middleclass and working families and thats unacceptable unacceptable. You know if you look at the fact that we are choosing winners and losers in this tax code and what we are basically saying is the winner should be the businesses and not individuals, not the hardworking people that we represent and its unacceptable. I know that i represent one of these recipient states, not a donor state. The state of alabama receives all of 2 for every 1 dollar we get the federal government but even my district which is a relatively poor district benefits from not being doubly taxed on their state and local deductions. In fact in my district 28 of the taxpayers use the Salt Production and the average Salt Production is around 6003 in 48 48. I can tell you my hardworking folks that i represent they would love to be able to continue to deduct that from their income tax and its unfair that we are placing a burden on middle class working families that but we are not willing to do the same on businesses. I represent Big Companies as well. I think what we are saying is equity and fairness here and i think congressman kinds amendment is a fair amendment and it really gets to the heart of why it is we are talking about it. We are making value judgments here, value judgments. My values are what the people i representative those hardworking folks deserve to have a break. I also dont understand why my colleagues on the other side would not choose to do this when it would conceivably raise way more revenue than not allowing the deduction on state and local taxes. I asked mr. Barthold what effect would there be on revenue if we level the Playing Field and we required businesses to not able to deduct state and local taxes . We would increase business tax liabilities and change a lot of economics. If this is about Revenue Generating and theres a 2. 3 trillion gap here and our colleagues assessment of this bill so 2. 3 trillion gap wouldnt we raise money . We have not done an analysis. Okay but it would be higher than the analysis for individuals . Which is 1. 5. Do with the increased business Tax Liability. The bottom line is we are making value judgments and its really woefully unfair to put the majority of the burden of paying for this 2. 3 trillion giveaway to the wealthiest 1 and america and put her on the backs of hardworking folks. With the gentlelady yields backs. I will yield. Mr. Barthold we have heard this analysis and thats wind turning to use let me ask you this. Just because no longer people would be able to itemize just because they would no longer and thats what the question assumes that they would no longer be able to itemize does that mean that they would be as well off as they were under current law under all circumstances or is it the mixed bag . Meem it was discussed yesterday in the overall reform if youre just comparing it. Thats what i thought you were getting into. All they are saying is this just means this is the only remaining option. Mr. Schweikert. Thank you mr. Chairman and this may be one of those moments where i actually want to think through this mr. Kind and i may, across to my brothers and sisters on both sides. With inc. This through and lets just use a simple example and let me point out i used to be the Tax Collector for the most popular county and United States so i have experience for living in the property tax world. I walked to my local Grocery Store and i buy a loaf of red. In a loaf of bread or the cost to the Grocery Store in property taxes part of that. If you are already telling me as part of the argument coming from the left that we have an unusual distribution of state and local taxes with some areas being much higher than other regions of the country did you also make the decision that that higher property tax and higher income tax that it is this right now would be taken out of that local bread and deduct it . Did you just double down on what you are arguing with a distributional problem in parts of the country . For someone from arizona which is a moderate property and income tax state business would actually profit in the most marginal state for income tax but a heavy user of real estate like her shoe stores in your community cant do that type of state shipping for its profits so it would be picking up its property tax particularly their end by losing its deductibility wouldnt you be in many ways doubling up on your very argument that you had before . I understand the concept and the intellectual point and im trying to walk through some of the math because part of me says maybe we should at least conceptually set this aside as a future pay for but do understand that doubling down impact you will have the most high taxed communities. Mr. Kind as you know you are one of my favorite people on the committee. Be careful up the kind words you say now. I appreciate your thoughtfulness on this issue and again this is where it gets complicated mr. Chairman. Its exactly why we have to do this the right way and have experts come before the committee and walk us through and explain the ramifications of what we are doing here rather than closeddoor slated night scrubbing something for the sake of political victory. I did this for a long time and i was worried about mr. Mr. Larsons buying a loaf of red because we may have really raised his cost but you may have just shifted mrs. Mr. Mr. Larsons business of beautiful state of arizona so with that mr. Chairman i yield back. This is a move to strike the last word. Vista may mr. Chairman is really a double standard. I mentioned it yesterday and i mentioned it last week. This amendment by mr. Kind i believe would prevent a double standard favoring businesses over the middle class. Thats a. Simplistic statement i will admit but when you look at the numbers you see how much revenue was gathered from each of these deductions i think you would want to avoid that as well so what we are seeing two families and correct me if you think im wrong, we are saying two families that we are going to take this deduction away from you and your ability to use this on your federal taxes and by the way mr. Chairman you caught it as well as i some folks that are sitting here today in the higher taxed states. There is a reason for that mr. Chairman. Do you want me to go and to that . It has very little to do with mr. Kinds amendment but i supported and i dont like it at all. It has no place here talking about one america. We should do one america but we are saying two families that you cannot do that these local taxes and fees state taxes which we have done since the civil war and the reason why you cant do that is we are going to you dont need that because we are going to take care of you doubling the standard deduction etc. I think i put a few holes into that yesterday about where do we gather more money so we are saying you will have enough money here. You dont have to worry about losing any money but then we say well the corporations can keep on doing this. To me thats a double standard. Mr. Chairman can you explain to me how it is not a double standard . Mr. Chairman . Mr. Pascrell your statement on the amendment. I have a question. Why dont you finish her statement . I just did. Thank you mr. Pass grow. Will you answer my questions or . Sitting down for a moment if i may. Mr. Barthold would you answer the question . Since the chairman does not want to answer the question right now feel free to jump in here time anytime you would like. Actually i was a little confused. Could you repeat your question mr. Pascrell . Is that it double standard if we are asking families to give up this ability to deduct a deduction that has been available to them since 1863 and we are asking corporations as i understand it that you dont have to do this. We are doing it for families because we are going to make up that money that they are not able to deduct like doubling the standard deduction. What are we saying to corporations . Help the understand this mr. Barthold. Well i can explain the principle behind the deduction or businesses for expenses that they incur if you are trying to measure the income of the business after all costs, all usual in reasonable costs. That is the standard that is applied. So its a different standard than for families using that deduction. Is that correct . Thats the standard for business. And its been the standard for some 100 odd years . We havent had the income tax that long but in measuring business income that has been the standard pretty much for that time that all reasonable and usual costs are deductible and arriving at the income of the business enterprise. Thank you. All time has expired. Thank you mr. Chair. We actually have this conversation yesterday mr. Barthold and i want to highlight it again because i think some of my colleagues are still struggling to understand why this amendment is so important. Yesterday i asked if a firefighter in my district would be able to deduct state and local sales taxes that he pay from her tax returns and lets say today, can she do that . Since you are from the state of washington there is no income tax. State and local sales tax. The total itemized deductions and the standard deduction amount. You can deduct those today but under this plan will that firefighter be able to deduct those sales taxes . She would not. So she has lost the ability to deduct those sales taxes from her federal income taxes under this plan so will a corporation be able to deduct sales taxes on business purchases today, can a corporation do that today . As a general matter yes. So if they can today will they ended this plan be able to continue to deduct that so for the firefighter she could deduct those sales taxes today. She wont be able to under this plan and the corporation can today and they still can under this plan. And thats the corporation gets a 15 tax cut, 15 so when we talk about legislation this is legislation we are talking about that treat corporations and individuals the same, the answer is no adherence a good example is too wide. Now they are not the same. Corporations are getting fit teen tax cuts and they are in addition able to keep this deduction on state and local taxes but the firefighter in my district isnt getting that. In fact a lot of the things that might impact the firefighter my district will also expired five years whereas the corporate reductions in this plan are permanent so this is not about parity today. What this amendment about is trying to make one step towards parity in making sure businesses corporations are treated the same as individuals and families based on the changes that are being made in this bill so its this is really disappointing that we have seem to incur a lot of talk on the other side of the aisle but the reality is there is a benefit that people take advantage of today people in my district take advantage of today thats going to be lost for companies that benefit is not going to be lost. In fact they get a 15 Corporate Tax cut. I want to yield to mr. Neal. Mr. Barthold just because people no longer itemized does not mean that they are as well off as they have were. It just means that as their best remaining option. I would like you to maybe answer. That is correct mr. Neal. I was explaining there were multiple things we have to trade off. I guess we should stop step back and understand the decision that the Taxpayer Base is and under present law you have certain items that you may be permitted to deduct in some of those items meet the standard deduction is why you would choose to itemize those items and choose the standard deduction. Under h. R. 1 the number of items that you compare to the standard deduction has changed so depending on what your itemized actions were under present law compare the sum of itemized actions that are permitted under the reform proposal compared to the standard deduction you would make the decision to itemize or not itemize. More people with choose standard deduction under the reform proposal and it doesnt necessarily mean the total amount is deducted from adjusted gross income. It doesnt mean they are necessarily better off. Some have fewer total deductions and some will have more total deductions. He that time has expired. You are recognized speak on the amendment. When i heard the gentleman from california say the salt affection only benefits rich Silicon Valley executives in hollywood producers i could not believe my ears. In reality the salt affection benefits a wide variety of people. In fact almost 40 of taxpayers making between 50,000 to 75,000 per year use the salt affection and more than 70 of taxpayers earning from 100,000 to 200,000 per year use the salt affection. They dont sound like rich hollywood producers to me and in fact the Government Association did an analysis of the most recent version of the Salt Production compromise and they look at an average family of four who owns a home and earns between 50,000 to 200,000 and they found often the states would seek tax increases in california would be the hardest hit state with an average tax increase at 26. 