The committee will come to order. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Might i request information as to how we intend to proceed today when we will see the managers amendment and will it be sufficient time to understand the document understanding that we are going to the floor pretty quickly and because time constraints and the view that we hold that we want time to be able to take a look at whats in the managers amendment based on whats happened as a monday evening and short notice that we received on thursday. It appears likely that we will at this schedule and pace have very little time to see the managers amendment and to react to it. I suppose the second question based upon what we have seen this morning with the delay is has there been a possibility for republicans to have seen and read and devoured the managers amendment . So as we laid out at the beginning of the week, we are convening today to finish the democratic amendments. You indicated there were five or six more you wanted to have us consider. Well do that. We will then take up managers amendment that brings the Committee Work under the 1. 5 trilli 1. 5 trillion reconciliation and then we will conclude this markup later today. Even though it is beyond regular order we will provide you that managers amendment just as soon as practicable and give you a chance to analyze it. We will take it up on a timely basis, a full and open debate on it before the vote is called. Are there further amendments to the nature of the substitute . I would like to ask unanimous consent to have two letters put in the file. One is in the county of napa regarding the tax treatment of the fire victims and the other from the californias Hospital Association that explains in very good detail how the tax bill before us hurts not only the hospitals but california job growth and the economy by messing with the bonding ability that hospitals use to not only build new hospitals but to retro fit old hospitals. There is more cost associated with retro fitting the hospitals than there is equity in the hospitals in california. I would like to have these two put in. Without objection. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bloomen mr. Nunez. Mr. Chairman . Yes. Bliel the clerk is distributing i would like to knowledge you gave me a letter this morning in reference to the issue that i raised on monday and you indicated that there would be an opportunity before we adjourn to be able to explore this with mr. Bartold and others . Yes. Im asking to have a copy of the exchange that i have had over the last four days that talks about this being a problem so that i i should have done it monday. To every Committee Member to understand whats going on but i would like to have that available to each Committee Member before we give into a discussion so they know what brought this forward. Gentleman from oregon is recognized on his amendment. For how many minutes, mr. Chairman . Three minutes. Three minutes . You should have taken the first no. I try to play straight with you. The gentleman is recognized for three minutes. Before the time starts mr. Chairman may i ask for items to be submitted to the regacord . Sure. They are from the hill magazine titled Congress Turns its back on american workers, from the American Wind Energy association, house reneges and puts american jobs at risk. And along with that a map showing the distribution of all of the major Wind Facilities across the country and the final map that demonstrates that every Single Person on this Committee Comes from a state that has Wind Manufacturing elements. Thank you very much. I have been quite frustrated. Frankly i find this whole process an embarrassment especially as we dive into this hopelessly misdirected bill. Despite the best experts and lobbyists that money can buy this bill is going to give heartburn to every person who supported it for the next 36 months. Im going to focus in my remaining time on one of the worst examples of the failure of process. The inability to keep faith with what most of you would claim would be a core republican value, treating taxpayers and especially business consistently and honoring our word. If you make a deal honor it especially if they are acting on this promise. Those of you that went to law school know this is firstyear law school. There are remedies when you pull out of a deal especially dealing with republicans in congress. I have been working on wind energy since 1999. This was an industry that congress started because when it began it wasnt cost effective. We were dealing with new technologies. We were a step behind other countries and we still are. Those of you that have been to china know that this is not a static process. We are in a race to be able to protect our own industry. Well, we went through boom and bust because congress refused to give the industry a steady predictable path forward that they could count upon, refine the technology and come to scale. Some of you and many other republicans worked with me and our side of the aisle to have that predictable path, to stop and get the short term extensions. In 2015 on a bipartisan basis we negotiated a path forward that would phase out a subsidy, to be able to follow through on this pro promise. Thanks to the work we have done on a bipartisan basis now employees over 100,000 americans in all 50 states. 500 american factories. This is why the Renewable Energy sector now employees more people than gas and oil, more people than coal and wind is an important part of that. The Wind Energy Industry took us at our word. They began investing billions of dollars, reference the material i entered into the record, to realize the prols of that bill. But your bill retroactively repeals this agreement. You put at jeopardy 50,000 jobs. You put in jeopardy up to 50 million of investment and you start spiraling this out of control. If we had ever had hearings that you could listen to the utilities, to the manufacturers, to the farmers and ranchers who are relying on these payments in kansas, in south dakota, in missouri and texas i cant imagine you would have put this in the bill and make it retro active reneging on a bill we have worked on a bipartisan bay says to establish. I cant imagine what youre thinking. This represents a horrible failure of the process. Im sorry. It looks like im eating into five minutes instead of three. Ill stop in case one of my colleagues will yield to me. Thank you for regulating yourself. Mr. Bloomenhour. I think im starting to understand my problem on this committee. They have wind in north dakota too. It keeps getting better. Mr. On the amendment. I am glad that part of it got right. I will yield my time in support, mr. Blumenauer. This is a very good amendment. Wherever mr. Pomeroy is right now, he supports this amendment. [ laughter ] no doubt. Mr. Chairman, i have talked a lot in the course of this proceedings about trying to do these things on a cooperative and thoughtful way. I have looked, as you know, to find ways to work across the aisle and many of my colleagues who have debated this issue today know i have worked with them on things where we could come together and make a difference. And i have promoted the work of this committee in an open and thoughtful way, to promoting hearings, finding where we can come together, get something done. And when we have, i have celebrated it. This amendment is trying to help you fix an egregious problem that symbolizes whats wrong with what you have done with this bill. We could have come together with a tax credit dealing with housing that would have benefited everybody. We could have taken the Small Business provisions on passthrough and limit it to really Small Businesses. Not hedge funds, not sports bar, not donald trump. We could have done that on a bipartisan basis, and there wouldnt be questions about blowing a hole in the revenue estimate. But because the choice is to go it alone, with no hearings, without working with us on a cooperative basis, dropping on us a bill that is being written as we speak and is probably going to be rewritten in the rules committee, it has been a failure of the process. It saddens me to say these words. I even took your tie and made it into a bow tie celebrating ways and means. I believe in the work we do here. And i think, at some point, we will come to our senses and go back to actually trying to Work Together, not relitigate what happened two years ago or ten years ago or 20 years ago. Nothing symbolizes, i think, the failure of this process than the fact that you would retroactively put in jeopardy billions of dollars of investment that many of us worked together on a bipartisan basis to make possible. And probably youre going to vote it down. Even though you wont be able to go home and explain it to your farmers and ranchers that are relying on those payments. The Wind Energy Manufacturers in your states. And its just one example of things, i think, thats going to dog you, not just in the 2018 election but the 2020 election, whether this bill passes or not, and i hope that it doesnt. Thank you, and i would respectfully request support for my amendment. Time has expired. Mr. Marks, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you mr. Chairman. Many of my constituents believe that this credit, of this wind production credit, has too much risk and way too much abuse in it. Some of these projects have been started as little as 5 of some of these projects have been put in the ground and then just abandoned. So ranchers who thought they were going to get a credit, thought they were going to have a stream of income, are looking out at the, in many cases, just a slab thats sitting there on the ground because they were able to get the project started and then lit et it sit there fo years. Nonetheless. These facilities are still entitled, when they finally decide to start them back up, to a tenyear stream of credits. Yet, the bill generally the bill that we will put out for vote generally preserves the intent of our phaseout program that was agreed to. We continue to have reasonable discussions about this. Maybe there is room to amend this in the future, but for now, mr. Chairman, i think what we have in our bill draft is correct, and i think we should defeat this amendment. Thank you. Will the gentleman yield . Yes. I think you make great points. We are listening to members in this issue. We certainly want, over time, Renewable Energy and others to be able to have a certain glide path to the free market. We continue to look for ways to improve the bill as we move forward and well continue to work with members in these and other areas. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak on the amendment . Mr. Chairman . Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman . Yes, sir. You wish to speak on the amendment . I would just note that texas is the leading wind Energy Producer in the country and that the problem my colleague mentions that some people may not immediately set up their wind generating station is no different than somebody who has decided that theyve got some oil or gas on their property and they dont immediately drill. I believe wind energy is coming on fast in texas. Its going at a much reduced price from where it started out because this credit has helped get our Renewable Energy moving there. And i would yield to mr. Blumenauer so texas can stay number one in wind energy. I appreciate the gentlemans courtesy in yielding to me. I listened to my friend from texas, and i am trying desperately to understand exactly where he is coming from. The Wind Energy Credit is being phased down. They dont get the full credit that they used to have. Its being stepped down in increments to be able to smooth it out. Because theyre getting close to the point where they can function without subsidy. That was our goal. I would suggest that maybe some of the reasons that people went out and maybe put down some slabs and tried to get a toehold is because Congress Keeps changing its mind. Congress keeps having deadlines that pass. We have seen the Wind Energy Industry shut down altogether. Because congress dropped the ball. Thats why we, on a bipartisan basis, negotiated a fiveyear deal, so they wouldnt be in that. But you are taking and retroactively denying those benefits. I would welcome to have a hearing before this committee, and you invite in all the people in texas that you think have been cheated or shortchanged by wind energy and then line up the people who have benefited, who work in it, who are getting payments. I dont think it would even be close. You would be embarrassed to have a hearing like that, i think. I am trying to spare the committee from the from embarrassment, not renege on a deal, keep faith with texans who have more installed Scale Wind Energy than anybody else, and i believe in the material i passed out theyve got most at risk to lose if you pull the plug on it. Vote for my amendment. Get it out of the bill. And then lets come back and have a hearing here on what you want to do to the Wind Energy Production tax credit. That would be, i think, a rational way of doing it. And we used to do this on a bipartisan basis. I think it would be a very interesting couple days of hearings so we could finetune it. Thank you very much. I yield back. Gentleman yield backs. Mr. Reed. You are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As the chairman knows and others know i have been a strong voice for all of the Renewable Energy discussion. I appreciate the attempts to get the industries from infancy to commercial viable. I appreciate the gentleman from oregons commitment to this area, and i have enjoyed working with him and i will continue to enjoy working with him as we go forward. I do harken back to some of the comments i made yesterday, that if we are so inclined to support this amendment, my colleagues on the other side have made it very clear from Public Comments and issues from their leadership, statements from their leadership both in the house and senate that they are adamantly opposed to any implementation of tax reform being driven from our side to the floor to give relief to the American People from the code thats represented here to my right. And so i appreciate the chairmans comments, and i join with my colleague from texas, mr. Marchant, to ask my colleagues to vote this amendment down by i appreciate my chairmans commitment and his professionalism and his representation here today to continue to work in this area to find that area that he has represented that some members are expressing concern about, and i truly appreciate your leadership on that issue, and i believe this is an example of that leadership being displayed. With that, i yield back. We will continue to work with you in this area. Mr. Levin, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Yes, thank you, mr. Chairman. The problem is, you say youll continue to work with us, but then you have a bill that deletes the provision. And that doesnt work. I mean, it doesnt make any sense. I was going to bring up the electrical electric vehicle tax credit today because its been so important for Renewable Energy and so important to begin to move away from the present. I decided not to do it because i think you would vote it down, my amendment. I didnt want the precedent of your voting it down while at the same time you might say youll work with us. Mr. Blumenauers passion really stems from the belief that we need to have some limited role of government to try to change the way energy works in this country. Thats what youre doing. And you then say its necessary to act the way you did in your bill because you need the money for your overall bill, but youre sacrificing policies that are so vital. So, again, i didnt bring up the electric vehicle tax credit because i was afraid you would say youll continue to work with us at the same time you delete the credit. And the public cant make sense of that. I think ill yield my final minute to mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. I am shocked by what my friend from new york said. He was one of the people on a bipartisan basis that helped us do this. And now, if i understand him right, he is willing to hold what he worked on on a bipartisan basis hostage to force people to vote against something they find egregious, like repealing the inheritance tax for billionaires. I find that really fundamentally flawed, and i would be embarrassed to make that argument. Because what youre doing is you are targeting something that is a bipartisan why punish why punish an industry that i thought you were trying to help that has much activity in new york because you want to force everybody here to vote for inheritance tax for billionaires . Or to deal with problems with carried interest . I mean, we can go on on a number of things that are flawed, that arent popular with the public, and dont relate to this bill. Thank you, mr. Thompson. You are recognized to speak on the amendment. Like to yield my time to my Renewable Energy hero, mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. And i will stop at this point. I appreciate i appreciate your courtesy. I appreciate you allowing me to try and stake this, and i the contradictions that i see here in terms of how the committee should work and could work, singling out this to be retroactively repealed, hurting every one of your states, and a bill that many of you worked on. How do you pick this out of the air to hold it hostage to try and get people to vote for something that the American Public feels uncomfortable with and which you are changing by the minute . Mr. Reed has no idea what that final bill looks like. I dont think he has an idea of what is going to be dropped on us out of the rules committee. But taking Something Like this from somebody in the problemsolvers caucus and taking a problem that i thought we had solved and holding it hostage for trying to jam through a bigger bill. Thats whats wrong with this process. We ought to be able to take individual items, debate them on their merits, find areas of agreement, like we could have done in health care and which we still could do, i hope. But to wrap everything together, make it a moving target which nobody really knows the problems. And well talk about some of them in a minute, i just think is a violation of the process. I said that its going to haunt everybody who votes for it. I absolutely believe that is the case. You have had a parade of people lined up trying to find out whats in the bill and pleading to not have unintended consequences. I long for the day that we return to regular order, when we could have, for example, a weeks hearing on wind energy, and if mr. Marchant wants to fix it, lets fix it. I long for the day where we have two weeks of hearings on american infrastructure, which is falling apart while america falls behind. And states are raising gas taxes. We cant even discuss it here even though the u. S. Chamber of commerce, truckers, aflcio, many of your states would come up and testify why it is vital to do that and why it would help. Thats the sort of regular order that we could do. Its happening in states, and this bill is exhibit a of how that process is failing here. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. Gentleman yield backs. Mr. Nunes. Mr. Reed is a trusted member of our committee. For those of you who have been in the audience for the last four days youll notice he has had those books in front of him. And man that can read that many books in four days, i mean, he has to know this tax code all the way through, in and out. And i will yield to my good friend who is the tax expert from new york, mr. Reed. I appreciate that, mr. Nunes. It took much longer than four days to go through the u. S. Tax code. As we have been on the committee for seven years dealing with these issues, dealing with tax reform, and having hearings on the issues before us that have set up this day for us to take this step to move the bill forward, hopefully, and to the floor and through the senate process and through the entire legislative process. To mr. Blumenauers point, at the end of the day i do anticipate the final bill that we will put on the president s desk is obviously going to be different than the bill that we put out through the committee because we have to go to our colleagues off the committee. We have to work with our colleagues in the senate to make sure their differences and ours are reconciled probably through a conference committee. Thats regular order. As i listened to the debate yesterday i was reminded many times from my colleagues on the other side, you should have reached out to us, we should have been discussing this. Essentially insinuating we should have been discussing this where . In the back rooms . In the back rooms, in the closed doors . Will the gentleman yield . That we were going to somehow come to an agreement not in the sunlight of today . Will the gentleman yield . No, i am not going to yield. If we are truly interested in this debate and i agree with mr. Blumenauer. When you reference my cochair of the problem solvers caucus, do you know what that caucus is all about . While were trying to send a message to our leadership and to our extreme bases in our party on the left and the right, on the left and the right, and youre right, i said both, because your leaderships, especially what i saw yesterday in the public news and what was reported and what i have seen over the last seven days where i have seen your leader repeatedly say, and the minority leader in the senate repeatedly say we are not going to support any efforts of tax reform. And as we as was reported in a very respected media outlet here on the hill, the calculation has been made from the other sides leadership that you know what we have to do . We have to do everything in their power to block tax reform and the relief that were going to provide to the middle class americans that i truly believe this bill will deliver to them by allowing them to keep thousands of their own dollars. In order to achieve their political goal. What has become their emblem of success here in d. C. The majority in the u. S. House and the majority in the u. S. Senate. Thats appalling to me. And with that i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Miss sewell, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. She is next. Excuse me. Anyone else wish to speak on the amendment . Mr. Schweikert you are recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Barthold, can you help me, just because i was not blessed to be a member of the committee when some of this was originally drafted, and looking at the gentleman from oregons amendment, could you first walk me through right now what the actual change were talking about here in the definitions and mechanisms and timing on work in progress. There is mr. Schweikert, theres two basic changes in h. R. 1. Was noted in the debate there is a phasedown under present law of the value of the production credit or the value of the investment credit if the taxpayer elects the investment credit in lieu of the production credi credit. I want to doubleemphasize, that is current law. Current law. The reductions are 20 reduction in 2017, 40 in 2018, 60 reduction in 2019. Relative to the base proposal thats been in the law for 20plus years. That the value of the credit for projects, the construction of which begins in those years, the inflation indexing is removed. The credit itself is indexed. It currently has a value of 2. 4 cents per kilowatt hour without indexing the value reverts to its base value, 1. 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Mr. Barthold are you saying the inflation indexing is 1. 5 . The base value of the credit from established in 1992 was 1. 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Thats base value plus its currently because of indexing, since 1992, the current value is 2. 4 cents per kilowatt hour. The inflation adjustment would be repealed, meaning future projects would revert to the base value of 1. 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Okay. Not projects currently in service, but new projects, the construction of which begins after the enactment of the okay. So but projects that are under production excuse me, under construction right now well, not all because the rule established four years ago now changed from the more traditional investment rule of property placed in service to a commencement of construction. And there is regulations that define what commencing destruction construction in our last 20some seconds. I know this is hard. Can you help me on that. The longtime rule under the production tax credit and under a number of other rules is property placed in service by a certain date. I believe it was five years ago that congress changed the rule to property placed in service to property the construction of which commenced by a certain date. All right. Thank you, mr. Barthold. I yield back. Thats also the definition of commenced construction is also modified by the legislation. Gentleman time has expired. Anyone else wish to speak . Mr. Crowley, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think its interesting the direction of focus and the change of direction of focus in terms of this debate in terms of motivations as to the leadership of either side of the house. My good friend, the gentleman from new york, one of the cochairs of the problemsolvers caucus is creating more problems for new yorkers and for our country in the passage of this bill. And to question the motivations of the leadership, lets be clear. Our leadership wants to see this bill defeated because it is not reflective, not reflective, of the values of our country. Thats why we want this bill defeated. It is not in the interests of our constituents nor do we believe in the interests of our country to see this bill move forward. In terms of back room deals, is it a backroom deal to include democrats and speak to them about a bill and to give it the light of day . Is it a backroom deal when we ask for people to have for the majority to have hearings on this issue so that the American People can understand fully whats in the bill aside from sitting behind stacks of books of material . Can we have an open discussion about that here on the house floor . Its very clear in terms of motivation as to why you all want to pass the bill. Your colleague from new york, mr. Collins, made it very clear, mr. Reed, the other day when he said, quote, my donors are basically saying get it done or dont ever call me again. It couldnt be more clear as to what the motivation is in terms of getting this bill rammed through the house of representatives before christmas. Its all based on the d word. Donors. And thats what, in terms of a backroom deal, thats what you all are putting together, a backroom deal for your donors. I think its wrong. Its not the way in which legislation should be done. But youve chosen this path and i guess well see it through. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Curbello, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank the gentleman for raising this issue because we have done a lot of work to support renewables in our legislation, a lot of colleagues, i think, on both sides are very supportive of leveling the Playing Field, really treating all the different sectors fairly. And this wind issue is critical. And i think we can Work Together to do more to strengthen the provisions as they relate to wind, and i am open to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle here and with you, mr. Chairman, to continue that dialogue. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. Well continue to do that. Mr. Rice you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield to mr. Schweikert of the. Thank you. I know i am belaboring this, i just want to make sure i actually have my head around this. Mr. Barthold, you just before we ran out of time, work in progress. So lets just do paint a quick scenario. I have a facility in texas, northern arizona, oregon, wherever it is, and all we have done is engineering and weve laid the first parts of the massive foundations that are required because of the loads. And then weve weve stopped for a while. We are working on financing, Something Else. Its already begun. Would that be receiving the 2. 4 Going Forward or the 1. 5 Going Forward . Under present law, the commence construction rules usually satisfied if 5 of total project costs have been incurred. Okay. Foundations are like a third of the cost. It depends on the air if under the proposal it adds a rule for determining the beginning of construction, and under the proposal the construction of a facility or modification or anything is not treated as beginning before any date unless there is a Continuous Program of construction which begins before that date and ends on the date in which the property is placed in service. And so, the scenario that you were describing and which mr. Marchant noted earlier, if you did work today, even if its a substantial amount of work, and then the project were in abeyance for a year, it would not be an eligible project. So its the it would not meet the begin construction because the project was not continuously in construction. So what were also working on is the definition of what is continuous. Youre defining continuous. Its work in progress. Saying you have continuous progress on your project in order to say that you began construction by whatever date you have designated in the past. That language mechanism, i know at look, in a real estate assessment world and those which is very different than obviously federal income tax, we had a lot of what is work in progress, you fall under certain percentages of completion for assessment purposes. Is there some of this sort of its not a percentage completion. So its not a percentage completion. No. Its just continuation. Its show continuous construction work. So we havent created huge barriers. As long as if you keep plugging along, working on it, then then they retain the benefit. Essentially the present law rule is for what constituted beginning construction will be deemed to have been satisfied. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I understand there may be a cleanup in definition, but its not that onerous. Mr. Meehan, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We often spend too much time in these issues because i think they are the ones that score the political points, working on all of the parade of hoaribles thrr suggested to be raining down on what is proposed. I have Great Respect for mr. Blumenauer and mr. Pomeroy, whoever it is behind this particular issue, to be sure. But i dont want to lose sight of what you have done, what has been done in this bill with the commitment to Renewable Energy. And the continuing commitment to not only allow these industries to develop and flourish in the United States but to compete against countries like china who are trying to come in and usurp the great progress thats been made. Whereas there has been significant progress in the wind and solar area, and i go again with solar continuing to be supported in a very dramatic fashion. As we look for alternative energies that are competing with the new development of shale, which has created cleaner Energy Solutions across the country. That a great effort was made to correct a problem that had occurred in the past. And so that orphan technologies like wind turbines, fuel cells, geothermal, the kinds of things that are allowing us to continue to stay on the forefront of alternative Energy Solutions for our country are being supported in this bill. Given the chance to have the same opportunity that wind and solar are asking for. And i think that thats a significant accomplishment that will allow us to diversify our energy portfolio, create real and meaningful jobs and in many ways work in concert with the efforts on the part of solar, the Battery Storage thats necessary to make a solar or even a wind Energy Solution even all the more efficient. So i am grateful for my colleagues that are raising the issue but do not want to lose sight of very significant and important things that are included in this bill that i think receive, whether it will not get the vote, it certainly receives the support of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Larson you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I strike the last word. My dear friend and colleague mr. Blumenauer has just been informed that we have to kill it in order to save it. We have to kill your initiative in order to save it. We have to go back against the commitments that we made because the most important thing here is that we double tax states that make deductions, individually, states that are donor states, we have to tax success amongst people. We have to make sure that people that currently get to deduct medical expenses no longer are able to do that. As much as the aarp pointed out yesterday. We have to do that so that we can assist mr. Blumenauer, youre just going to have to wait, because the people who get more than 11 million to begin with havent gotten enough from the estate tax provision. And so, mr. Blumenauer, were going to have to kill your bill and your initiative because they havent gotten enough. And when they say they have to kill it to save it, when you look at the change cpi theyve put in this bill as well, as we said to the aarp yesterday, stay tuned, because the same thing is coming for Social Security and medicare and medicaid. Were going to have to cut it in order to save it. Stay tuned, americans, for the next step in this show. Were going to have to kill it in order to save it. You are going to hear this over and over again. In order to save your benefits, were just going to have to kill the program. With that, i yield to mr. Blumenauer. If we were to have the hearing that mr. Marchant and i want to have and have a dozen people from the industry, from the association, from people in your states, a dozen people testify, we can document clearly, for mr. Schweikert, why this is a disruptive change and puts at risk hundreds thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment, which he could have found out if he would talk to the people in the Wind Energy Industry from his own state, without speculation. We dont have to do this on the fly. And i hope that we have that hearing soon. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak on the blumenauer amendment . Questions on bringing the up the amendment the nos have it. Further proceedings on the moment will be postponed, are there additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. Gentle lady has an amendment at the desk. Mr. Nunes. I reserve a point of order. Clerk will distribute the amendment. I ask the clerk to suspend while the gentle lady distributes. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nunes is recognized. I with draw my point of order. Gentleman withdraws. Gentle lady is recognized to speak on her amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment would restore and expand the historic tax credit. The historic tax credit has been a key redevelopment tool in districts across america, helping to revitalize cities, towns in Rural Communities by encouraging private Sector Investment and rehabilitation and reuse of Historic Buildings. Nationwide, it has helped renovate more than 42,000 Historic Buildings. In my state of alabama alone, since 2002, 128 historic tax credit projects resulted in 280 million in total Economic Development. Just in my district, there have been 48 historic tax credit projects since 2002. In cities with civil rights history like birmingham, selma, marion and montgomery. The federal historic tax credit creates jobs, mr. Chairman. It is a good investment for local communities, individual states and the nation. The cumulative impact of the Program Since 1978 includes 2. 5 million jobs and billions of dollars in economic gain. The positive impact on the economy speaks for itself. Historic tax credits have generated 291. 7 billion in output. 144. 9 billion in gdp, 106. 6 billion in income, and, yes, 41. 7 billion in taxes. Mr. Chairman, the historic tax credit is a great return on investment. 25. 2 billion in historic tax credit costs costs encourages five times greater amount of investment in renovation. 131. 