4 . Congress member nunes in your own district 24 of the people in your district use a salt deduction from a deduction of 9844 dollars, they dont sound like rich hollywood producers to me. The Government FinanceOfficers Association says that even if congress were to offset impacts from eliminating the salt reduction through increases in the standard deduction that deduction would need to increase significantly. Even it were to double or triple a significant portion of taxpayers would still end up with tax increases. Anyway you look at it the elimination of salt is a raw deal for the middle class. Will the gentlelady yield . Right behind you. I think the gentlelady. I couldnt agree with her statement more. Even in my rural not exactly rich district in wisconsin over 27 of my constituents itemize the state and local Tax Deduction. These are not hollywood producers. These are normal hardworking families trying out figure out the best way to make it work for them and again when you look at the equities involved in the perception thats being created out there its hard for me to go home and explain to those families why they are deductions for state and local taxes are being eliminated. Large corporate users many of whom arent paying any taxes to begin with are able to continue to deduct state and local taxes and theres a problem with the perception of all of that. I would also submit the reason we are stuck at 20 new corporate rate is only because President Trump started the bidding at this teen and i think the chair of this committees wisdom thats going to cost too much. Deficits for as long as the eye could see. There is no way to afford it. The truth is your predecessor sitting in that same chair has put together a comprehensive reform package which wasnt completely prepared for at it the best he could do was get to 25 without putting a hole in the deficit. I want to enter into thereco. I ask unanimous consent. I be happy to help if its judys time. You pointed out that my friend, and truly is my friend from california, his district, 24 of the people take a deduction. If this were to go right there with us 10000. Californias a donor state. We get 87 cents back for every dollar we sent washington. This loss of a Debt Reduction will go through would california become more of a donor state than we already are . The joint committee doesnt analyze changes in tax liabilities by state or district. As noted, theres passes and minuses in each of the groups. I couldnt say what happens to california. The Income Distribution is different. Thank you, take that ses. When i presented was on average across the Income Distribution there are not protections of every income categories. Yes my intent if there are no others to which to speak on the amendment to vote hopefully intention is to continue the amendment series tonight to come back into the world series. I hope that that pace it requires us to go along tomorr tomorrow. I think its important to do as much is this in the daytime hours. When we get the them in and do the work. Lets make sure getting the amendments out and having a good thorough debate moving in a good and powerful timing way. A couple of quick questions. This amendment under consideration, to consider it likely it will cost jobs or job losses . The general thrust as he pointed out was to increase Corporate Tax burden relative to the chairmans mark. The chairmans mark decreases a Corporate Tax. I cant tell you where this proposal would end up. You could still be at a net decrease. The net decrease in corporate investments should generally be progrowth. I did have the effect of shifting jobs from higher tax states to lower tech states . The deductibility across states, it would increase without completely thinking through all of the state tax it would generally accentuate differences in effective marginal tax rates on income allocated two different states. It could lead to planning of future investments that would change across future states. So it could benefit states like florida and be a detriment to other states for example. If you take in new york as an example of a higher business tax state of florida lower tax state that would be the thrust. All those in favor signify by saying i. The nose have it. Either additional amendments in the nature of a substitute . I have an amendment at the desk. Thank you. To reserve the plaintiff order . The clerk will distribute the amendment. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] i do not withdraw. The gentleman withdraws his resignation. [inaudible] the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized on his amendment. Is very simple. This would restore whats been eliminated under the chairmans amendment which is the work opportunity tax credit. To be paid for by an increase in the Corporate Tax rate. Work opportunity tax credit creates incentives for additional hiring which is been beneficial for veterans across the nation. Work opportunity tax credit is resolved and 150,000 additional veterans within the last year alone. On top of that, because of the incentive michelson and the hiring of individuals, its estimated to save federal and state governments hundred and 84 billion in entitlement spending over ten years because of the reduction in medicaid and Public Housing vouchers. A tremendous cost saver given the incentive for trying to restore with this. I think were aware given the work we do in our districts and states how difficult the transition is for veterans who have been deployed, many trying to integrate in civilian life. One of the best things researchers found that helps veterans make that transition is a meaningful job that gives selffulfillment, an opportunity to join the team and to get back in their community. Work opportunity tax credit performed that role. Creates opportunity to reach out makes the veterans hired so they are not lost in the transition. The common sense amendment over incentives that need to be preserved given the impact it has. We know theres a reason why some of these reasons are, estimates are that it would be elimination of the tax credit and could resolve veterans not being hired by veterans and businesses because of lack of incentive in the tax code. Encourage you to look at this. It doesnt add to the budget deficit. A small increase in the corporate rate which the previous republican share thought the republican rate could be at 25 not 20 and still keep Companies Competitive globally. So retaining jobs that exist right now. Encourage adoption of this amendment. Thank you. Mr. Smith your recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman this debate taking place right now we need to discuss these items. I oppose this amendment. As you look at the big picture of employment as i engage with employers across my district, the most common concern among employers is finding employees. Recruitment and retention is the number one issue. There are more than 6 million job openings since the government started tracking it in the year 2000. Those participating in the workforce is a four decade bow. Im not convinced the tax credit has been effective. The status quo is not working thats where the president has announced an apprenticeship program. Thats the center of his Workforce Development agenda. We need to look for more effective ways and i believe our plan is more effective than the continuation of the status quo. How much more evidence to we need to show that its not working . We need and can do better. We need to debate this. Such is my district, im quite certain where employers need more employees. The job openings are there. Work opportunity tax credit doesnt create job openings. Well hear more from members and their expertise on this issue that the work opportunity tax credit is not doing its job. We need to do better. Its interesting, theres campaigns going on now promises of higher minimum wages and politicians deciding what weight should be rather than creating an environment where every job applicant has more than one job offer. That will do more for increasing wages then group of politicians deciding whats the best number without adversely. Lets work hard for this broadbased approach of tax relief. That will do far more to grow wages and expand the economy. I yield back. Thank you. I wanna show strong support for this amendment. My friend from new york mr. Reid, and sir his not here right now worked on preserving and expanding work opportunity tax credit for many years. In addition to veterans, individuals living in empowerment zones and recipients of low income social services is probable to extend to a new class of qualified workers longterm unemployed. It was accepted in december of 2015 to the pass act of this committee. The cerrado tax credit of up to 2400 companies that hire longterm unemployed individual. Job applications for those out of the workforce for six months or longer if your callbacks over less experience workers. This credit helps in the state of unemployment. Brings americans out of the shadows. The w otc expansion applies to new hires that begin work after january 1, 2016 to december 31, 2019. This tax bill would eliminate the import credit altogether. Just before veterans day we should be taken away a benefit that benefits veterans. Many face challenges in finding employment in a different field. Weve made tremendous progress in lowering veterans unemployment rates. Thanks to a concerted effort of the Obama Administration unemployment is at the lowest level in 17 years. Just 2. 7 . We should build on this progress and not leave our veterans behind. Repealing the w otc would be a slap in the face to the veterans who have stood up and serve the United States of america. I yelled my time to mr. Kind from wisconsin. Thank you. Just to respond to my friend from nebraska, i beg to differ that there is evidence that shows the opposite. A few years ago we expanded the definition of eligible people to also cover unemployed and Service Disabled veterans. An 81 uptick in hires a veterans after that expansion. 81 . Today when states are think about applying for waivers to start a work requirement in the Medicaid Program work opportunity tax credit covers these groups. Those who are receiving ssi, snap, vocational rehab, and its encouraging employers to hire them. This could be a way to encourage it rather than the states having test for waivers to have a work requirement when groups are facing obstacles. Thats why there be a savings by maintaining this tax credit. The impact on the Veterans Community cant be underestimated. There are job postings in our districts. With all encounter talking to those veterans who had to go through multiple deployments facing difficulty being hired, its unfortunate but true. Theyre afraid of the next appointment and then implode being pulled for a nine or 12 month deployment overseas. We hear those stories happening. Its heartbreaking theyre being discriminated against for Employment Opportunities because of their service to our community. It does happen. The work opportunity tax credit and since businesses to hire veterans and encourages them to do the right thing. Best to bring a veterans with the skill set, have a meaningful job which is fulfilling and a major contributor. I encourage the committee to adopt the amendment. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman. The number one issue in my district including mr. Kinds is finding qualified employees were drugfree. Had we find qualified employees who are drugfree. Companies are looking and trying to hire these individuals. I was employee forms three decades. I can tell you about the tax credit worked for me. We hired employees who are qualified about them in, veterans come all of those. At the end we hired a company to go back and look at everyone who qualified because we are hiring people to fill jobs. The tax credit was a bonus at the end. The guy i hired get a percentage of the credit which frustrated me and has an employer when im looking for employees, id rather have a work opportunity tax credit or a 20 tax cut or 15 tax cut, id rather have the tax cut which allows me to employ more people a veterans and make sure that im making the decision in our car to employ veterans of those disadvantaged because in the end of players are looking for these individuals. We we talk about other stuff but the facts are anybody whos ever employed anybody, i have 3000 employees at one time. I was trying to just find them and fill the positions. Every time i go through the district i hear that we cant find qualified people. In the end, nobodys hiring anybody because of the work opportunity tax credit. Theyre hiring those who can help the company grow. As a businessman as i was, the companies i represent, there would rather see a 35 rate, 15 cut so they can make their own decisions. With that i you. Gentleman has yielded his time. Thank you mr. Chairman. I did say to my good friend from ohio, think you are out of the room when mr. Bartel was given an explanation for another generalization that you may about what is in the bill when it will happen. Welcome back to it because i think mr. Neil and others made a good point. Its why think we might be talking past one another. Id welcome my friend from nebraska to come to hartford, connecticut. We had people call themselves the poorest zip code in america they came together so they can work as a community and a food desert and isolated area of social poverty. To our advantage by this. Im sure that district and zip code does not look remotely like any zip code in nebraska. I say that because these individuals came to washington, d. C. To see about the opportunities they could have. It appears to me the opposition to this comes because it was an obama proposal. Michelle obama and joe biden worked tirelessly on behalf of veterans. They remain a concern of ours to make sure veterans have opportunities. They should be penalized. My good friend keeps talking about the facts. If artifacts are put forth they dont count. Contacts about an 81 uptick in the program that is not a fact any of you will regard. This is a frustration. I will yield because he wanted to further elaborate. The facts are the facts. The data tells us that with the w otc there is an 80 uptick because companies were take a closer look to hire veterans. Racine too many instances of companies hesitating or holding back hiring veterans because theyre afraid the next time the veteran will be called up. Its happening. It shouldnt, but if this tax credit is a way to get the companies to think of the value they can bring, why mess with it. Best you think its right decent that we have some incentive for companies to hire i think they will say yes, they would support that. But when told that working families will be denied a deduction of state local tax there can have a problem with that i was going on with the car. Trying to help you. I encourage you to keep a popular veterans tax credit for hiring veterans which we like to see more of so there [inaudible] snap and some other program that cost tax dollars. Im happy to yield. Im in support of the amendment an asset its inserted into the record. Those who are opposing the tax cut. I further add that you should sit down and talk with howell rogers. We should be looking at expanding opportunities especially when facing an opiate epidemic. I would daresay that even rural districts will have this epidemic upon the as much as others were dealing with this problem. I yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman. I think my colleague for raising the issue issue. I encourage the hiring of those who struggle to get into the workforce. People who may have served time in prison another survey mentioned in this discussion. The work opportunity tax prep credit isnt the best way to do it. In speaking with employers, it doesnt encourage employers to hire because its only verified at tax time and is an considered when the individual is higher. The concept is to provide a hiring incentive but the wage subsidies are modest at best. Instead, we worked in a bipartisan manner to pass hr 28, 24. Pass the house by 377 34 votes. This does what the work opportunity tax credit cannot. As support partnerships to hire recipients from the tanev program which includes those having returned from prison providing some with apprenticeships and onthejob training to make them successful in the labor force. It sets aside 15 to find Career Pathways services which was a democratic amendment to the bill. It provides a substantial wage opportunity while the other half would be paid for by the employer or were state or local funds. These are the programs and ideas we need to promote to help these individuals get into the workforce. One that employers will be aware of and actively take advantage of, not learn about after they hire individuals who may or may not qualify for the tax credit. I think the gentleman. All of us want to help these individuals who struggle the most to get back on their feet. I think we should look at the ideas that make it most efficient and quite frankly that help them the most. Instead of this amendment were considering lets make a commitment to Work Together to make sure the legislation becomes law. Also to look for other opportunities where we can help individuals who need it most. Thank you. I yield back. Im amazed at the disconnect between the experiences and effectiveness is different people have evaluated the work opportunity tax credit. The former governor of illinois was a major fan and continues throughout his use of that tax credit is one of the most effective things he did well governor. In 2015 in illinois theres over 100,000 work opportunity tax credit certifications. These 100,000 people who are employed, many good jobs who had income to buy goods and pay taxes, many individuals have been on food streams, were returning citizens and were individuals were hard to hire and cannot get hired. Im shocked there would be an effort to repeal or take away these opportunities. I was pleased to join with the representative to introduce the improvement Employment Outcomes for the foster youth act that make it possible for transition needs to qualify to be able to get jobs into work. Evaluation is like beauty. Its in the eye of the beholder. What some see, others do not see. I can tell you as an individual who has worked for many years with low income, hard to hire, unskilled individuals that this was a program that has worked and continues to work. I think i we do ourselves a disservice as we transition into something else. I will also indicate that i appreciate the words relative to what his interaction has been to the type of individual who had made the west effective use of this program. I yelled the rest of my time. Thank you. Ive heard this term, qualify for the job and we want people to be qualified for the job. Are you telling me that my friend from ohio that youd rather have a tax cut go to the proprietor and employer than him make that decision if hes going to add on individual personnel what happened in 2001 and 2003 was not what i just described. Corporations, individuals got tax cuts and did not move into brickandmortar and did not hire other employees. These are six or seven great programs that have been working in our streets. When youre millions of miles from densely Populated Areas need to come back and see these programs are doing. There are valuable programs. In your sin will accomplish much more we just give the proprietors a tax cut. Theyve had situations before the they were in hiring these people, veterans, ex felons, vocation rehab referrals. These are people who are members of her family or neighborhood. I dont accept that because youre going to get a tax cut you going to be able to hire people who need a job. I think the other programs have worked in that you reconsider what youre about to do. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, will take an approach to the work opportunity tax credit issue. As indicated, he and i have a lengthy relationship of working on the policy. I support the policy. I believe this policy works and comes from my committee. They sat on this committee for 18 years have to be honest, but i think youll see her today is that these difficult issues that we have supported will be put in front that were taken away policies that help vets but the question i have back said if we adopt the amendment will you support the bill for this parody that you say so important and you want us to vote against her own policy that we actually support. I know its going on. They want to put me on the record to vote against something that i have supported. Night yet. Because this is a game that has brought us to gridlock were if you want to have a good faith negotiation and come together for solutions, and willing to do that. But to put this out there and i would ask you and yield for simple question, if this gets in the bill you guarantee me your vote for tax reform with this legislation and it. This amendment. Yes or no. Im reclaiming my time as you have seen from the response that was not a yes or no answer. That is politics on display. Thats was going on. I gave the gentleman my time ample time to say yes or no he would support this. If this is the priority to support vets and what did you get . A d. C. Response that says blah, blah, blah. If the answer wouldve been guess it couldve been different. Im reclaiming my time. Exactly. So hes gonna make this worse on sensitive political issues. Youll see numerous of these bills today and this is the frustration i have. If we can get 80 . You should ask us before you put the bill together. This is a difficult, it very difficult issue i have to face. But im willing to move the ball forks i know its going on. Im not going to live with this any longer. Ill not let 70000 pages of code saddle my people dana day out with the car thats broken. Im not going to watch industries go over see because of the broken tax code and i want engage in this political theater any longer. With that, i cant support this amendment, i recognize the positive return it has on folks. At the end of the day i met a new forward on tax reform after tax reform is done. Before you speak, if i made all give you back make your time. Out of courtesy and respect, let the members finish their statements then asked them to you and we can have a respectful conversation. If i may, could you have another member yield, the school is next, perhaps she can begin. Before a yield to the gentleman, i want to answer the colleagues question perspective whether or not we could vote for the bill. The time to ask that is when we decided to put together tax reform bill. The whole point is that its complication in the tax code. Your stack of books shows that. Only one tardy figured out what the winners and losers would be in thats not fair to the people i represent are your people that you represent. We shouldve done this in a bipartisan manner and were able to have hearings to hear from experts. Im going to yield my time to the gentleman from new jersey. My friend from your, these are tough votes you will have to take. We have many more amendments and youll have to make a decision as i am a sweater that this doesnt prove the ability of folks to get jobs in america. Youve already said these are programs that are good. We established that. But to ask me whether or not i vote for this bill, we have a lot of amendments. Theres a lot of things that need to be changed to even think about. At the gentle lady just said, wouldve been easier if we did this together before hand as was done in 1985. Two years prior to the legislation coming to the floor in coming together with president reagan coming together with tip oneill. They had to work to do this. You know they didnt do it this way. Is that the real game, making the provision about struggling workers all about you . Not all about you or me. And you know that. The program didnt get worse because of this amendment. This bill, didnt get worse. I have the statistics of what happened over the past several years. Each of them and ill be darned if you get me to admit that its tax cut will solve any problems that exist. Go back to the debate of 2001 in 2003, says same presentation. You change a few numbers and dates and names. Its the same thing. Give the people back their money. Undercut the government, make it more disrespectful to the people. This doesnt help the situation were in. I defy you to show me how cutting taxes will help put people to work. You cant. You dont know it. Theres not one person appear went vote for cut in the Corporate Taxes. Charlie and i started that in 2007 and eight. But in order to pay for it and do those things that you have asked too much. You shouldve asked us before. Now you have guys retiring. Theyre leaving. Im old, theyre not old. Theyre leaving. And theyre leaving for a reason. I know im not that old. They are leaving for a reason. Come on, mr. Reid you been with me, you cant turn your back on these guys. Im not turning my back, will you yield . Yes, sir. You know i love you. Prove it. [laughter] but this is a time to have a conversation. If your true about coming to yes. Its not unconditional love. Heres my intention. If theres no other people who wish to speak will consider what continue. Just wrap this up, i believe in the sincerity of my good friend of new york and his belief in the program the work that he and others have done. Its nothing but class and a former marine veteran was the father of this program. But dont discount my sincerity or other peoples will worried about the elimination of the tax incentive meant to hired veterans and disabled veterans get them back into the workforce. You called it a political game. Will gentleman yield . I do respect your sincerity. I pledge to after tax reform i will work with you. What is becoming too frequent around here is the political game being played behind closed doors. A comprehensive issues like tax reform which will have an impact on every living human being. Not one hearing and proper vetting, and no solicitation a bipartisan ideas to put a bill together which is hard and complicated. Then having a major change of the code dropped in our lap late thursday night for the first time for us to see whats in it or not and expecting us to make snap judgments. Thats was being played. Lobbyists are lining up to protect their interests. Its reflected in many provisions. Thats what troubles me. There is a better path forward. More bipartisan, doing her homework. Get the feedback on the intended and unintended consequences. Unfortunately thats not the world with living in. Because politics are so perverted and onesided. When you get back to the place where we can Work Together with common interests. We can simplify make it more competitive and fair. I yield back. Im a little confused by the comments and some of his colleagues because the last chapter occurred about 545 last night when we were presented to 33 page amendment by the chairman where we were declined the opportunity to get a few minutes to review the amendment. And we heard the praise. You didnt have to negotiate with the democrats, you could are negotiated with your colleagues. Wall street banks stood rather well. They got themselves a bonus to avoid taxation but the veterans got left out entirely. So did the families involved in adoptions. The adoption tax credit was omitted. So did students who have interest on their loans and are buried in debt. The parents can no longer deduct Student Interest on those loans. So did individuals who were given the opportunity to go to communicate which in order to advance within their job. They are taxed on that under this bill. Its one permission after another. If there had been goodfaith negotiation we would be facing the sorry bill were facing and we would not need the amendment. Instead, an entirely partisan effort. Its so amazing to have our republican colleagues come for and have a moment about couldnt we all just Work Together and solve these problems . Of course, but you dont start after the markup begins. You have hearings, you have the Trump Administration show up and answer questions instead of thinking they can governed solely by tweet. I know the chairman wanted to move on. One more member wants to speak. Find others colleagues on the other side of the generally do frequently Work Together on belts. Lets stop the political theater. Right here in the headlines, its as clear as it is. Dans plan to tank trumps tax bill. This wasnt just yesterday when the spell was put in here. This was the language. Democrats help crush the obama care appeal by having unity and have broad public outrage. This is been the theatrics. Just generate outrage. But this is the playbook. Its published. The stakes couldnt be higher for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi or chuck schumer. Not only do most democrats low that but torpedoing it would boost the partys chances of taking back the house in 2018. Its not about the bill. Its about the politics of trying to see if they can take over the house. Fine. But lets call it what it is. Pelosi is driven to deny republicans any votes, she is particularly driven to deny republicans any votes from her side of the aisle if the gop margin for victory on taxes will depend on some of her moderates. Call it what it is, this is the politics mr. Reid was discussing. Ill back. All of those in favor signify by saying i. Those oppose no and the nose have it. If a [roll call] vote is demand it pursuant to the Committee Rule 19 further proceedings will be postponed. Other additional moments in the nature of a substitute . I have an amendment at the desk. I reserve a point of order has the gentle lady to spend the clerk distributes. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] i withdraw my reservation. Gentleman withdraws his reservation. The lady is recognized by five minutes. My amendment would fix the inadequate Child Tax Credit provision. Its based on the excellent work that the congressman has tirelessly pursued for years. He told me but i would love this Child Tax Credit so much that i would call him personally and thank him. I never made that call. I dont like this plan, i hate it. The bill is full of hollow changes designed to make it sound like theyre helping them middle class. It leaves the most valuable to them for themselves. The Child Tax Credit provides 1000 per child under the age of 17 and is only refundable above a working parents first 3000. A single parent working fulltime yearround minimum wage, while taking care of three kids will never receive the full credit. Many low income families will never see a dime because they dont learn enough. Instead of improving the credit republicans would do the opposite. While it would be expanded the restricted requirements that prevent families from claiming the credit would remain in place the new Family Flexibility credit would expire after five years. Many families of military members with more than two children would be ineligible and will families are left behind because many dont earn enough to qualify for the full credit. Insult to injury, immigrant workers would no longer be able to claim the credit for their u. S. Citizen children. My amendment ensures our families can benefit from the Child Tax Credit by removing the 3000dollar threshold and expanding accessibility. It would target resources to families that need the help the most. It would establish a fully refundable tax credit for each child under six and accelerate the delivery to young families and ensure the size of a credit course with inflation. But you can buy for dollar today is not what you can buy for dollar tomorrow. It ensures u. S. Citizens and u. S. And puerto rico qualify for the tax credit beginning with their first child. Currently they only qualify beginning with the third child. The Bipartisan Task force mimic micro recommended this change. With recent devastation we have seen this expansion is needed more than ever. 64 of Young Children and puerto rico look below the federal profit level. Thats a crime in the countrys wealthiest United States. We need to commit to the health and wellbeing of all. This would ensure millions of low income immigrant families do not lose access to the credit. The tax proposal is stacked against working families in countless ways. We can do one thing to help. We can make sure the Child Tax Credit helps families who needed the mouse and keeps pace with increase costs over time. I thank you for consideration. I yell back. Mr. Smith from nebraska is recognized for five minutes. I oppose this amendment. I think it goes to a level that becomes less effective. Its important to know what the underlying bill does too. It increases the Child Tax Credit 60 . From 1000, 21600. It makes a refundable were previously was not. The refund ability is indexed and as family credits with another 300 600. The amendment is not necessary given limits and resources. We can look at how to adopt policy and accomplish what we wanted to do. In looking at the overall expense to taxpayers and what were spending to help people in need, some was 1 trillion per year given federal estate tax dollars. But some was 1 trillion per year. Lets move forward with the bill that enhances the Child Tax Credit. It increases some 60 . That can be effectively deported for power individuals and help grow the economy. Thank you mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment. I worked on the family tax credit before us today. I have been grateful for the input of working families, employees, employers, ivanka trump has been an incredible leader on behalf of families. As we spent time discussing how to address the needs of growing families and changes to the Child Tax Credit, the provisions we put in the bill go far meeting the concerns that ive had personally and many have address. The family tax credit does increase the Child Tax Credit by 60 . Refund ability portion is indexed for inflation. Gives a 300 out tax credit to the taxpayer and the spouse. In a 300 tax credit to an adult dependent. The receiver tax credit they have never got before. Its more comprehensive many of the families have one or two working adults in the home. Theyre getting credit for that as well as an elderly parent might be living with them. Upon glad to see the increase put in place and time many more people were qualify for the credit. We face the threshold and more than doubled and got rid of marriage penalty included in the previous code. Many more working families qualify that never had the chance before. We maintained the tax credit of the code is 5000 flexible spending account. With that as well and continue. Im grateful for the chairman listening to the families were struggling to make ends meet. That we prioritize Strong Families and futures. This is something weve had to champion. When it comes to the house for the School Families have a better position. A single mom with three kids are married family with four kids. This could be a single parent an elderly person. The high blower dollars coming out of the pocket because