8 billion. A great return on investment. Again, i say to my republican colleagues, repealing incentives for key investments in Economic Development like historic tax credit will raise less than 50 billion in revenue and, yet, decrease the amount of economic rehabilitation by 131. 8 billion. Mr. Chairman, this is a nobrainer. The economic revitalization of our downtowns from core urban areas to main street towns requires investments like the historic tax credit to focus investment where it is needed most. Mr. Chairman, in closing, no one makes the case for historic tax credits better than president reagan who, in 1984, said our historic tax credits have made the preservation of our older buildings not only a matter of respect for beauty and history but, of course, for economic good sense. So i ask my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. Lets se lets send a message to towns and cities across america that we believe in them. I believe in my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. You are recognized. I will be quick on this. I rise in opposition to the amendment. One of the challenges with tax reform is trying to go through the code and eliminate a lot of the credits and deductions that have been built over the code for the last three or four decades. And, you know, there are a lot of folks who get this credit. But the problem is, you cant have lower rates if we keep special deals in the code for picking some winners over some losers. And i would say that one of the, i think, careful considerations that we took in this legislation is that the bill provides for Transition Relief over taxpayers currently claiming the credit to complete their full twoyear time frame for receiving the benefit. Taxpayers who have not yet begun claiming the credit have 180 days from the date of enactment to begin the twoyear period of benefit. So i think we have sufficiently taken care of this issue. And i hope that will the gentleman yield . Remain consistent to get rid of many of these credits even though this may be a good credit like a lot of credits, but we have to get rid of them. Gentleman yields. Mr. Neal. You are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This is a superb credit. Its been a transformative investment tool for cities across the northeast. I just came back from charleston, South Carolina, in the spring. I want to tell you, if there is a better example of how the historic tax credit has been used in america i am not aware of it. Brownstones have been brought back to life. Neighborhoods have been transformed. Investment has occurred. Property taxes have gone up and people who at one time began the outmigration from urban america then found new sustenance and opportunity by coming back to these old cities. And again, the millennial class continues to change how these cities are lived in. They invest by sending their children to the public schools. Once they come back, they support the arts. Once they come back, they support neighborhood associations. And i cant imagine anyone from the south opposing the historic tax credit. What it has done, in areas surrounding old civil war battle fields, which is a very important part, again, of our considerations, but one of the things that the gentleman from california said, there are some good credits. This is a great credit. This gets people to do what we want them to in terms of incentive, but for the credit the investment wouldnt occur. So i think that we attempt, on that basis, to, again, lure investment back to Historic Buildings that, by the way again, in terms of the architecture, in terms of those great italian art sans that came to neglectw england and reshape buildings and town halls and congregational churches that adorned town squares across all the new england. Where the founders had enough sense to say, okay, were going to build the church, the Municipal Building and the public library, the envy of architecture across new england. This is a good amendment, it should be maintained. I want to include a letter from franklin realty, the largest taxpayer. And with that ill yield my 49 seconds to miss sewell. Thank you, Ranking Member neal. I just wanted to respond to the gentleman from california. You know, i think i do understand that in order to provide this huge tax cut to the wealthy we have to figure out what to cut. I just dont understand why you would cut such an incentive as historic tax credit which would only benefit, would only give you 50 billion but yet would decrease the amount of revitalization in economic cities across this nation by 131. 5 billion. So five times more help would go to job creations than it would actually hurt. And so, i know that in this debate about tax reform were making value choices. I am just saying, choose cities and municipalities and towns across america over the wealthy. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. For the record. Request to submit from the record from the Connecticut Department of economic and Community Development division of state historic preservation. A letter that underscores what mr. Neal and miss sewell have said. Without objection. Mr. Teebury, you are recognized to speak. Mr. Neal woke me up when he talked about italian architecture in new england. Thank you. I want to associate myself with the gentlemans remarks. Will the gentleman yield . Yes. This is another opportunity not to say how great we are but to vote with us. How did you know i was going to tell you how great you were . Mr. Barthold, with respect to the historic tax credit, i had a constituent involved in a project in West Virginia using the low Income Housing tax credit as well as public productivity bonds and the historic tax credit to rebuild and renovate a large project for housing in West Virginia, and he was told by the banker i am not sure this is correct, so maybe if you could clarify this that the project, which is supposed to close in january, will now be at risk because the Effective Date of the bill is before the project is supposed to close. Does that make sense to you . I think not, mr. Teebury, under the Transition Rule that actually mr. Nunes described, the Transition Rule, 180day period for projects that are under way. So they should be fine if theyre closing on january 31st. Sounds like it. Youre the expert. Would be happy to i am sure the chairmans staff, our staff, would be happy to take materials from your constituent and see what their situation is and report back to you. Great. Mr. Chairman, i am going to urge the rejection of this amendment at the time being and Ranking Member knows that i am supportive of the historic tax credit, have seen the beauty of it in urban parts of my district. But rural parts of my district as well where private investment hasnt, quite frankly, for sometimes decades gone into some of these areas and the historic tax credit has been used to do that. As you and i, mr. Chairman, have had conversations and will continue to, to try to figure out a way that we can, in the end. Preserve some of these tax credits that have had lifechanging aspects in some of our communities. Thank you. Urge the rejection. Raise this issue in such a positive way. Thank you. Mr. Higgins, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I just wanted to speak in support of this amendment. The historic tax credit has been a powerful Economic Force playing itself out in through every city in america including mine of buffalo, new york. Over the last five years, 500 million in projects have restored 70 Historic Buildings in western new york. The other thing is, you know, the historic tax credit is essential as a driver of private investment to restore physically and financially challenging Historic Buildings throughout america. The historic tax credit returns more in revenue, returns more in revenue to the federal government than the tax credits actually cost. In fact, federal government receives 1. 25 in tax revenues for each dollar invested. 23 million in federal tax credits nationally generated 28 billion in federal tax revenues for historic rehabilitation projects. So i would ask the committee to please consider the value of the projects to local communities throughout america, but also the positive impact it has on the federal budget. Its a net contributor to the federal budget. I yield the remainder of my time to miss sewell. Thank you to the gentleman from new york for yielding and also for the eloquence about how historic tax credits have helped buffalo, new york. You know, i missed misrepresented. It turns out that the cost of the of repealing the historic tax credit would actually only raise 50 million, not billion. So i want to stand corrected. But i can tell you that it will genera generate 131. 8 billion in economic revitalization. The math just doesnt add up. And i know that all across america awful us have districts that would benefit from this historic tax credit. And as Ranking Member neal said, no area benefits more than the deep south. And i can tell you that, in my historic city of selma, alabama, there are so many beautiful antebellum homes that have been revitalized in downtown areas across my district, and, you know, i am baffled by the fact that we are making these kinds of value judgments that dont yield that much revenue but yet are taking away, decreasing, the amount of economic revitalization by billions of dollars. It actually makes no sense. And so this is actually a nobrainer, in my opinion. It is something that should go back into the code, and i would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, whom i know have benefited, their districts have benefited from historic tax credits, will see the value in making sure that we side with local governments and local municipalities. Thank you. Mr. Lewis, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank miss sewell for bringing this amendment before us today. I really dont understand it. It is difficult for me to understand, from those of you who have traveled through the south, other parts of america, who have grown up in the south. I grew up in rural alabama. Lived in tennessee. And i live in georgia. And historic tax credit has changed many of our towns, our cities. Historic tax credit was helping to save the old schools, churches, Historic Buildings, remaking our towns and our neighborhoods. Its only a small amount of money that can help change america, to save our history and preserve it for generations yet unborn. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Doggett, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, this is a historic moment. I applaud the amendment. It is in the overall context of this bill a very modest amendment. And if even this modest amendment is opposed, which it is, it gives us some indication of the way this week has gone. So here we are on the fourth day of hearings. Every single democratic amendment has been rejected. In many cases, with absolutely mazi amazing circus level contortions which our republican friends explaining why theyre voting against something that their constituents support in order to get it eventually somewhere in this process. And so, given where we are, 11 40, with votes about to happen, with our not having been provided the managers amendment, i think we need to consider this historic point. Understand that, at this point on the fourth day of the hearing, the only thing which has changed the cost of this bill is an amendment the chairman offered. Thats the only amendment thats been adopted. It added a big gift to multinational corporations, and so now it exceeds the budget limit. And thats the purported excuse for not for needing to have another managers amendment is to correct what we were not told the first managers amendment does. And so, in that circumstance, i would yield, mr. Chairman, to ask you, since youre rejecting every single idea we advance, i have got some other amendments, other people have amendments, i have not conferred with them about how they feel about it, but if we withdrew every other amendment that weve got and knowing you are going to reject them anyway, are you ready to present the managers amendment and tell us what secrets youre hiding there . Mr. Doggett. Well continue to abide by regular order. Last night there was a great todo about not having time to offer your amendments. We are certainly going to continue to offer that full and open debate. It will be your decision whether to not do that. If we withdrew any amendment that i or anyone else has got would we be put in recess or would we have an opportunity to see your secret proposal that you all have worked out here in the back rooms i suppose amongst ufr yourselves and with the big giveaway to Corporate America on multinational tax offshoring and hiding their money . No. We will continue with regular order. Does regular order include calling a recess or considering your amendment . Well continue with full and open debates on all maumenamend democrats or republicans offer. I appreciate that. I assume what that means is that youre still not ready to present the managers amendment to correct the fiscal irresponsibility of the first giveaway to Corporate America and that we would just go into recess. So i suppose its reasonable for us to continue offering in amendments to a bill time has expired. Miss jenkins, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Miss jenkins. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to yield my time to chairman tiberi. Thank you, miss jenkins. The gentleman from texas makes a fascinating point. And it would be even more fascinating for those of you in the audience who werent here in 2009 to remember the obamacare and Affordable Care act debate which the gentleman from texas sat through and watched. And watched as every single amendment that we offered was dismissed. And this chairman has been more fair than that chairman. We did not see an amendment until 12something a. M. In the morning to a 2,000page bill. Every single one of our amendments was rejected. 50 of them. In fact, the chairman didnt even know i was a member of the committee, it was so pathetic. I am not kidding. He did not know that i was a member of the committee. Then, when he figured it out, he didnt even pronounce me the right name. So i i know. Isnt that amazing . Thats true its absolutely true. So much for inclusiveness when you dont even know who the minority members are. So i love mr. Doggetts replay of this, but chairman brady has been more than fair, as you compare it to when the minority was in the majority. And as one who loves many members of the minority, again, history is an amazing thing to look at. My wish would be that me and Bill Pascrell or knee and richie larson, certainly not future speaker crowley. The rest of us jim, would you yield for a question, jim . Sure. Where are the women is my query . What about the women . Mr. Pomeroy has the floor. [ laughter ] thank you, mr. Chairman. I will take advantage of that. [ laughter ] seriously. I mean, come on lets not be holier than thou. Nobody up here on these two daises can sit up here and be holier than thou. At the end of the day the chairman have a very difficult job. None of us, quite frankly, understand how difficult it is. And the chairman is trying his darned best, and i think he has done a better job than than past chairmans of trying to highwire a very difficult act. And i appreciate it. I would i yield back. Thank you, mr. Tiberi. If i may, in order, we have mr. Crowley and dr. Davis mr. Crowley, you are recognized. I want to state for the record that the former chairman of the committee used to refer to me as mr. Crawly. It wasnt just the minority, charles, okay . So thank you, mr. Chairman. I just want to enter, if i can, in a colloquy with my friend from the great state of alabama. Miss sewell, i know that there is an effort certainly in the south to preserve both antebellum and postbellum architecture and structures. I read with great interest recently and i dont recall which periodical it was in the attempt to preserve slave quarters, which primarily is on private properties throughout the south, that theyre crumbling and withering, and would this would this tax credit help to preserve those structures as well . Thanks for the question, the gentleman from new york. As long as the buildings are certified by the department of interior, and usually thats because they are on some sort of historic registry, if these slave quarters which i think some of them are, do qualify, yes, they would be able to take advantage of the historic tax credit. Once again, it has to be a certified building, and the certification is done through state preservation organizations as well as through the National Parks service. I know that there are many who are concerned that the state of life, as it existed for those who were held in bondage prior and during the civil war, that, if these buildings were to be lost, that that much of that story would be lost as well. Is that not true . That is true. I appreciate the gentle ladys amendment, and i think its important for our colleagues to understand just what the impact well have on future generations if this tax credit is not maintained and will yield the balance of my time from the gentle lady from alabama. Thanks, not only will it affect, you know, our history of slavery, but it will affect every aspect of our history. These are Historic Buildings that tell the story of america, frankly. And that is what the National Parks service is there for, to make sure that next generations understand the as well as, you know, confederate sites. I grew up in selma, where weve a complicated history of not only civil rights but also civil war. That history lives side by side in many parts of the south. And so all of our communities can benefit from historic tax credits, because its really about the preservation of the American Experience and every district has a story to tell that is uniquely american. Time has expired. This country is replete with structures, buildings that are not just buildings, but they really speak to the history and development of this country. I heard john lewis mention rosenwald, a man who lived in my community, but who developed more than 500 schools in the rural south for africanamerican communities who at that time did not have a school. My district has more Frank Lloyd Wright buildings in it than any other place in the world. It also has the tremendous bronzeville area where schoooref africanamerican entertainers and actors lived during the 1930s and 40s and 50s. Plus, we have structured Downtown Chicago that were there when the chicago fire took place. They survived. So its not just a matter of reconstructing. These buildings have reached obsoleteness. Unless theres an infusion of capital, local developers, local governments cannot do it alone. Philanthropists cannot do it alone. So we need the faith and credit of our country to stand behind. So im pleased to join with representative sewel and others. Gentleman yields back. We will Recess Committee for votes, return, vote on the pending amendments and skoconti and finish. The committee is recessed until following floor votes. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Nunes. Mr. Nunes, no. Mr. Teaberry. Mr. Rickert. Buchanan, no. Mr. Smith of nebraska. Mr. Smith no. Ms. Jenkins. Ms. Jenkins no. Mr. Paulson. Mr. Paulson no. Mr. Hmerchant no. Ms. Black. Ms. Black no. Mr. Reed no. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Reneesi, no. Mr. Meehan is no. Mr. Kind aye. Mr. Passkrel, yes. Mr. Crowley aye. Mr. Higgins, aye. Ms. Sewel aye. Ms. Chu, aye. Mr. Johnson. 15 yays and 24 noes. Mr. Johnson. No. Mr. Nunes. No. Mr. Teaberry. No. Mr. Rikert. No. Mr. Rascome. No. Mr. Buchanan. No. Mr. Smith of nebraska. No. Ms. Jenkins no. Mr. Paulson no. Mr. Marchant no. Ms. Black. No. Mr. Reed. No. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Reneesi no. Mr. Mee mhan no. Ms. Gnome, no. Mr. Holding no. Mr. Smith of missouri. No. Mr. Rice. Mr. Rice no. Mr. Shwikert no. Mr. Bishop no. Mr. Neil yes. Mr. Levin yes. Mr. Lewis yes. Mr. Doget yes. Mr. Larson yes. Mr. Blumenhaur aye. Mr. Kind aye. Mr. Passkrel yes. Mr. Crowley aye. Mr. Davis aye. Ms. Sanchez aye. Mr. Higgins. Mr. Higgins aye. Ms. Sewel aye. Ms. Dellbene aye. Ms. Chu aye. Chairman brady no. I was unavoidably detained and missed the first vote and i would like to be recorded in the affirmative on that vote, if i could. Clerk will report the vote. 16 yays, 24 nays. Minimum is not agreed to. Question now is on the doget amendment. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson no. Mr. Nunes. Mr. Nunes no. Mr. Teaberry. Mr. Teaberry no. Mr. Like ert no. Mr. Ras come no. Mr. Buchanan no. Mr. Smith of nebraska no. Ms. Jenkins no. Mr. Paulson no. Mr. Marchant no. Ms. Black. Ms. Black no. Mr. Reed no. Mr. Kelly no. Mr. Meehan no. Ms. Gnome no. Mr. Holding. Mr. Holding no. Mr. Smith of missouri. Mr. Smith no. Mr. Rice. Mr. Rice no. Mr. Shwikert no. Mr. Carbellow no. Mr. Bishop no. Mr. Neil yes. Mr. Levin yes. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis yes. Mr. Doget yes mr. Tamp so. Mr. Thompson yes. Mr. Passcell yes. Ms. Sanchez aye. Mr. Higgins aye. Ms. Sewel aye. Ms. Chu aye. Chairman brady. Chairman brady no. Mr. Chairman. The clerk will report the vote. 16 yays, 24 nays. There being 16 ayes and 24 nos, the amendment is not agreed to. The question now is on the levin amendment. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Johnson no. Mr. Nunes no. Mr. Teaberry no. Mr. Rikert no. Mr. Buchanan no. Mr. Smith of nebraska no. Ms. Jenkins no. Mr. Paulson no. Mr. Marchant no. Ms. Plaqblack no. Mr. Reed no. Mr. Kelly no. Mr. Renesi no. Mr. Meehan no. Ms. Gnome no. Mr. Holding. No. Mr. Smith of missouri no. Mr. Rice no. Mr. Shwickert no. Mr. Bishop no. Mr. Neil yes. Mr. Levin yes. Mr. Thompson aye. Mr. Larson aye. Mr. Blumenhaur aye. Mr. Kind aye. Mr. Passcell yes. Mr. Crowley aye. Mr. Davis aye. Ms. Sanchez aye. Mr. Higgins aye. Ms. Sewel aye. Ms. Dellbenny aye. Ms. Chu, aye. Chairman brady no. Clerk will report the vote. 16 yays, 24 nays. There being 16 ayes and 24 noes, the amendment is not agreed to. The question now is on the lewis amendment. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Janseuar johnson no. Mr. Nunes no. Mr. Teaberry no. Mr. Right no. Mr. Ras come no. Mr. Buchanan no. Mr. Smith of nebraska no. Ms. Jenkins no. Mr. Paulson no. Mr. Mar chant no. Ms. Black no. Mr. Reed no. Mr. Kelly no. Mr. Renesi no. Mr. Meehan no. Ms. Gnome no. Mr. Holding no. Mr. Smith of missouri no. Mr. Rice no. Mr. Carbellow no. Mr. Bishop no. Mr. Neil aye. Mr. Levin aye. Mr. Lewis aye. Mr. Dogt aye. Mr. Thompson aye. Mr. Larson yes. Mr. Blumenhaur aye. Mr. Kind aye mr. Passcell yes. Mr. Crowley aye. Mr. Davis aye. Ms. Sanchez aye. Mr. Higgins aye. Ms. Sewel aye. Ms. Dellbenny eye. Ms. Chu aye. Chairman brady no. Clerk will report the volt. 24 noes, 16 yays. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman personal privilege. Yes, sir. The gentleman is recognized. On monday i raised concerns about discrepancies in terms of an answer i got from mr. Ba bartholt about the treatment of the pass through entity, at the same time being told it was kind of a convoluted answer but it seemed like mr. Bartholt was say nothing. But that loophole did exist, businesses could claim deductions when employees didnt. I brought that to you and mr. Bartholt and said i didnt want to blindside anybody but this seems like a big deal because it has tremendous potential of changing the revenue estimate. So i left that. I raised it yesterday, mr. Chairman, seeking clarification because it appears to be a direct contradiction between what i heard from joint tax and what your committee put out. Youre rushing towards wrapping this thing up while youre writing the bill that well see maybe tomorrow and some of us are going to not have the ability to be able to be fully participating in the legislative process. I am perfectly willing to wait here, work with the committee for another hour or two or three or four, but i would like the courtesy of an answer to the question that i raised monday and tuesday to clarify whether mr. Bartholts, i think, interpretation is right and there is not much of a loophole or the committee, which appeared to indicate that it was. Could i get an answer in writing . Yes. If a letter is a good way to resolve this no. I want it. I want to be able to see it and understand it and not have it drop out the door when the committee is leaving. We need to know what the revenue estimate was based on, because this could be a not just unfair, not just unfair to employees, but its a potential way to game the system and lose revenue. You need to know. The committee needs to know what basis mr. Bartholt or the committee so that we understand what number were working with. I dont think thats an unfair request and i dont know why i cant get an answer. So ill do my very best to get a letter to you as soon as possible. Can i ask tom right now . Did the Committee Issue information that was contrary to what i thought your answer was to me . So this was a question of personal privilege, which im glad to honor. I would like to be able to look at the issue, make sure we get that letter to you. And then if it is not satisfactory or youd like to raise it tomorrow with mr. Bartholt here, having seen the letter, i think well all be on the same page to have that discussion. When . Couldnt he just tell us . Well i gave him the information monday and the committee in that information i gave him and you the committee appeared to issue something that was different. Im just asking if we could have him clarify did the committee put that out, did you look at it . This should not be rocket science. So again, i think your request is could you get a letter in writing to your request even though its not required id be glad to do that. And then if at some point youd like to question mr. Bartholt now that youve seen the response, i think that would be a more fruitful discussion. Would it be possible to ask him yes or no if he took into account what the Committee Issued . So, again, we will respond to your request. Then we can have that discussion. Thank you. Well mr. Neil, i understand youre not satisfied. Mr. Chairman, let me just say. I mean, i respect you and i try and play here fair. I did not try and ambush anybody monday. [ inaudible conversation ] [ inaudible conversations ] committee will come to order. At this time well consider postponed amendment votes. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Johnson no. Mr. Nunes . Mr. Teaberry no. Mr. Rikert no. Mr. Rascom no. Mr. Buchanan no. Mr. Smith of nebraska. Ms. Jenkins no. Mr. Paulson no. Mr. Marchant. Ms. Black. Mr. Reed. Mr. Kelly no. Mr. Renasi no. Mr. Meehan. Ms. Gnome no. Mr. Holding no. Mr. Smith of missouri no. Mr. Rice no. Mr. Shwikert no. Mr. Valorski no. Mr. Carbellow. Mr. Bishop no. Mr. Neil yes. Mr. Levin yes. Mr. Lewis yes. Mr. Dogt yes. Mr. Thompson aye. Mr. Larson yes. Mr. Blumenhaur aye. Mr. Kind aye. Mr. Passcrell yes. Mr. Coulrowley. Ms. Sanchez eye. Mr. Davis eye. Mr. Higgins aye. Mr. Sewel aye. Ms. Dellbenny aye. Ms. Chu aye. Mr. Nunes. Mr. Smith of nebraska no. Mr. Marchant. Ms. Black. Mr. Reed. Mr. Meehan. Mr. Carbellow. Mr. Crowley. Chairman brady no. Ms. Sanchez is recorded as yes. Sanchez is yes. How is mr. Meehan recorded . Mr. Meehan is not recorded. No, please. How is ms. Black recorded . Ms. Black is not recorded. No. Ms. Black, no. How is mr. Carbellow recorded. He is not recorded. No. Mr. Reed is not recorded. Mr. Reed, no. Mr. Chairman. Clerk will report the vote. 15 yays, 22 nays. There being 15 ayes and 22 noes, the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Chairman . Mr. Chairman . Ms. Sewel for what purpose . Point of person privilege. Granted. In light of the fact that i think my amendment on historic tax credit has sort of shown the point that the whole of the deficit would only be closed by 50 million by repealing the historic tax credit, i withdraw my amendment in the interest of time. The amendment has been withdrawn. Are there further amendments to the amendment in the nature of substitute . Mr. Higgins for what purpose . I ask for consent to submit a statement to the record relative to the kind amendment yesterday. Without objection. Mr. Chairman i have an amendment at the desk. Gentle lady has an amendment at the desk. Mr. Rikert. Ms. Chu, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. My amendment refers to one of the biggest give aways to the wealthy in this bill, the elimination of the estate tax. Children like ivanka trump are exactly the ones who get helped by ending the estate tax. The estate tax does not just help the wealthy, it helps the wealthiest of the wealthy. The estate tax only applies to estates that exceed 11 Million Dollar per couple. Thats more than Many Americans earn over their entire lifetime. In fact out of every 1,000 estates in this country, only the wealthiest two would pay any estate tax at all. That is. 2 of all es tatates i this country. Large hoop ho republicans claim this is really about small farms and businesses but that is not what the data shows. Our president confirms what this amendment really is. Just yesterday nbc news reported that trump told Senate Democrats that he wanted a repeal of the estate tax in the bill because they had to give something to rich people. This elimination would be a massive windfall to the wealthiest estates of 3 million apiece. And it would cost our federal budget 269 billion over ten years. Think of what that could pay for. That could pay for child care for 4. 2 million children. In fact, just the trump familys estate tax windfall could pay for child care for 100,000 children. Instead of taking away tax credits for adopting a child or eliminating the medical deduction for catastrophic diseases, how about helping the middle class . How about having those who can afford it, the ultra rich pay their taxes . We must do the right thing. Vote yes on my amendment to keep the estate tax. And i yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Ms. Gnome, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment for many, many reasons. Mainly because i believe the death tax is unamerican. And anyone whos sitting here and says that repealing the death tax will only help the ultra wealthy does not have any idea what theyre talking about. When i was going to college and i was married and working parttime, but my i was taking fulltime classes. I got a call one day that my dad was stuck in a corn bin. I said turn the fans on and ill be there in ten minutes. When i got there the hired men and my procedure had pulled the bin apart. 100 farmers were digging through the grain trying to find him. They took him to the hospital and tried to save his life. We lost my dad that day at the age of 49. My whole lifes plan was to grow up and be a farmer with him. About a month later we got a bill in the mail from the irs saying that we owed death taxes. We had machinery and cattle and land but we did not have money in the bank to pay those taxes. For ten years we paid a loan to pay those taxes. Anyone who says this only hits wealthy people does not talk to farmers and ranchers and Small Business owners that are in their districts. If we had had a gas station or grocery store, the only option we would have had as a family would be to sell our Family Business in order to pay those taxes. Thats just unfair. The main reason i support repealing the death tax is pause its a double tax. In fact, you pay taxes on the income when youre making your living and then for the federal government to come in and tax you again at the point of tragedy in your family is the worst thing that we could possibly do. And it doesnt even line up with any of the principles that we hold so dear in this country. This fax is fundamentally flawed and any business, no matter their size that has already paid taxes should not be taxed again at the point of death. Setting aside that, think about how much Family Businesses have to spend on Estate Planning. Millions of dollars are spent each and every year and hours of time dedicated to figure out even if they qualify or are saved and prevented from being hit by the death tax. Regulatory requirements take up nearly 308 million hours costing 18. 4 billion which is the equivalent to about 80 of the total revenue the federal government ultimately realizes. The estate tax imposes nearly 4 of the total Tax Compliance burden while contributing less than onetenth of 1 in revenues. It is tremendously inefficient. Our family farms and businesses should not live under the constant threat of this double tax coming down at the worst thing in their lives. It is a horrible thing to do to american families. With that, i yield back. You know, were waiting for the managers amendment and we just wait and wait and were going to run out of time and i suppose the answer is going to be were not going to have enough time to be given to us to really look into it. And so i really think were making a terrible mistake, mr. Chairman. The first time you did this, it struck some real corhords and emotions among us and it turned out that we were right, that there were several provisions in there which had ramifications way beyond what could be determined immediately. And i just want to express again the feeling not only of myself, but i think not only democrats but people in this country. You can call that regular order, but in terms of process, its total disorder. So lets just spend a minute talking about this proposal that is part of your desperate effort to find money and now youre short and so youre scrambling to find it. I just say with due respect to the gentle lady, you know, i representative 700,000 people like each of you more or less. This bill affects roughly two out of every thousand people while it takes away so much money, 171. 5 billion while you have a tax cut that more and more the evidence is will not benefit huge numbers of middle class families. I havent in the years ive been here that the estate tax has been brought up, we have never found a Single Person in our district who would be affected by this who supports it. Indeed, the relatively few people who would be affected are people of immense wealth have said to me, this is a mistake to eliminate it, that the very wealthy including themselves who have talked to me have done very, very well while the middle class and those aspiring to it have not. This is another evidence of where your priorities lie and theyre in a very wrong place. And i think when we see the managers amendment theres going to be further evidence of it. Mr. Chairman, where is it . Gentleman yields back. In my home state there are examples of harmful impacts on the estate tax too. In seattle permanent relief from the estate tax is critical for the family owned business of the seattle times. This is a fourth and fifth generation company. Theres personal stories like ms. Gnome really bring home the importance of us accomplishing this finishing this piece of legislation. Id like to yield additional time to ms. Gnome so she can continue her testimony. Gentleman yields. I thank my friend for yielding. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talked about how only two out of a thousand people would be affected by the death tax. I think every family that has to spend any money doing Estate Planning is putting money into something that they could otherwise be investing in their business or in their family. Therefore, theyre spending money on something thats not helping them be successful, not paying the bills that are important to their family. It depends on how you measure whos affected by this death tax. My dad had done Estate Planning. The lawyers called him that week and said his new will was ready. He just hadnt gotten there to sign it yet. All the more reason to repeal this estate tax. If the wealthy are avoiding it anyways, that means youre fundamentally hurting the small folk who is cant afford legal teams to defend them and protect them from this. You talk about the size of estates. According to the farm bureau they estimate that at 2016 Farm Real Estate values larger than 1400 acres and all other farms larger than 2200 acres would exceed the 5 million exemption level. I know of many farms just in my county that hit that level already and they live constantly preparing to make sure that that land thats been in their family for generations can get passed onto the next generation. Already when its hard enough for Young Farmers to get into the business with the cost of it. Its more than 5,000 south dakota farms that could be hit with the death tax. As land values go up, thats not all the cost were dealing with. Theres a combine that could cost 600,000, a 200,000 corn planter, cattle, machinery, equipment, all of that is figured into your estate when youre paying this death tax. Every single year these farmers and ranchers have to reevaluate their assets and do more Estate Planning to make sure theyre preparing for the future and not putting their family in jeopardy. Dont believe this unfair tax doesnt hit the hard working people who are right now in the middle of harvest in south dakota in the snow and the cold. They take their money and they bury it in the dirt and they shouldnt have to worry about this tax. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Crowley youre recognized to speak on the amendment. I just have a question, mr. Bartholt. Thank you, first of all for your service. As the chief of staff of the nonpartisan joint tax committee, you and your staff do great work. We have come to rely upon you and your staff to give us good faith answers, both democrats and republicans appreciate your work as we draft any tax measure including this one. You are the only voice we can really agree upon as being honest. You said yesterday in response to a question that i had that 2 out of every thousand americans benefits by the elimination of the estate tax of. 002 . I need a little more clarification on that section of this bill. Some social media accounts include claims or comments that it is false that this tax bill hr1 repeals the medical expense deduction. Can you clarify once and for all if this bill before us today in its current form repeals the medical expense deduction. Hr1 repeals the itemized deduction for medical expenses. So america understands that it in its present form does repeal the medical expense deduction. So again were seeing one more tax on our seniors and it is done so to benefit the wealthiest people in our nation, not just the 1 but the wealthiest. 002 of the wealth in this nation. The medical expense deduction is a financial lifeline for people to help them afford longterm care to provide for a loved one suffering from a debilitating disease like alzheimers. Its being all done to cater to the wealthiest richest 1 as i said before, the wealthiest. 002 . We should not rob Senior Citizens of their independence in the name of special interest give aways like the estate tax. Thank you, mr. Bartholt for your response and i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Smith, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just a few notes. Ive heard the people on the other side of the aisle numerous times say this affects only 80 people. I can tell you in my district if you want to find more than 80 people alone, come to Southeast Missouri. Farmers are land rich but cash poor. Theyre not the ones that hire the teams of attorneys and accountants to get by with the system, who dont pay for the system. Its the farmers who have unexpected incidents much like the lady from south dakota. That happens day in and day out in Southeast Missouri. An average cotton farm in Southeast Missouri is 1300 acres. The average price for a cotton farm is 10,000 an acre. Thats over 13 million. Anyone in that bracket is a 1 percenter in what you said but yet they dont have 5 to their name in the bank account because theyve passed on this land from generation to generation. Youre saying we want to eliminate family farms. I can tell you the reason why im in congress is to make sure we have family farms and the people in Southeast Missouri can continue with their livelihood. I will not allow you to call my people one percenters and try to take back their family farms. I would love to yield the pla balance of my time to the lady from south dakota. I just wanted to give some information. The recent information that we have most recent on family farms is from 2013. In that year 20 farms paid death taxes. There will be many more farms facing this in the years to come because onethird of all farmers in the u. S. Are 65 years of age or older. A third are between the ages of 5565. We have a big bubble of family farmers that are looking for ways to retire and pass on their operations that are dealing with trying to figure out how not to get their farm taken away by this unfair tax. 90 of farm and ranch assets arent liquid leaving few ways to pay off the death tax. The death tax is required to be paid with cash within nine months of death in most cases. The speed of this makes it difficult and will require folks to sell off things below market value. Recent increases in crop land values, on average 7. 6 from 2013 to 2014 i know we bought some land before my dad dieddie. That land is ten times its value than it was in 1994 when he passed away. The first thing we did when we got that bill from the irs, we downsized by thousands of acres because we couldnt afford to farm that many acres anymore. It has a real effect not just on the families but on our economy. With that, i yield back. Mr. Smith of nebraska recognized to speak on the amendment. Id like to certainly associate myself with some of the comments already made and also talk about some new aspects of this issue. Number one, i believe that death should not be a taxable eenvent number one. Its unfair. But i do have a question relating to this. Now, its possible for the owners of any size estate to say plan around plan to avoid the death tax, is that correct . Theres many different Planning Strategies that people undertake. The short answer is yes. But it is conceivable that folks with the resources to do so can plan to avoid paying a tax pretty much all together . You can substantially reduce liabilities in many cases and sometimes probably eliminate it, yes, sir. Can you speak to the frequency of that occurrence . Not without further study and some help from some of my colleagues whom i dont have i respect that. The simple strategies that people take is they may make lifetime gifts to family members, particularly if its a family asset thats going to be continued on. People have established Family Limited partnerships and put assets within the Family Limited partnership and then theyre able to value them using liquid marketability constraints that are allowed by courts. And so that will reduce the value, potentially eliminating or lowering the ultimate liability under the estate tax. Right. Thank you. I appreciate that insight. We do know certainly that the very sophisticated estates and owners of estates, they plan around it. Sensing from this discussion, there seems to be this entitlement to take large portions of estates and give it to the federal government. I just certainly echo ms. Gnomes comments that thats not the way we should be doing things across our country. Certainly its a negative impact on farms and ranches and definitely Small Businesses as well. Many of these operations cant just sell off a portion of their operation and have a viable operation to continue. Lets keep these folks in mind rather than trying to overly simplify this argument that can be disputed as well. I yield back. Ms. Dellbenny youre welcome to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chair. I yield time to ms. Chu. This is not a death tax. This is a silver spoon tax for the wealthiest children of this country. And ms. Gnome, i am so sorry that your father died, but it has been 22 years since your fathers accident and while his death may have triggered the estate tax in 1994, when the exemption was 600,000, today the estate would have to be worth at least 5. 45 million and for a married couples estate it would have to be 10. 9 million before any tax could be assessed. The estate tax applies to only the ru the richest. 2 of americans. Its extremely rare for a family farm to be affected by it at all. In 2014, how many actually farms had to pay an estate tax . 20. Because of the high exemption level, those that were affected paid an effective rate of just 16. 6 on average. Its also important to note that it has not been shown that a Single Family farm has ever been lost as a result of the estate tax. In fact, there has not been a single example that advocates have been able to come up with. Thank you. Jen gentle lady yields back. I yield to ms. Gnome. I appreciate my colleagues sentiments and i appreciate your condolences on losing my dad. I was young at the time and i became the general manager of the operation. For me, the only thing that made me feel better at that point in time was just working. Thats what i did to get through it. It is hard to think about the financial stresses that we had, hard to think about how our family was going to get through the situation. I just went and loaded cows, went to the field, planted the crops and got through it. When you say that not a Single Family farm was lost because of paying the death tax, i never know where you guys come up with that statement. It sounds absolutely ridiculous to me. Its not like some farmer is going to put a notice on the auction notice in the paper and say, im selling my family farm because of the death tax. What family farmers do if theyre hit by the situation is they put a couple of pieces of land up for sale. So they sell those off to help pay the tax. Now theyre much less efficient over the operation because they cant spread their cost over many acres. If you dont know how agriculture works, you borrow money to operate, pay your equipment and buy your land and then you put it sunshines and hope it rains and that that fall you can pick up something to pay your bills. So they become less efficient if they dont get the prices yields they need. Then theyre in a situation they have to sell another piece of land so they can get an operating note again. That challenge is constantly in front of them. It could be five, six, seven or eight years later where that farmer is out of business and else is the operation. Are you in your statistics counting that as a family farm lost to the death tax . No, youre not. I see it around me every single day. Every single day, these are the questions and the comments i get from people standing in elevators that are going to marketing meetings trying to figure out how theyre going to protect themselves from the low prices were having today when its a drought like we had in south dakota this year, do are we going to do to hold our operation together. Its false to say family farms are not lost to the death tax because youre not looking at the longterm effects of actions they have to take to try to save it and its a Ripple Effect that causes problems for them and their family. At the time that this happened to our family, if we had yes, the rates were different. Lets not forget how what a ridiculous tax this is. For heavens sake. Nowhere else do we purposely double tax people. Here its okay. If you have some assets, were going to double tax you because were mad you have a lot of assets. When we have a situation where somebody is a grocery store, if they have a gas station and been in a station we that was valued the same as our operation, only option would be to be sell the Family Business. Thats not what thiss about. Id like to yield time to my colleague from new york, mr. Crowley. I want to point out from time to time, mistakes can be made in terms of the drafting of legislation. We see it sometimes with the naming of a post office. As trite as that is or something liking this bill we have before us today. Hr1. If i could demonstrate. Sometimes its so glaring you dont see it when its right before you. Because what we know is that this is really about giving a tax break to the reltest. The wealthiest. 5 , wealthiest. 2 in our nation. What bill should be called hr1 . Thats what the bill should be called, hr1 because it benefits the wealthiest in our nation. At the expense of working men and women who every day are trying to make ends meet. Thats who this bill benefits. I yield back the balance of my time. Police walorski, youre recognized to speak on the anticipate. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to take a second and associate myself with miss noe msra, and mr. Smiths, as well and tell you what its like in my district in nippeds Second District and hoosiers across the state of indiana. Ive never met a silver spoon tax person in my district or in my state. This is called the death tax because in my district where the largest Manufacturing District in the nation were made up of entrepreneurs who have struggled and taken massive risks Just Like Family farmers. They take the risk on themselves, many fail many times on both sides, manufacturing and farming. Ive got seven Generation Farmers in my district not just one or two but. The appreciation of that land is just that. Its the dirt and its the land that is ow nnsa and they reap and they go back and do it again. I got a call two days ago from an entrepreneur in my district who said to me ive worked my entire life and ive paidtachs. Ive never mixed a tax bill. Im a law abiding citizen and i believe it is reprehensible for when i die, i cannot send to my kids or anybody else the assets to keep this business in my family because the government wants 40 . It should not be celebrated. These people dont owe the government one more cent. Family farms seven generations, they dont owe the government more than none more than what theyve already paid. So i oppose this anticipate. I have opposed this amendment ever since ive been. Elected position to stand up for the farmers and manufacturers in my district. These are the people that make america great. These are the people that will provide jobs. Some of the largest job creators. I think it is a time when we thank these people, we fight to roll back a tax. Thats what hr1 is about, about putting more mope in the pockets of hoosiers. To turn around and create more jobs, more highpaying jobs and the day of robbing people in their lowest moment of death in a family comes to an end today when we pass this bill. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Paulsen youre recognized. I cannot be as eloquent in talking about this issue as my colleague from south dakota who went through a personal tragedy and through just hard work, shear hard work was able to overcome of potentially losing an entire farm because of a tragic event. And i dont have a lot of farmers in my zrakt although i do talk to folks concerned about the estate tax impacting losing a farm being landed onto the next generation. I was surprised, my colleagues i should let you know when i had a conversation with a Small Business owner in bloomington, minnesota. It was someone who had built up an hvac company on their own, blood sweat and tears, dotting eyes, crossing the ts, worried about making the paycheck available for their employee as they worked up the ladder by Good Customer Service and have a Good Business operation. And theyve been very successful. Employee i think nearly 200 people today. And when i visited them they shared the story about how they were in the process of hiring all these accountants and lawyers to not only plan on a Succession Plan to go onto the next generation of how this business would stay in operation but was more i think impactful on me was the fact that they said if they were hit by a death tax, say tomorrow or next week without this planning in place, 200 other people would be out of work. Not just the family secession would happen but 200 other hard working americans would be out of a job right there on the spot. So i think what this is about is already reforming a system to making sure were getting this right so it not only gets handed onto the next generation but also kips these businesses healthy and strong and employing people throughout our communities across the country. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Plaintiff pascrell, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, weve listened to arguments similar to this over the last ten years. Since ive can remember. You would think from listening to the arguments in favor of doing away with what was called a few years ago the death tax, very, very popular name, the death tax, you would think that everybodys going to be ready for a windfall when pokes in their family pass to the lord. This bill not only eliminates the estate tax, mr. Chairman, but it does nothing to the step up basis. You all know what that is, right fa sense youre so familiar with the estate tax. Meaning parents can pass down assets untaxed for generations upon generations. That is the beginning of an aristocracy. That is the beginning of what has happened in other countries. There is no windfall here for the average guy and gal out there. And you are going to have money in in that never has been attached. How is that fair . You tell me how that is fair . I be glad to listen. Ill yield. Anybody want to answer the question, you do it on my time. I got minutes left. How is that fair to pass down your assets youve accumulated. That have never been taxed yes. So if youre building these assets and these estates, thats after usually income taxes have been paid in full by those people. The residual assets in estates that are created are after youve earned that money and worked your tail off day in and day out to create that estate. How it not fundamentally unfair in america to take away as my colleague from south dakota had happen with her family farm you, how is that fair that the government takes that away. Taking back my time. Answer the question. The gentleman from new jersey controls the time. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, the point is, that there is there are many assets. 50 years ago, we taxed assets more than income. Now we tax income more than assets. And theres a reason for this. Were all part of it, democrats and republicans that laid out this tax, those books over there that you have in front of you. Your party is not totally responsible for that and neither are the democrats. But you provided a percenception out there that theres a windfall. Theres to windfall here. And thats the beginning of an aristocracy when you dont tax either income or assets. And im saying to you, thats whats being created here. And ive heard nothing to the contrary. Nothing to the contrary. And i hope folks are listening to this. The death tax is a misnomer. And they dont use it as much as they did before. There is a reason for that. Because it cant stand up to scrutiny. Look at the stepup basis for estates and youll know exactly what im talking about. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Kelly wishes to speak on the amendment. Thank you. Interesting conversation. Miss noem ive heard what happened to you and i appreciate that. I think where i get confused on this is at the end of a persons life, his or her product, the entire product of their life they paid their incometach, they paid salestach, they paid taxes, taxes, in the case of my family my dad was a parts picker, my mother ran the switch board at a chevrolet factory. It took them all their lives to bid something. At the end my mother died at 67 from cancer, my made it to 89 years old. He never feared death. He feared death taxes. He knew he was going to die. He knew if he wasnt able to do something ahead of time, his entire life and my mothers entire life would be in jeopardy because of this tax that looms over peoples head because of an event called death. You dont want to call it a death tax, call it end of lifetach. But what is so hard for me to comprehend, this is such an immoral issue in america, we will, the event of somebodys death after they have paid taxes their entire life and built not only their family and their business if they have it, doesnt have to be a farm, in our case it was an automobile dealership, these people worked seven days a week to build this. Then to say these printed few people are taking advantage of a tax issue that they never should be privy to, that is insane. Thats not who we are and should ever want to be, but to sit here and listen to this time after time and all of a sudden to say well, were talking about people like the trump kids. Those are the people we have to be afraid of. All those terrible rich people. Dont you get tired of the identity politics . Dont you get tired of this war on the wealthy . Dont you get tired of constantly going after people and saying you know what their trouble is, theyre too damn rich. Theyre worked all their life but theyre too damn rich. I dont care how hard they done or what theyve done to get through it or the years they couldnt pay one penny in tax because they didnt make any money. I dont care what they did for their children or towns, damn it, when this he die, well reach into the coffin and get the money out of their lifes work and sit back and say were only doing this because the really waety people, these terrible, terrible wealthy people have a tax break they couldnt they shouldnt have. What triggers that tax break . Theyve got to die. Are you kidding me . Where is the fairness . This is so immoral to sit here and talk this and reason we have to go after this revenue is because unlike these people who work their whole life to build a successful business, we buried ourselves in so much irresponsible debt that we have to keep going after people to pay it off for us, taxpayers, hard working american taxpayers. It is incredible. Will the gentleman yield. No, i wont yield to you. Youll probably try to take the time anyways. But theres just an issue here that we should be we have you had and who are and look at this. This doesnt matter if youre an r or a d. Lets talk about we, about the American People. Theres a lot of democrats that are pretty wealthy. Theyve done really good things in their life. They do things with foundation, build buildings, help out universities, form scholarship funds. When they die, well go after those folks. They shouldnt have that ability to pass an that on. And something even worse, theyre going to pass it on to their kids. What good person would ever want to give anything to his daughter or his son . Their whole life. I got to tell you, i mean this, my mother and my dad worked seven days a week to bid our business. My dad started with nothing. We went broke so many times just to scrape by and through grace of god we got through it. At this guys age at 9 years old, two months shy of his 90th birthday i sat with him in the middle of the night. And you know what he told me . I said whats up dad in he said ive got to get out of here. Its the middle of the night in february. Snowing outside. I said you want to go for a ride. He said what do you mean . Where do you want to go. He said heaven. But you know what, i think im alive for a reason. I prepared for you kids but there must be Something Else for me to do. Thats why hes keeping me alive. I wish he would tell me. Those are the people you want to tax after weve buried them. Ridiculous and immoral. Gentlemans time has expired. Plef neal, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. The challenge of this debate is really fairly simple. And that is in a time of greater concentrated wealth in the america, in a time where weve watched these vast fortunes only grow, this is really about an argument in which we do not create a permanent sense of aristocracy. But the luck of the draw having been born to the right parents, by the simple argument that we serve in the house of representatives, not in the house of lords, maybe we should be granted peerage here. A permanent role in governance. All based upon what our ancestors might have made for wealth. I cant claim any of the stories ive heard over here, theyre elegant and eloquent. But there are many of us that just wanted a chance. Against a lot of famous names. Or we find the idle rich decide to spend tear personal fortunes on maybe copping to the senate or the house of representatives or maybe governor. And maybe we should hold those seats, cancel the elections and just let the next generation inherit the seat. Because if youre not careful, we a to the vast numbers of the American People, oh, thats not for you. So i understand the success that Small Business people have. But you know, keeping 11 million is not a bad starting place in life. And i can assure you of this despite the debate were having today, the United States senate will look at this and say we cant afford it. 2 of the American People while we cancel opportunities for Student Interest loan deductions . While we take away medical tax breaks for people who are disabled . While we take away middle class tax benefits like the state and local Tax Deduction all so that we might further concentrate wealth. You know what the great thing about the estate tax is in america . It came from teddy roosevelt. Because roosevelt thought despite the famous name and inherited wealth that if you werent careful with it, you would discourage entrepreneurship. You would discourage success. This is not a tax on conrad hilton. This is a tax on another member of that family. And thats the way we should be looking at this debate. So we are passing on 11 million to a family and saying that thats not enough to start . I think we go to 40 . I think thats the way this argument should be presented. Nobodys trying to renege on success but lets not renege on opportunity here. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Meehan, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, ive heard this word aristocracy used a number of different times. As if somebody whos invested themselves in a business and created is somehow some kind of elite. I wish some of the members on the other side of the aisle would come in. They dont need to. They can go in their own districts because i know mr. Neal and other people represent people with the same story. Some people should come to the penn Machine Works in aston, pennsylvania. I can tell you the hard working people in pennsylvania do not feel part of an aristocracy. The great thing about the penn Machine Works and the family, they run a metal forging business. Since 1931. And what theyve handed down from one generation to the next is the opportunity to scrap to try to preserve Good American jobs in manufacturing. Trust me when i tell you as i talk to the elderly lavorty with a cigar in his hand and asked him about passing the business down, hes giving it to his son who is going to have to wake up the next morning and figure out how to fight to make sure those workers in the 140 plus workers that work at good paying factory jobs but in addition to working good paying factory jobs, guess who works there . First generation workers from 17 countries. I watched him walk around and put his arm around young people hop he was sending to school at Drexel University to learn the latest technology so they could take an americanbased company. Theyre investing that money. When i asked them what they would do with the credit that they would be able to be have to invest in their own business, he wasnt talking about the 5 hup,000. He said i need a machine thats going to be about 1. 6 million. Thats what theyre doing with all of this wealth. Theyre investing in those 140 workers. And hes going to create a new machine thats going to keep an American Manufacturing job here in the United States in metal forging. Thats what the benefit of this is. And i asked him, what happens if you cant pass this down . He goes, well we just close it up. And we sell it. So the next generation doesnt get the benefit of what theyve continued since 1931. Look, theres arguments about the top and the big basketball players and movie stars that seem to put a lot of money into the campaigns of my friends. Oh. But here, here. Mr. Chairman. Remember the lavorert family when you start demagoguing this stuff about aristocracy. They do not see themselves as being aristocrats but preserving Good American jobs and competing to keep manufacturing here on our shores. I yield back. The gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Rice, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Chairman as you know in my prior life i was a tax lawyer and accountant. I hear all these folks talking about all the money spent on tax lawyers and accountants. I resemble that remark. Okay, a little levity. All right . Now, i have to say that i practice in a small town in South Carolina, myrtle beach. You know, the tried and true method of Business Success in myrtle beach for a long time was you go and you either buy or an old mom and pop mow hotel 40unit hotel on the oceanfront and you mortgage it up so much on the front end, you cant get a mortgage from the bank or you have to take a second from the seller. And you dont have any money. So you move into one of the units. And you live there all year long. And you rent out the hotel and you barely scrape by and barely pay your mortgage. And you have to move out of that one unit you live in in the summertime because you need extra revenue. You sleep on a cot in the office. And you scrape by and gradually you pay your mortgage off and you do that for ten years and maybe then you can afford to buy you a little house. And you scrape by for another ten years and hey your mortgage is paid off. Its time to retire. Now, thats the folks that came to me. And the farmers in South Carolina. They didnt have any money. But they were asset, at least on paper they were asset rich. And ill tell you, i represented hundreds if not more than a thousand folks in that exact circumstance that spent an inordinate amount of time and legal fees planning around avoiding losing half of their assets at their death in the event of their own untimely death. Ill say this law in addition to the tax effect creates so much inefficiency it makes people do things they would never consider doing. It doesnt make any business sense except to avoid this tax. And i also have to respond to something that mr. Kind said just a minute ago. He said, he said dont begrudge success but dont begrudge opportunity either. So i guess what we take from that statement is that. Mr. Rice, i think you got the wrong member on that be. Excuse me, whoever said it. It was mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Pomeroy. That assumes that just because one person is successful, that the other person cant be successful. What in the heck can kind of an analysis is that . That is ridiculous. America, the difference between europe. Gentleman yield. In europe, the guy, you would look at the guy on the hill and say we need to take him down. In america you look at the guy on the hill and say im going to buy that house on the hill one day. Whats held people back from opportunity in all this country is all the regulation, outdated tax code and all were trying to do here is restore that opportunity for success. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Bishop, youre recognized. Thank you, mr. Chair. I dont really know what happened in this country where we started to talk about the accumulation of wealth as something thats bad. And how in my america that i grew up in we would celebrate success, celebrate wealth. And that was part of the american dream. And i im here today because my family worked hard, as well. And was good to me, as well. And i intend to do that for my family. But i just want to reflect a little bit on the city of detroit just by example. And the number of families who have stood by that city and the families that these aristocratic families so to speak that have almost singlehandedly turned that city around, the illitch family. The dan gilberts of the world, the rauch family, the penske family. These are folks that stood by the city and gave back. Theyre generational and their kids will do the same. Thats the way theyre trained. So that kind of accumulated wealth will be good for our country and has been good for our country. I travel all around my district. I talk to folks and hear their concerns. One of our Biggest Industries in michigan is the agribusiness and in fact, its our second largest industry in the state of michigan. And our farmers tell me that this particular issue is of foremost concern to them because of the thousands of acres farmland that were using every year because farmers flat give up on the cost of doing business and just they end up repurposing their farmland residential or some other use because they cant afford to do it anymore. So we ought to be doing everything we can i think to embrace our agriculture, our farmers, and do whatever we can for these generational farms who are facing all kinds of pressures right now. So i for one will do whatever i can to support them. This is not a tax that were talking about. This is a penalty. This is a penalty at the time of death. Its not a tax because these people develop already paid their taxes. They paid their taxes on their income. They paid their taxes on assets. They paid taxes on their machinery on their dog and cat and anything else the irs can get hold of. The only thing theyve done wrong is theyve died and we shouldnt penalize them for that purpose and certainly not the surviving family for that reason. I for one oppose this amendment. Im grateful to the chairman for bringing forth this discussion and i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Larsen, youre recognized. I want to applaud my colleagues on the other side for their eloquence. And their sincerity. You know, if we had a regular order hearing, if there was an opportunity to bring expert witnesses and if there was a back and forth, my colleague who i came to congress with would have had a chance to introduce his bill that exepts those agricultural ebtities so that they dont find themselves in this institution. But we werent allowed that. And so your eloquence and your talk about how its a tax on success and a tax, a double tax, you then say the way that will pay for that, however, is to double tax the citizens in the state of connecticut in the middle class. Your way of paying for it is to say that that machinist, that carpenter, that are nurse, that are teacher, theyre not successful. Thats where plaintiff neal and mr. Pascrell are warning about the dangers of aristocracy. It cops from the fact that youre using the pay for is on the backs of the northeast and the west coast. That is the rub with youre elimination of the state and low tax and having people who deduct those taxes then pay for your programs. And what adds insult to injury when youre a donor state like the state of connecticut, when youre paying more to the federal government, when youre paying more to states that get the assistance from the federal government and rightfully so and were proud to do that because we want people in South Carolina and in the dakotas and all across this country to succeed. We want a strong military. We want commerce and energy to flow and so were happy to do our share and what is confounding to people in the northeast is, why do you then want to double tax us, double tax us and then also tax people that are successful . They may not be landed aristocracy but theyre teachers an carpenters and plumbers and machinists and accounts and lawyers and doctors. And because they own homes of their own and have families, you want to doubletach them and double tax their success. Thats what our concern is. What a shame we never had experts so that we could have had a debate and this was not in rel order. You have a political mission. We understand youre on it. Gentleman yields back. Plaintiff renacci youre recognized. Im starting to learn when the other side says things multiple times they hope its a fact. We keep going back through this. Hopefully well come up with a fact. We talk about double taxation. There is no such thing. Your states and local taxes are going for services being used by your state and local tax divisions. So im not sure why we keep talking about double taxation. We talk about medical expenses and state and local taxes. Again, when you have a medical expense, you first have to get above 10 of your agi before you can use any qualified or claimed deduction. Is that correct. Under present law, thats correct sir. Then even if you get past 10 that, goes into a calculation which you add with your state and local income tax and your interests and then you have to get as a married filing jointly above 12,600 before those Actual Claimed and qualified expenses that my friends on the other side keep talking about, you even get a chance to use them, is that correct . Because the standard deduction, you have to get above the standard deduction. Thats also correct. So 75 of americans today dont get above that 12,600. Is that correct . Approximately. 