of the provisions im recognizing that have increase costs. I oppose the amendment because of the strong provisions we have provided for families in the tax reform proposal and with that, i yell back. The lady yields. I like to submit an analysis offered by a representative. I want to associate myself with remarks as he returns and i been strongly proposal. The gop plan leaves family behind behind. Just came off a bill when we discuss the work opportunity credits. I mention the poorest district in america. It happens to be in a geographic section of hartford, connecticut. These are the family and children will be hurt most by the proposals. I think there is general agreement that when we look at what ivanka trump is suggesting, is a great opportunity to come together bipartisan lee. Rosa has been a champion of this issue in the United States congress. I think it has preferred an incredible amendment to this. I want to associate myself with those remarks. Im specifically concerned about how this leaves military and will families behind. Also families with small children. All of these are impacted disproportionately. Especially we have the means and the wealthiest nation of the world. How many people have i heard talk about values and this is a statement of our values. We can make a values statement about the children of the men and women who serve in the military. They are the true 1 . Less than 1 of the nation serves in our military, our peace corps, our volunteer system, combined. Has an opportunity to help these families. We instead chose to load the corporate rate to 20 . Maybe that we need to do is give the repeal of the estate tax because those people were exempt probably need a more that the military families to were out there. Their lives on the line ready to give the full measure of their devotion. And congress were not ready to devote any time to them getting the benefits their children can partake in. With that, i yield back. You recognize for five minutes any of our members seek recognition . The question is agreeing to the author with mr. Sanchez. If it favors signify by saying ayes. Dennis have it. Either additional amendments . Mr. Davis . Thank you mr. Chairman. I have an amendment. Could just suspend . A point of order has been reserved. I have an amendment that strengthens families by reinstating the adoption tax credit with refund ability. Permanently restoring the exclusion from player dependent care programs and modernizing the child and dependent care tax credit to address the cost of childcare. This is fiscally responsible and offsets any costs associated with supporting middleclass families with a minor increase in the Corporate Tax rate. The adoption tax credit is a bipartisan credit that helps families offset some of the cost of adoption. Especially for children with special needs. Currently the benefit is nonrefundable for up to 13000 of expenses per adopted child. In 2014 over 73000 households claimed the adoption tax credit with an average credit of 4802. Im a 60 of the credit went to families with incomes over 100,000. Half of the claimants headed copes under 75000. These families receive less than one fifth of the adopted credit in dollars. This is problematic given approximately half of youth adopted from foster care live families at or below 200 of the federal poverty level. Thus it creates barriers to permanency for a number of families. Compared to you to remain in foster care, adopted children experience greater economic and social wellbeing. Families who adopt from foster care save the government between 65,127,000 a year by getting children out of costly foster care and into permanent families. I joined congresswoman diane black and reducing the adoption tax credit refund ability act. We heard about how the refund ability help me the needs of the adoptive children and the hardship cause. This was the case with the levi family in chicago who adopted to you through special needs of ones family from pennsylvania adapter for medically ill children. We want more families to benefit more waiting children can be adopted. Restoring refund ability of adoption tax credit is supported by 150 member organizations of the Adoption Tax Credit Working Group. I asked consent to submit their letter these organizations for the record understatement that hr one strikes this critical tax benefit from families. I urge passage and yelled back my time. We accept the documents without objection. [inaudible] the gentleman is with john. Mr. Smith is reckless. I oppose this amendment. The families that adopt children domestically or internationally can access new family credits and the expanded Child Tax Credit. This includes providing benefits for older adopted children who might still be in house. Its important as relay existing policy with options for changes to be more effective and look at the numbers. For too long the adoption tax credit has inflated the cost of private adoptions and encouraged International Adoptions over our own communities. It appears the adoption tax credit is pro foster care adoption. When you look at the number of those in foster care across the country, its about 100,000 children. 100,000 children ready to be adopted within her own foster care system. They need to be adopted. According to adopt u. S. Kids, parents adopting from the u. S. Foster care system working with the Public Agency occur no additional cost so tax credit is not needed. Furthermore, 82 of children adopted from foster care qualified to receive an ongoing subsidy because they meet the definition for special needs which includes older children and sibling groups. Data indicates we spend 3 billion, ten times the value of the tax credit per year have been families across the country through the subsidies outside of the tax code. Its important to note that given the opiate epidemic were facing, the issues are flooding the Child Welfare system with children in need of loving homes. We should look at ways to take care of these children. Theres about 100,000 kids in the foster care system ready to be adopted. I hope we can pursue many compelling stories with adoption. What sets our country apart is the dynamic of the process of adopting children that have done a great deal for country. This take a look at policy and how we can Work Together and change it to be more effective and get kids paired up with loving homes. Thank you. I yelled my five minutes to mr. Davis. Thank you. I think the ranking member. My amendment enhances the child and dependent care tax credit. Childcare is the largest or secondlargest annual expense of a family. The average cost of tea care for children is almost 10000 per year. More than the average cost of State College tuition. The average cost of care for one child under five amounts to 18 of their income. For more income families childcare can cost as much as 30 of their pay. In illinois they have some of the highest Childcare Costs in the nation. Its currently structured a few families received meaningful benefits from the child and the panic care tax credit to to the low phaseout level. The expense limits and loss of benefits due to inflation. Although 19 of the taxpayers in 2014 is earned income tax credit, a good marker, only 4 of taxpayers benefited from the child and independent care tax credit. This disparity reflects the need to modernize the credit. A small 600 increase in the tax credit temporary reinstatement iphoninclusions of employer dept care is insufficient to help address the Childcare Costs. The loss of critical personal exemptions, the loss of medical expense reductions and the value of housing cost results from limits on the mortgage interest adduction. Childcare is essential to prepare children for success and to support parents employment. We calculate that making childcare more affordable will increase the parents workforce participation and boost our economy and tax revenue. As the majority of size yesterday, we must do more to help those who need help the most. My amendment helps those in need by making a full credit available to most working families. By raising the current phase from to help families. Increasing the maximum credit from 1050 to 3000 per child, age zero to 13 of the 6000. Fisher more income families receive the benefit of making the credit for refundable and have been working very couples file separately due to high Student Loan Debt by allowing them access to the credit. I think the representative for raising this issue. Those who are currently excluded from the child care credit. Middleclass families they more than 600,000 so that they can work. The groups who support these changes the National Association for the education for Young Children and the campaign for Young Children and zero to three. My amendment understates independent care programs. Families deserve the same permanent tax benefits as corporations. We should not penalize those, my amendment strikes commonsense federal policy. And i urge its adoption. I yield back. Mr. Kelly your recognized. Thank you. I appreciate the work youve done on tax reform to simplify and lower rates of more families can keep more money. This number provisions of the bill, im concerned it repeals the adoption tax credit. I want to enter into a colicky with you. Without objection. This is good policy. Needs to be reinstated and approve some more families can afford adoption. Too many remember remain longing for a forever family. It saves our taxpayers money. The government saves between 65000 120,000 each child whos adopted rather than being placed in childcare. Also because it reflects as americans. This is a Red White Blue issue. Were talking about the most precious asset we have. The gift from god and they deserve our protection and to be placed in a loving permanent home of their biological family can no longer provide for them. In 2014 there are over 4000 children adopted by pennsylvania families was 95 domestic option. Mr. Chairman, theres nobody more sensitive to this issue than you are. I know you are the father of two adopted children. The only difference in the brady hassle is that you know there adopted, they dont. You first those children and i know how much you care about them. And what he did in order to save other people. My hat is off to what you have done with your lifetime of taking care of this issue. I want to work with you on this. Its critical to who we are as americans. You for a moment. I appreciate what you are saying and your commitment and others on this committee to finding a way to ensure it improves lives of those across the country. We love adoption, we have two boys because two women in difficult situation toast like. For many families we have good incentives to help families adopt the foster care system. As they age out the big challenges. Ive always worried about the current credit because it doesnt help, it helps many who have a certain income level and who qualified. Have a Tax Liability and who itemize. It can help early on in life. I worry about those for modest income for adopting from the church or from the Pregnancy Assistance Center for helping others to this. I were the current credit leaves too Many Americans behind. I think we need to find a positive way forward. We propose to use this tax credit and drive up the Child Tax Credit and give help to the parent, double the amount of people who can use it so instead of an adoption credit onceinalifetime we give help to families who dont itemize every year for those kids. Its a debate and discussion we ought to have. My thought is we have to find a way forward in a positive way. Whether republican or democrat the option is critical. At the end of this discussion i will propose that we do not accept this amendment to Work Together as men and women to find a good positive direction. Its an area we all feel strongly about. I also want to thank diana plaque. She introduced her bill that would make the adoption tax credit for refundable. I appreciate what youre doing. So critical to here. On that issue, we can come together. I look forward to the discussion. Im confident we can do the work. Thank you mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to submit a save it for the record in support of the amendment. Mr. Larson your recognized. I will appreciate the comments that you mr. Kelly have had. To working with you and others who want to reach forward on this issue. A year back. Thank you for your leadersh leadership. I also think the chairman. I commend mr. Davis for the amendment. I think the chairman i know of his earnest desire to make this better and improve upon it. I like to submit for the record my district the concerns of marybeth and also from deborah support the amendment. Thank you mr. Chairman. Ask unanimous consent tickets submit for the record this letter from the Adoption Tax Credit Working Group that represents over 100 organizations. Without objection. I fully support doctor davis amendment. Over 1000 adoptions occur every year in alabama and most of the families receive this tax credit. So many have flooded our offices and i wanted to read some of the comments i constituents have made. Before i do that i think you. No one knows more the importance of adoption the new yourself. Im quite moved by your personal story. I have constituents with similar stories to adopt. As an adoptive mother, im begging you to please save the adoption tax credit. My husband and i run a nonprofit and Small Business for living it adoption causes more than 40000. We brought home her 4yearold daughter this year shes precious. But there are millions of boys and girls who desperately need a loving family. If the adoption tax credit to become fully refundable it would mean our family could adopt another child. Shes joined by another constituent. Please keep the adoption tax credit. Last, rebecca says we adopted a special needs child without this tax subsidy i wonder how many more families will be unable to overcome the cost to take more special Needs Children into their homes. I just want to say mr. Chairman and i know you know the importance of adoption, and i think that this is definitely a bipartisan issue and i want to join doctor davis in helping you and others on this issue because it is so personal to me and many in my districts. Its helped tens of thousands of parents and makes it possible for them to provide loving homes and permanent families for these children. I want to also say the expansion of the credit in this bill. It expires after 2023 and will no longer be there and so a lot of the expands the credit but we make it fully refundable. Thank you mr. Chairman. I want to speak in support of doctor davis is amendment. We talk about what an important issue this is and i think we have an answer right here by making sure we free instate the credit and the employer care. Its kind of like what was done yesterday. Ive also been hearing from my constituents about the concerns about the adoption of the tax credit going away. Its in the expenses of adopti adopting. During the process there were many unexpected costs that came up. We would be operating the household from a financial deficit. Theres many other families in the same situation if there wasnt a tax credit available to be able to adopt again in the future but theres a direct story. We need to do something and its terrible this was removed in the first place to support middleclass families this amendment could help resolve that and i would yield back. All those in favor signify, opposed to. Are there additional amendments in the substitute . The gentleman from texas. P[inaudible] you are recognized. Stopping the outsourcing of american jobs a central element of the promise to the American People. Like his promise to have mexico pay for this unnecessary wall, it is very much a broken promise. Last year President Trump initially said they are being taxed in a way that is different and thats what this amendment goes for. He has embraced a bill that will encourage the outsourcing of american jobs and it provides a new and powerful loophole above the jobs and profits. In the course of what is reported to be in the tax law that they dont have to pay any tax on income that we earn outside of the United States. Thats what the bills have done. Think if you will about the prospect under the bill as it is written. A. The effect of the pillars you will not pay taxes on it so theres a 10 tax if you calculate it on some of the high returns of american operations overseas. There are many ways to circumvent the requirement and it is a choice that we dont in san antonio and we pay 10 impact by using our lawyers and defengiven the complex nature os and we can avoid paying any taxes on that investment whatsoever. There are many deficiencies in the existing law but those are only replaced with a bigger loophole van exists now. In fact healthy obligations would work toward a zero liability on the offshore profits was described by Gene Sperling the former director of the Economic Council when he said the more an American Company moves it moved its opero the countries that have tax breaks of 20 or higher those that are seen as americas economic competitors, the more the company can shift profits this tax havens without paying to the prophets and the more u. S. Companies take advantage, the bigger the incentive they have to offshore obligations to other advanced countries. The provision of this republican plan encourages companies to plan the income from low tax countries with data from higher tax countries completely avoiding paying money to u. S. Government. We know that from the analysis that we had previously before the committee that currently about 100 billion a year is being avoided in texas. Each time that would have tried to address that in the past when companies renounce their american citizenship and decide to move abroad, each time we try to plug the loopholes theres been resistance, theres been objection, theres been no opportunity to present the legislation to stop the tax havens. Theyve avoided the taxes through the years and the new incentive that they will outsource even more jobs abroad under this bill then is written. Its just wrong that the Corner Pharmacy should have to pay the rate i that is higher on its operations and pfizer does on its operations and this bill, this amendment seeks to be sure that both are treated the same way, that we tax the profits that are earned abroad in the same way that they are here. That is the better way to do it and if that will make a major step forward in the tax equity and they will reduce the possibility that even more jobs will be outsourced out of america. Weve lost so many in the past years the tax code has been a part of that and this is a way to prevent that. The gentle and yields back. This is a difference in worldview and it is well articulated and i appreciated the clarity, but theres basically two views that are competing. One says lets maintain the International System and get rid of steve earles and that is what thiswith a gentle man is p. And what we are proposing is something different, more competitive and better. We are proposing to get in sync with the other world known as a territorial system as it relates to taxation on a global basis and number one as part of the architecture is have money repatriated at a reasonable rate and then moving forward dont create more of a barrier. Barrier. Heres the bottom line. I am of the opinion that the gentlemans amendment will make worse the situation we are trying to remedy. That is it is going to make us less competitive on a global basis instead of more competitive. I understand reasonable people can differ and the worldview of the economy is on display. I would urge a rejection of the amendment and ultimately we are going to get to a better footing to make it the most competitive in the world if we go any direction other than what the gentleman of texas is proposing and i will yield back. You are recognized on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is important that we are discussing this. And mr. Roskam i think has given a rather subdued argument. [laughter] i know, i thought it would chuckle at that. But we should be discussing this issue at length and a full hearing and the problem with what youve done in your amendment is likely to make it worse. Let me mention the extent of this problem in the New York Times yesterday. It talked about this Tax Strategies and heres what it says. U. S. Multinational firms are by grandmasters of the schemes that deplete the tax collection of most every large economy in the world these Tax Strategies are now like those used by apple as well as amazon, google, starbucks and others that cost governments around the world as much as 240 billion a year in lost revenue. 240 billion a year according to a 2015 estimate by the organization for Economic Cooperation and development. But the documents showed yesterday or the last few days about the latest of whats going on it shows a handful of jurisdictions since the 90s mostly bermuda and the netherlands and now account for 63 of all profits and American Multinational Companies claim to earn overseas. 63 in a few years ago when my brother chaired the Senate Investigating Committee, he talked about apple that has accumulated more than 128 billion in profits and probably much more than is untaxed by the u. S. And any other country. The problem in the way that you propose it moving from applied to territorial is kind of a slogan and doesnt really address the issue because they will move overseas and have the profit overseas into this amendment is as a way to try tt at that and i just want to say this is one of the weak links of many in your bill and i think youve just now heard the beginning of this issue. [inaudible] we have lost billions of dollars and they moved their profits overseas and the latest movement is to jersey, not new jersey but jersey. You heard and we heard the beginning of this and its really sad that we are taking it up this way instead of sitting down and putting together the bill that really digs into this. The amendment is a way to as a o highlight this. I dont think that you think this is the endall beall that if you await the spotlight attention of the profits overseas in order to avoid taxes in the United States of america and to move jobs there, the way you designed this, the process is going to continue and i will yield back. This is singularly on the International Front the reason we should have had extensive hearings. This would have been subject to a separate tax reform matter. There are compelling arguments on all sides of this issue about the International Competition and how people transfer profits and seek the lowest Tax Jurisdiction that we are all mindful of what is happening in the european union, the rates are rapidly discussed and i think that nobody on our side wants to stand in the way of the profit taking but i do think there is a legitimate compelling argument for how this should have played out and im suggesting that we done a month of hearings every week on international taxation, everybody would have felt more comfortable hearing from experts on both sides, not just advocates. So i think when we look at this opportunity we will all be able to say on the International Front we should have been able to find some sort of a common agreement and i will yield back my time i do are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you mr. Chairman. Moving to a territorial system is one of the most commonsense reforms that weve been able to put forth in this bill. When i talk to folks back home, their First Priority when i talk about the broad bill and worldwide system taxation, they get it immediately. Its commonsense to them that we are one of the few countries in the world to have a worldwide fiscal taxation that we are putting a Power Companies at an extreme disadvantage. The first reaction from folks when they say the u. S. Company is going to leave and shift their domicile but then youve got to remind folks that the board of directors corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, not