70 standard deduction. When we do what hr1 does, 95 will not get above the standard deduction. Even though theyll have claimed and qualified maekd expenses state and local and all these deductions, 95 of the people will not be able to itemize, is that correct. Under the reduced calculation of itemized deductions 94 claim. The other side continues to talk about deductions. Theyre not deductions if theyre not able to go above the standard deduction. I want to talk about another issue that my colleagues on the other side seem to want to talk about the how the middle class and working class will not get a tax cut. They falsely claim and it must be a talking point that you guys must have hired somebody to come up with this talking point because the Senate Democrats are using it and the Washington Post called it out. Senate democrats falsely claimed gop tax claim will raise taxes for most working class families. I keep hearing you say this. This is the article from the Washington Post. Im going to read the last paragraph. In their haste to condemn the gop tax plan, democrats have spread far and wide the false claim that families making less than 86,000 on average will face a hefty tax hike. Its the opposite. Most families in that range would get a tax cut. Any democrat who spreads this claim should delete their tweets and make clear they were in error. I hope the American People are hearing this versus the continuation of you continue to say you hope its a fact. Its not a fact. I yield back. Mr. Curbelo, youre recognized to speak on amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The estate tax is not a major concern in my personal case i assure you. My parents work very hard but i wont be that fortunate and so far, it doesnt very good for my daughters either but i do think that this is an issue of fundamental fairness. I will Say Something that struck me as i was listening to the debate earlier. I sense, i perceive in some of the discourse a certain resentment for people who have achieved Financial Success. And again, im not as fortunate as a lot of my colleagues in congress who have done very well. But i actually admire them. And perhaps this is because where i come from in miami, we have a lot of survivors of governments and regimes throughout the world that will sowed in their society resentment between people of different socioeconomic status and different social classes. And there are a lot of people in miami who were promised in countries like cuba, venezuela, colombia, bolivia, nicaragua, they were promised that the government was going to go after those ho had achieved Financial Success and help everyone else. Well, thank god for the United States of america. Because if not, all of these people would have been stuck in living hells. My family included. This is a country where we celebrate Financial Success where we want people to aspire to thrive to flourish, to achieve success. Whatever that means for each individual. And i would just caution my colleagues, i think our country is divided enough. We dont need to add to that in this debate. And i think on this issue, we can take a step back and look at one of our colleagues who lost her father and got a bill from the irs and just say that doesnt sound right. That doesnt seem right. These americans have paid their taxes. And by the way, im grateful to them because they fund most of our government. So i just hope that we could come together and not use an issue like this to sow resentment for divide our country further. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Buchanan, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you. I wanted to weigh in. I want to go back to i think johns point. John larsons point that he made. I want to understand that in the world that i grew up in, and im going to talk about my friend thats got a business in our area. He bought it maybe 20 years ago in sarasota in that region. And basically, he paid had a minimum amount of money down. He had to go borrow the money from the bank. Id say over 40 years, he grew up in a blue collar family as i did 40 years ago. Its not donald trump money. But hes created probably the valuation of the business would be my guess is about 50 million to 60 million but to do that, to buy that business, he had to go to the bank, sign personally, put his house online, and he has slowly been pay that debt off over many years. Today hes got a business im going to guess is worth 60 million. The bottom line, if something happens to him, he has to pay 40 out, 24 million in terms are of a death tax. Ideally ed have to pay out. Hes got four daughters. Ive got a son. And the bottom line, youd have to sell the business because the business doesnt have an kind of cash flow to do it. Hes a major job creator in our area. I get sick of this thing about the 1 percenters because i know a lot of those 1 percenters. Many of them worked 40 years, started with nothing. America should be about opportunity. And you shouldnt have to apologize for america to be successful. I grew up in that same world he did. Both blue collar kids out of detroit. We both starred at nothing 40 years ago. We built big businesses, substantial businesses. Im getting ready, my son for the last ten years is now in the business. And id like to have him have our business. But we would have to go to the bank and mortgage that business substantially to pay the death tax. There are a lot of middle market companies, im all for the Small Companies but when you talk about 10 million or 12 million, that is a lot of money by any stretch. But youve got to understand theres a lot of businesses that are maybe 50 to 100 that have to sell their business to get it to the next generation. Theres probably a lot of farmers and ranchers in nebraska and other places theyve got assets but dont have cash. Thats the reality. There are a lot of them. My point is, you shouldnt have to apologize in america for being successful, paying it your taxes, playing by the rules, creating in my case over 1,000 jobs and you feel like you have to apologize because youve been successful. Thats not the america any. Us grew up in, but there are a lot of people in this category that i think that need to be celebrated not demonized. With that i yield back. Would the gentleman yield eight seconds. Not demonizing anybody. Im asking why youre asking my middle class successful people to pay for it, why youre doubletaching them. Mr. Renacci keeps on bringing up after you eliminate something, you say theyre not going to be able to use it. All time expired. I have a unanimous consent request to submit for the record. Yes. Since were talking about Washington Post editorials an analysis talks about the estate tax and says that there are just there are 11,310 deceased individuals filing a state tax return and actually, only. 2 of all decedents will owe any estate tax and that there is rhetoric saying that these are mostly family farms or Small Businesses. Thats very far from the truth. Does anyone else wish to speak on amendment . Unanimous consent. Plaintiff pascrell unanimous consent for . To set into the record the tax code, the file information from the latest information we have on 2016 which lays out how many people, how many people are subject to the federal estate tax, if you wish to call it that, 5,21 families in the United States of america. 5,219. Ill tell you. Without objection. This is every state in the you know. Does anyone else wish to speak. Id like to add to the record an article from november 6th who wins biggest in the gop tax plan. I want to enter that into the record if i may. Without objection, absolutely. Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to speak on the amendment . Mr. Reed. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Id like to offer one thing. I am familiar with some of the numbers mr. Pascrell is submitting. Ive been asked often in the poor district that i represent with an average searle of before 35,000 to 40,000 and what a lot of farming communities, a lot of family farms. And one of the things that greatly concerns me about those farms is we recently had a represent sans in american energy. The shale formation across, shale formations across america have resulted in tremendous amounts of value being attributable to those mineral and oil and natural gas rights in the estates. Now in our great state of new york, whatever wisdom, our governor took that property right away from my farmers, the folks that were relying on that land value, those resources in order to maybe generate a little revenue, take a little bit of the edge off of their day to day operations by banning access to that natural gas. But my concern and ive never heard a clear answer from folks in this world is those mineral rights, those natural gas rights, how is the irs going to value those and put a value on those reserves that are declared to be some of the Worlds Largest reserves of mineral and gas and oil rights under my family farms . And i will assure you that those family farms sit on top of huge amounts of natural gas and oil ares. And if they are valued at some of the projected values that some of the folks that tell me those mineral and oil and natural gas rights represent, there are many, many more farms in america that could exceed the treasure hold of the present level and that could be looking at a situation they never planned for, they had no idea that that value would be attributable to their estates when they pass away and in the state of new york where fundamentally if that property right has been taken away by our governor because of governor fiathow thats fair. I dont know how that is legitimate. And so that is another reason on top of all the reasons that my colleagues have argued and submitted as why this is such an unfair tax. For me to be in support of the efforts were taking on in regards to the death tax and i would ask my colleagues to vote down this amendment and move forward. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Does anyone else wish to speak on amendment . Dr. Davis, youre recognized. I would yield time to mr. Pascrell. Thank you, mr. Davis. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, i want to enter into the record what itemizers in my state since theyve been referred to by some of the speakers, itemizers in new jersey average 31,18 in total deductions which include salt, mortgage interest, medical and casualty. These are the latest figures from 2015. Who are getting the figures from 2016 which will be even higher. Thats the average in deductions. So when you talk about going from 70 to 95 , youve got to take all of these things into consideration. Please do that. Were talking about 5,200 family in the United States while i, my constituents are double attached because of what youre going to do in this piece of legislation. Thats fairness . Then well have to change the definition of the word. I yield back. Does anyone wish to speak on the amendment . I recognize myself to speak on it. Before representative noe ms passionate leadership repealing death taxi led this effort for a number of years. I want to address this is idle rich and special interests. Idle rich pat. Family farm in livingston, texas. Three times her loved ones have died, grandfather, father, and now husband. Three times highway theyre in mourning, uncle sam shows up and says give me us whats due. Give us your money. Three times theyve shelled out money just to keep their own family farm in their home. Idle rich . How about roy morton . He runs con row welding supplies, five shops, started 40 years ago with his brother and uncle. Today his son and grandson orc work there. Five shops none in the good part of town. Hes done all of the Estate Planning. Hes shelled out thousands to do it. Now, you know, you count the store, the inventstory, the trucks out back. All those welding oxygen thanks. One store hes already over the limit. Hes hes got four his question to me was i didnt work my whole lifetime for the government. I did this for my family. Ive got a young woman, tami fisher worked for us up here. She went back to texas. I think it was her aunts estate. Had been in the family 100 years. They had to sell about twothirds of it just to pay the death tax. These are the idle rich . These are special interests . Think of the people who supported this in the past. Community pharmacists, the wholesale florists. Your roofers, service station auto repair people. They dont have clean hands among them. Thats the idle rich . Look at our smul base entrepreneurs, professional beauty associations . Our beauticians and barbers, gosh, theyre idle. On sundays. Maybe. Irrigation association, theyre digging the ditches in your home. Your local printers, heating and cooling so the plumbers who come to wade through all that stuff for you and me, theyre the idle rich . Seriously. Tell you what, this is the most unamerican tax we have. You work your whole lifetime, uncle sam swoopes in when you die and can take nearly half of everything you earned above a certain amount. Its morally wrong. By the way, you want to create jobs in america, getting rid of this creates 140,000 new american jobs. So for that reason and for what you heard today from all of our members, it is time to end the death tax. And so with that, i yield back the balance of my time. If there are no others, the questions on agreeing to the amendment offered by miss chu. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Pursuant to Committee Rule 19 for the proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. There are additional. Mr. Chairman, could i ask you, point of inquiry. Yes, sir. Mr. Neal had to step out. Could you tell us whether the managers amendment is ready and what the plan is . Just tell us specifically with the amendment that youre proposing, are you ready now to introduce it . Mr. Lev vin, the initial question is would you like to consider offering anticipates to this bill. I noticed last night you had a botch full that you felt were imperative to be after youed. Do you intend to continue to offer through regular order those an ems . I think that will depend in good measure on the answer to the question. So could i ask you very specifically, because our fear is that if there isnt now presentation of the managers amendment, whats going to happen is, that the clock will be essentially run out. And well have very little time. So if you could answer very specifically and very respectfully i ask, are you ready to present the managers amendment right now . When democrats have voluntarily exhausted their regular order opportunity to offer amendments, we will then begin action. So youre saying. Your call. As soon as were ready youll present the managers amendment. When you have decided on your own that you will no longer wish to offer anticipates in regular order, then this committee will act. Okay. Could i ask you to give us five minutes to recess, pleases . No, weve got an anticipate right now, sandy. Is your amendment. I hold that back. So. I didnt know your amendment was up. Are there additional anticipates to the amendment that. I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Buchanan do you are a point of order . He ares a point of order. I would ask the gentleman to suspend while the amendment is distributed. Well try to be quick. I know how anxious you are to get to your managers amendment. Mr. Buchanan, youre recognized. I withdraw my point of order. Without objection. The gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. Thank you. Madam chair, i have never been more hopeful or optimistic about the first adoption of a democratic amendment than this one right now because for the last hour and a half, we have heard member after member try to protect family farmers and domestic manufacturers throughout the country. This amendment helps you to help our family farmers and our domestic manufacturers by strengthening and preserving section 199 and leveling the Playing Field for them in light of the 43 Corporate Tax rate reduction that youre offering in your legislation. We all know most of our family farmers and domestic manufacturers are structured as pass through entities. 