the United States and ive talked to a number of directors of the companies who were concerned Going Forward shareholder lawsuits against them because they were missing the opportunity to lower their tax burden by leaving the United States. Couple this with the fact that the additional tax burden faced by u. S. Companies have become prime targets because they look at a u. S. Company thats profitable and says if we assimilate it immediately we can put 20 or 30 in the botto and m line just by avoiding the u. S. Tax so i would certainly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in such a position. The gentleman yield back the balance of his time. Mr. Lewis is recognized. I was hopeful going after others. I just want to express the frustration on the other side. When the apparitions begin to explode, we introduced legislation to try to address them. We hit a stone wall on the majority side year after year after year. We never could get a bill up on the floor so what has happened is theres been an acceleration of the issue never shown by the Senate Investigating Committee and i refer to the profits that have been held overseas and have not been repatriated even though theyve been used to shift money back to the United States without any taxation being paid so i just want to say you need to expect that this issue will become one of the central issues over the next days because you take a stab at this and i think it will turn out that its more a stab in the back of effective legislation than it is forwardlooking and ive scoped out some of the ways that these loopholes have besieged the treasury and how they will continue to haunt the United States of america. You have to do this more than just my window dressing and essentially, your amendment, your provision as more window dressing than its reality. And i will now yield the balance of my time. I find the comments to be rather startling. He tells us that its okay for them to renounce their citizenship because they have the responsibility to maximize the profit and they are just missing an opportunity if they do not renounce their citizenship. The opportunity thats being missed is those that renounce in order to take advantage of all of the rights of america, the security, justic justice system, educational system and to skip out on paying for any of it by moving their nominal office abroad, all this does is says we will treat those that are profits abroad at the same way as those that are at home. We are not against profit for maximizing profits. Just pay your fair share in when you setup a system as it has been done in the bill that creates what is basically zero and at home is 20 , guess where the money is going to flow, it will flow out of america just like the jobs will flow out of america. They have created a various base erosion prevention. Like swiss cheese full of holes and its clear from the amendment offered by 30 last night the tax lawyers for the multinationals have been working in the Cheese Factory because although they had so many safeguards in here to protect them from having to pay anything, they added a few more in the amendment they wouldnt let us review. So if you believe in keeping jobs here at home when you think weve lost too many already come an, donot create a system that e only job is that it will add to our more tax lawyers and more cpas to find ways to dodge taxes. They are dodging 100 billion a year. Some of the companies are paying next to nothing now. Dont reward them by letting them do nothing which is what the measure does unless we adopt an antioutsourcing bill, a bill that treats everyone the same man tand treats profits the same access make as much as you want to but how about trying to keep a few jobs in america. Thats what this is about. The socalled territorial system, its about creating jobs in someone elses territory. I concerned about the ones president of trump said he would keep here bu but hes abandoneds promise you are recognized to speak on the amendment. This may be one of those occasions where im listening to the gentleman from texas but sort of walking through the mechanism my fear is this word do the opposite succumb to mechanically you just did a tax on a worldwide basis. If the companies domiciled the United States. Maybe i am missing something trying to get my head around this but its probably unintended but youve actually just increased the incentive to move your company out of this country. I appreciate good intentions, but at some point this is hard. We are in a Worldwide Market and have worldwide competition. If it is in the fashion that is in this amendment i think we just made our position in the world attainable because youven sympathized with that moving at the domicile of the other companies and i will yield back mr. Chairman. I would just say that theres nothing hard about this bill were doing ththeywere doing the. The amendment would fight corporate and version were attractively and prospectively. This is not tax efficiency this is deliberate tax avoidance. This amendment is introduced as another example of addressing corporate greed in america to a trillion dollars to avoid paying taxes, to truly and in treasury bonds. Everybodys talking about the 35 statutory rape just very ray misleading and deliberately so. 18. 6 it is very, very competitive. The problem we have is a problem hes trying to address in this amendment and as many corporations are able to avoid this deliberately. There was a negative Tax Liability. They were simply asking the general electorate, walmart and exxon mobil to simply pay their fair share. That is very reasonable and i would ask that to be taken into consideration and i will yield to mr. Doggett. You are correct under the existing tax system, too Many Companies are not paying their fair share. They have avoided their taxes and this is one way of avoiding it. It might be viewed as tax simplification. Maybe some of them want to file their taxes on a postcard just like republicans say they want to provide for individuals because they will know it is a simple system. Youd pay the same thing as the income here at home. The positions put in the bill for the socalled Erosion Provisions are not effected. They will create for the lawyers that they will not assure they are being disadvantaged by the system. I talked about in the treasury but there is another aspect of this and that is the way the winners and losers are picked by the current tax system. We shouldnt have a Playing Field isnt level because it encourages investment in the companies that can dodge their taxes instead of those creating jobs in america so to treat everybody fairly and equitably told them to maximize the profits to pay their fair share, to know that everyone has a responsibility to pay for the National Security and other Vital Services and that it is just an equitable to let some people pay nothing or next to nothing while others are baring their fair share. They are shifting ta the tax bun onto Small Businesses whose market is in america onto individual families and i just think that is wrong. Anyone who benefits from america ought to contribute with hundreds of billions because they are put in places like jersey instead of new jersey and the Cayman Islands and stuff the carolina. This amendment by keeping it very simple and direct is the best way to assure we dont have more jobs outsourced and that we are treated to fairly this amendment will create a level Playing Field for thats lower than the rate. The records are leaked from a pure mute of law firm he demonstrated how the wealthiest take advantage of enormous loopholes in the code around the pockets. They are attempting to rewrite the tax code and do nothing to address the problem. In fact they could benefit many of the same people and entities exposed in the papers. The plan essentially creates a new tax breaks for outsourcing and the new metho method is fore tax avoidance. The corporations already have 2. 6 trillion of profits stashed which they go about 750 billion of u. S. Taxes. Rather than make them pay what they owe, the tax plan will give them a discount for overseas investment and give corporations even more incentive to move thousands and thousands of jobs offshore. Whats worse, the republican tax plan will be unavailable for Small Businesses and domestic companies, so basically main street pays the full race while corporate interes interests getg tax giveaway and thats why smallbusiness groups like the smallbusiness majority oppose the republican plan in fact the majority states that republican black failed to address the advantage given to big businesses because it wouldnt do away with the loophole that allows the multinational corporations to defer paying taxes on the foreign profits and costs the u. S. Treasury department more than 1 trillion over ten years. To level the Playing Field, this amendment requires the profits earned abroad must not be taxed less on the profits made here in america. President of trump made this the central element of his 2016 message yet this does the opposite. The amendment rights are wrong and encourages jobs and growth here at home and i urge my colleagues to support it and yield my time to the representative. Thank you for your comments, and i can assure you as you know when they talk about going to applebees they are not talking about getting a quick lunch in the strip mall, they are finding ways to strip out with 80 the United States treasury and the result is the shipping of more jobs overseas. There is a way to put a stop to this. In fact president of trump recognized that way last year when he talked about stopping the outsourcing of american jobs but as soon as the lobbyist and his billionaire buddies got to him, he completely reversed his position and embraced the bill and the effect of the bill will be to create a johnny and new loophole through which we will see jobs flowing out of the United States and revenue out of the United States. The taxpayer whos left behind will have to pick up the burden and we will find fewer jobs here at home, we will find fewer manufacturing plants opening here because of this bill. I urge adoption of the amendment to see that all profits are treated on the same basis and we stop the outsourcing of jobs and i would yield back. I would like to ask the chair with your permission to question. Question. I would like to know specifically what is in the veiled talking aboumiddle talkie now, what is in the bill that you would consider incentivizes american corporations to bring jobs back to the United States, that is my first question, what actually incentivized these corporations, what incentivized them to bring the jobs back to colorado, new jersey, new york, florida, alabama . Thank you. We think of the economics of this as the chops of Manufacturing Research development and is following and being complementary to the investments, so it is in part is there an incentive to invest whether it is to rebuild the research lab, headquarters operation. The incentives can be affected by the tax returns are yo returk what incentives there might be and it would encourage the investment in the United States relative to abroad compared to the present of, so hr one right now we can talk about effective marginal tax rates that starts with the headline rate before you get to any other. The committee has taken evidence on that so the effect would be to locate income and investments abroainvestmentabroad and explot differential. So the 20 rate is for the profits earned on the baseline law. Relative to the baseline law to 20 rate should encourage investment in the United States relative to what it would otherwise be. We are projecting ahead in the e future so we are looking for incentives five or six years down the road or two years down the road. Another incentive. So it would be for investments in terms of what you just said not immediatel immedit perhaps two or three years down the line. As weve done in the last 30 years with different kinds of incentives, we were talking about the Cayman Islands or whatever, im talking about the netherlands but are we doin whao get these folks back here when now this bill is going to do that obviously. I was trying to respond with some of the incentives. I know you are explaining their policy. Let me mention the incentive and then we can talk about the other incentives on the increased capital Cost Recovery for the first five years and the tangible investments that means if you build a plant in the United States you get a higher return because the economic terms you are effectively sending the income by having expensing. What could have been isnt what youre looking for because what we are doing in this tax plan is putting everything on should have, could have, would have. I am looking at the list of people and im telling you this isnt going to incentivized. What its going to do is put money in the pockets of those who dont need it. Clean up the swamp, that is a joke. The time is expired. Could you give us an idea on how you intend to proceed for the rest of the evening . We will continue until the house floor votes are cold and reconvened to vote on the pending amendment, recess for the evening and return. The question is will this grow jobs or bring jobs back to america my belief is no it wont. For so long we watched the research for the manufacturing headquarters overseas and then you try to treat the symptoms of that. The treat at the heart of it with the real problem is and so we propose over the rates for the businesses so they can compete and win anywhere in the world including here at home, put in place new expensing for businesses can immediately invest in the workers and print them and plants they need to compete as well so we match the competitors and change it so when American Companies and businesses compete around the world they can bring the dollars back to be reinvested in the communities and a zero rate so investing in the jobs and research and manufacturininresed whatever strengthens them because no one has yet convinced us a dollar spent overseas is better than a dollar brought art back to america for any reason. If we dont stop there. He is right in the sense that safeguards have to be put in place so it is at an underlining though and as mr. Roskam pointed out, in the amendment be approved on monday we did two things, and ensure that we stop the incentives to export profits and earnings and intangibles overseas and stop the incentives to import the end options and interests that can deliver the rates artificially as well. We believe that the end of the day the status quo will not work for American Companies to compete in the layout tweaking strong provisions to allow americans to compete and if the status quo cannot continue without the question is agreeing on the amendment and all those in favor signify by saying i mac, those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. Are there additional amendments . I have an amendment at the desk the plaintiff order has been reserved. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] the gentle lady is recognized to speak on the amendment. Im offering an amendment that would provide incentives for the development of competitive skills and training for American Workers. My amendment provides employers that are providing apprenticeships with a 50 tax credit on the first 2,000 of wages for each and to encourage employers to not just to train American Workers but to hire American Workers. My amendment offers employers a 40 tax credit on the first 6,000 of wages to the worker that has completed the apprenticeship training. The amendment is the same as hr 1190, the Workforce Development tax credit act which has bipartisan support. Even as we have emerged from this recession, wages for American Workers have been slow to recover and at the same time, theres been a dramatic decline of the middle skilled high gearing in our economy and employers are reporting that they are trying having trouble finding the right skills. Employers say applicants lack the competency and experience that they are looking for a. According to the manufacturing institute, the shortage is expected to cost 2 million of the 3. 5 Million Manufacturing jobs expected to go unfulfilled in the next decade. According to the annual Talent Shortage survey by the manpower group, employers say the hardest skills to find art in the skilled trade. Moreover, under todays tax bill, we are considering the repeal of the employer Tuition Assistance and the repeal of the student Loan Interest deductibility only exacerbates the skills gap. While our Training Needs have gone up, our investments and skill training and Vocational Education has lagged behind. And onthejob training investments by employers have decreased. Small businesses have especially had a difficult time affording the cost of training. From the Vantage Point of the workers, we need to be proactive and intentional about our efforts to provide better skills and access to experience for the market demand. This is the type of access that will lead to better jobs and rising wages. Mr. Chairman, i am in the type of bipartisan incentive to tax code needs to lower the cost of training for employers and encourage the type of investment in Human Capital that is desperately needed in the workforce. Left unaddressed, unfulfilled middle skilled jobs will go to other workers in other countries because we have fallen behind in our investment in the preparation and development of the workers. Middle skilled jobs pay good wages to pay the way for the middle class and the health of the middle classes for the men to the fundamental to the competitiveness. Studies suggest that for every 1 dollar spent on the apprenticeship, employers may get an average of a dollar 47 back in the increased productivity, reduced waste and greater frontline innovation. Given the fact that we live in an age of globalization and technical change, every day that we are not investing in american schools and American Workers is a day that we are getting further behind. Supporting apprenticeship programs should not be a partisan issue. The future of the work is leaving so many underserved communities behind, we all could benefit by apprenticeship programs. Mr. Chairman, there are a great many traditions in this text that help Corporate America and the owners of the capital. Theres a great many versions in the technological innovation and fiscal capital in the bill. My amendment asks to balance the investment with the investment in Human Capital and i ask my colleagues to support the amendment to help bring a Brighter Future for the American Workers by helping them acquire the skills they need to climb up the ladder of success and i will yield back the balance of my time. You are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you very much mr. Chairman and i think my colleague. For too long in this country weve told young people that theres only one pathway to success and of course that means going to college and getting a traditional degree. We know just looking throughout the world that apprenticeship programs are a wonderful pathway to success and young people can learn and earn and get ahead in that way for new business tax credit i dont think is the most effective way to do it. Targeted tax breaks such as the one proposed today are not consistent with the progrowth tax reform we are pursuing in this bill. They allow them to be paid for and allow people in the savings accounts. The taxpayer that is saving up for the 529 plan would be able to use that savings account with you for the cost associated with an apprenticeship. Our solution enhances individual choice for how the taxpayer pays for education without sacrificing that in creating a new business tax credit. The best way to promote the program is to create a tax environment in which the businesses want to come back to the United States and grow and thrive and seek demand for more workers. If they want to be here they will want to train workers and this will help promote them. Another idea, and we worked in a bipartisan manner going back to 2824 mind with doctor davis had so many members of the house hope will become law and there is an amendment offered by one of our democratic colleagues if my memory serves me right. Its how we ca can help those tt are looking for the alternate pathways to success, so again i think that this is a work goal from something we should work on together but i dont think that the approach my colleague is putting forward in this amendment is the best way to do it. The gentleman yields back. I commend representative for the focus on this issue, and i do so because much of the Population Based in her district is very similar to mine and other places in the country where some population groups especially africanamericans have been shut out of practically of the Development Opportunities that exist. When you tackle if i know you are doing a Great Service to the people you represent and the people i represent and i strongly support this bill and urge its passage and yield back the balance of my time. You are recognized to speak on the amendment. Raising the issue of the importance as i worked with the others in my district we see this as a great challenge but the fact of the matter is we are struggling to take our schools that have programs to train workers and are unable to attract the full potential and when we talk about apprenticeship programs, we are able to see they are putting the work of the pipelines in on then pennsylvania earning real living wages so im really grateful to colleges on the both sides of the aisle are looking for ways to improve the ability to attract pilot to take but i waa moment to thank you for the inclusion in this bill for something that we have for the first time here in the federal system working again across the aisle working with a democrat from new jersey and electrician i worked with him on it that the program that currently allows them to save for a College Education to be able to be including those who want to sa save. So for anybody on this saving from college. Youve actually included that in the bill and its going to make a difference for those who are going to be able to not only get trained to get back to work. American jobs for American Workers this bill makes it happen. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. You are recognized to speak on the amendment. I want to speak on the amendment this is an incredibly important issue as the department of labor said that there were a record six jobs open. The study found 80 believe it is from the shortage of skilled workers into this has to be a priority. It takes away to seek education and we should be doing everything we can to make sure they are supporting programs for apprenticeships to make sure we can help build the jobs that are available across the country. So i support the amendment and i think that we need to have more of our tax code focused on Human Capital and i want to yield the remainder of the time. There is nothing more critical for the communities right now than helping them to close the skills gap. I feel very strongly about it since it will lead the communities i represent behind. I want to do everything i can to close that gap and the tax code is the Perfect Place to incentivize what we want to see if we wanted manufacturers and companies to help we have to incentivize that and that is what the bill does. My office conduct a survey on the work force needs o workforce alabama manufacturers and employers and 74 of the respondents reported difficulty finding employees with the. 87 said they didnt offer apprenticeship programs because they could not afford them and would do so if the federal government provide tax credits. When asked what internal Training Program offers to mitigate skill shortages the majority of the employers report that they use the onthejob training followed by tuition benefits so i want to take this opportunity to highlight the underlining bill removes this Tuition Assistance deduction for employers