199 is crucial for their survival based on legislation thats been pending before this committee over the last few years, the rebuilding American Manufacturing act. Legislation that has enjoyed by partisan support. Former republican chair of this committee dave camp included this in his comprehensive tax reform proposal. The previous administration, the Obama Administration included this in their comprehensive tax reform proposal. And the reason why they did is because it works. It has proven its sacral u. If we, madam chair, want to make things and grow things and create things and invent things here in america, section 199 is perhaps the most important tool to allow our family farmers and domestic manufacturers accomplish that task. And right now, were hearing from farm country how devastating the removal of 199 is under your proposed legislation. In fact, the National Council of farm cooperatives estimates that the removal of 199 in your reform bill would in all likelihood raise family farm taxes by 5 to 17 within the first year because they wont be able most of them benefit from a new passthrough rate. In fact, in my district, most of my family farmer who are passthrough wont see a dime from your rate unless they make over a quarter of a Million Dollars an year. When the average medium farm income in this country is roughly 75,000. Its not just limited to 199. Farm country is concerned about the elimination of like kind exchanges carry back for those operate on the margin including Dairy Farmers or as President Trump likes to refer to them as the milk people, elimination of biogas ive worked with mr. Reed on, including wind. Mr. Blumenauer so eloquently talked about. This is an important provision. Farmers by definition having to stay here and grow things. Our domestic manufacturers who could move their operations and jobs offshore, those who is choose not to should still be able to enjoy the benefits that 199 brings. So after the last hour and a half of everyone standing up in defense of family farms and manufacturing, this amendment will do it. I encourage my colleagues to adopt it and i yield back. The gentle lady from washington is recognized for three minutes. Thank you, madam care. I am pleased to support mr. Kinds amendment. My district, washington states first Congressional District has a thriving agriculture community, mostly family farms. And that plays a key role in our local economy. The northern part of my district are home to hundreds of dairy farms and prol 95 of these farms are port of a cooperative. Currently the domestic activities deduction what we talk about as section 199 helps cooperatives in good years and in bad. This is a benefit that farms enjoy even if they havent had an income in that year. This program can save my farmers a significant amount of money and help them continue to thrive and complete. Thats why im so concerned about eliminating the section 199 program. In our current environment when milk prices are lower than usual, our dairy farms are getting squeezed and hurting. Eliminating section 199 would be steve dating to these farmers many in my district. And we had a lot of talk about farmers in the earlier discussion. I just want to highlight my farmers have said the other benefits of the tax reform measure pale in comparison to the loss of section 199. Section 199. If we want to help our farmers this is critical and they would say its the most critical. I strongly urge the majority to reconsider the elimination of this very Important Program and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on mr. Kinds amendment and i yield mr. Kind my remaining time if he is needs it. I thank my friend for yielding. I would ask unanimous consent to have included in the record a letter dated november 6th, 2017 trt National Council of pharmacoops explaining how devastating the removal of 199 would be and how in all likelihood most of our pass through farmers could see a double digit tax increase. Without objection. Madam chair, i think this is another example of why having hearings and having feedback from people that rerepresent in our district is so crucial when it comes to dealing with something as complicated and yet as important as comprehensive tax reform. These things do enter twine. And the removal of certain provisions and the way youre structuring this bill right now would have a detrimental impact on pass through districts no more true in farm country. Many of whom are struggling at the margins right now. With the ehim nags of 199 they rely on and on beyond that, the removal of like kind exchanges which is crucial in farm country to the net operating loss carry back so when they experience a bad year, they can take those losses and offset taxes theyve already paid is crucial to their cash flow situation. And now were even hearing ru r rumors that land rechbtal income which is vitally important in farm country might become subject to new taxes under the managers mark. I hope that is not true. But instead of having tax reform that would prove to be beneficial and helpful to the farm economy of our country, your bill right now the way its structured is literally a a declaration of war against our family farmers. And thats problematic, i encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Gentleman, the time has expired. Anyone else . That wants recognition . The question is agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. Kind, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. In opinion of the chair, the nos have. In rule number 19, further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. The chairmanship was temporarily upgraded, thank you for that relief. Are there additional amendments in the amendment in the nature . Mr. Pascapascal, youre recognized. Mr. Kelly deserves a moment of order. If gentleman would postpone while the amendment is distributed. Mr. Kelly, point of order. Mr. Pascal, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is a Beautiful Day in washington, d. C. Even though theres chaos here, i came here 21 years ago to fight for the little guy. I learned that in the streets of patterson, where we learned beyond our catechisms and beyond our parents that everybody is equal, period. Its interesting to hear today that treasury secretary mnuchin just said the president will have a tax increase from the republican plan. How the heck does he know . Where are the tax returns of the president of the United States . And thats what this amendment is all about. So, marking up a tax reform bill that was negotiated between the Republican Leadership in congress and the white house. And the president assumed to have said just two days ago that youll like the senate bill better than the house bill. Throwing him under the bus. And because we have not seen the president s tax reforms, we dont have a full understanding of how this will benefit him and his family. My amendment will allow the tax bill to take effect once the ways and Means Committee review the copies of the president s tax returns. The republican tax will lower the rates of individuals and benefit the trump family personally in some predictions by more than 1 billion. As the committee that has jurisdiction over the tax code, it is our responsibility to have a public conversation about tax reform policies and who they benefit. We know based on the twopage release of 2005 that President Trump would personally benefit by 31 million from changes in this bill, specifically eliminating the alternative minimum tax, despite his false claim of i dont benefit, i dont benefit. Quote unquote. He saved another 16 million by the long rate for pass owned businesses which all of his businesses are. Under the plan raid out here, the president s income tax rate would be lower than the average rate by families earning 75,000. President trumps family could benefit by more than 1 million due to the elimination of the estate tax. Its important that we guarantee that wealthy individuals still pay their full share in taxes. His full uptodate tax returns would only show that hes actively paying his taxes, yes or no put newsweek suggests that investigator mueller is enlisting the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Chairman, i oppose this amendment. Mr. Passcrell, a quick question, did you say you would vote if you saw his tax returns . I would not vote yes. [ laughter ] whats your next question . Im glad im glad to hear that the amendment means something to you. Steve, whats your next question . Im just interested because youre fighting for amendment and you wont vote for the tax bill. Ill vote for the amendment. Would you vote for the amendment . The gentleman from ohio has time. First off, the committee has never been in business of targeting anyone, any single individual. By the way, hes not even here, and hes not even part of the discussion. I mean, its amazing that were worried about one individual and theres, i dont know, 30 some, 40 some people on the committee. Youve got other people, everyone in the house, everyone in the senate will you yield . No, i wont yield. You start going down the path of targeting one person then you might as well target everybody. Well im talking. Mr. Pascrell, stop interrupting. Dont get angry at me. No, this has gone on too long. Just wait until he completes his statement then you can ask. So at anytime, we shouldnt target one person, we should do whats best for the American People. We should do whats best for the middle income earners which is what hr 1 does. We should do our best to represent the people in the district that you represent and i represent. But the ability to look at return information provided by section 6103 of the code is a powerful oversight tool. And should only be used to ensure that our code is being properly administered, not to go on fishing expeditions. And Congress Gives the power to rummage around in the tax returns of the president but prevents from doing the same of average americans. Privacy and Civil Liberties are important rights in this country. I would never want that to happen. The American People would never want that to happen. I would urge my colleagues to quit going down this path. Weve talked about it, weve talked about it, and talked about it. We should not be focusing or zeroing in on any individual in this country, including the president of the United States. And i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill. Do the members wish to speak on this amendment . I yield my time. All right. Mr. Chairman. Yes, we have talked about this in the past. Mr. Muellers not talking about it. The attorney general of new york is not talking about it, but they will, eventually. So, we dont want to be behind the curve. And for someone to talk to me and tell me that we shouldnt be rummaging or going on a fishing ex expedition, that is exactly what this committee chose to do just a few years ago, when they went into 52 individual organizations and found absolutely nothing. You wrote the book on it. Looking into peoples personal and under 6103, this committee, along with the joint committee, along with the Senate Finance committee has the authority to do this. I didnt make up that law. That laws been in existence since 1924, after the twopart dome scandal. The point of the matter is, were providing our own scandals here. And we have the right, the people on this committee, to examine those. I didnt say make the public immediately. I never said that. And i started out, mr. Chairman, asking you in a bipartisan way to do this. So, you can point your finger back at me. You certainly have the authority and the power to do that. When mr. Mueller is doing his job, we need to do ours. The ways and Means Committee oversees changes to the tax code. This committee has the authority to retain and review the president s tax returns to see how he personally stands to benefit by the very situation youre voting on today. To ignore this responsibility is a dereliction of duty. We as a congress, we as a committee, are the chief bowlwork that the damage can do by check. Lets start by doing our job to request this tax return. By the way, if mr. Mnuchin knows the answer, how come we dont know the answer . Are we saying that the legislative branch of government has to bend . I dont care who the president is, democrat or republican. How come he knows, unless he doesnt know and shooting off his mouth, thats a probability too. I dont know what the president s tax returns show. I do know what happened in 2005 which is only two sheets. Were talking about hundreds and hundreds of sheets that you must provide in all of the standard deductions. In all of the standard materials that you provide when you give your tax return. Were talking about partnerships. Were talking about loans. Were talking about debt. And i ask you, mr. Chairman, i ask you, and i will ask you in the future again probably. Please, please help us on this amendment. Help america. Gentlemans time has expired. Anyone else wish to speak on this amendment . Since much of this is directions to me as chairman, let me recognize my i want to make it clear, this committees authority requests made public of an individuals tax return is a powerful oversight tool. It should be used only to ensure our tax code is being properly administered not go on fishing expeditions. Our committee has never been in the business of targeting the tax returns of single individuals. And we arent about to start now. If you look at history, i think some of the worst moments in our history has been when the government uses its power to target americans based on their political beliefs. We saw it during the civil rights era. We saw it during the protests of vietnam. We saw it in recent years where the irs targeted average americans based on their political beliefs. We are not going to give any government, republic or democrat, power to target americans. And if Congress Begins this power to rummage around the tax returns of the president , what perc prevents congress from doing the same of average americans. Privacy and Civil Liberties are still important rights in this committee. And the ways and Means Committee is not going to start weakening. Obtaining a tax return will set a new and dangerous precedent, we will not do that at the end of the day, millions of people will be impacted. They dont care about the president s tax returns, they care about their own. This bill is about letting them keep more of what they earn. Help them boost their paychecks by getting this economy revved up again. And by the way, lets bring our jobs back from overseas. So people actually get a shot at jobs that have been lost. With that, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. Pascrell all in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. Opinion. Chair, the nos have it. Proceeding to rule 619, further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. Are there additional amendments in the nature of the subsidy. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is adapted. If you would suspend for a moment, i just want to make sure there are no more democrat amendments . Every democrat here has an opportunity to offer an amendment. I did want as promised to give an opportunity to question him before we conclude. He was very patient in asking for and receiving the letter. I did want to review it and understand the issue thoroughly. And so, i delivered it to mr. Blumblummenaer and i provid any copies of documents, and i asked that the doubt be mraf out in which he spoke. The transcript for wednesday is currently being processed is not yet available. A few caveats are in order. As members know the meeting transcript at this stage are unofficial. We havent examined it for accuracy including the members ourselves as is practice. Our discussions are sometimes hard to follow and transcripts and since members have not had an attempt to correct potential errors in the transcript and do not allow quoting of the official one. And these transcripts are not to be push leblished on a website otherwise in print. I know you wanted to question mr. Bartol in this regard. Youre recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to just sort of clarify, everybodys got this letter. But there was a propos your letter, mr. Chairman, you have confirmed that there was language in error about whether there would be would there be allowed a deduction or not, those taxes paid or aboccrued carrying on business or activity in section 212 can no longer be allowed as an itemized deduction. There was some confusion i think between what mr. Bartol said and what the committee had issued as guidance that showed up in the new york times. Id like to have just mr. Bartol clarify what the status is now, for passthrough entities for the deductibility on their cash returns, as opposed to how it was treated with individuals. Mr. Blummenneuer, in hr 1, statutory language provides property taxes attributable to Business Property are deductible as a business expense, regardless of the form of past entity or corporation. Similarly, sales taxes to Business Property, disoperations are a deductible business expense. And a passthrough entity or ccorporation. In the case of income taxes, state and local income taxes paid by an individual and allowed to be deducted under schedule a, under president len are not permitted to be deducted under hr1. In the case of a ccorporation and local income taxing and state taxes remain deductible. You asked me yesterday, if the documents provided to the committee, our estimate goes to the description that i just gave you which is clear, i believe, in the statutory language. On page 103 of the amendment in the nature of substitute where the amendment would amend present law section 164b5, lines 24 and 25 of that page. At section a3 shall not apply to state and local tax, section a3 of 164b5. And the code references income taxes. So, i believe the statute is clear to that, we viewed to our language and reflected what i just described. The joint Committee Explanation that we provided to the committee in advance, it must be known it was not clear on this point. For which i apologize. And i probably further muddled it when i did the walkthrough on monday for which i also apologize. In mr. Bradys letter, he says theyve talked this through and confirmed that the language was in error. When you said the language im just quoting from mr. Bradys letter. I assume you mean the leg in the joint committees zriptsi distributive document. With that i could dismisses that a correction also. The Committee Report . Trying to correct every mistake theres a lot going on. A lot going on. And i appreciate i mean to say, i appreciate the strain that you and your staff have to be under camped here and there. And theres something going on on the other side of the capitol. Ive heard rumors. Id like to delve a little further, mr. Chairman, with your permission because one of the persons i have is that about creation of the revenue estimate and whether or not there was opportunity here for loophole to be exploited. How, i supplied you and mr. Barthold, a change of communication with some of my favorite Tax Professors in law schools that indicate that this that theres a possibility that this tax could be characterized imposed at the entity level and providing a tax credit back, in effect allowing local and state action to take place that would allow people to in effect deduct this for their income tax purposes. You have reviewed that . We discussed it internally. And i think the committee typically grants the staff further technical drafting authority. When told to report a bill. And if we think that it really is that possibility, well make some suggestions, because we need the clear intent i think as the chairman just noted. As he said, its our pretty clear reading of the statute that our intention that state and local income tax is not or if i could just expand for a second, i think the position that i think some of the people on the outside would take is if we get if a state or locality could craft an income tax and impose it at the entity level. In most states, income tax for entities under federal law is passed through. There is a state law change to perhaps enable that to perhaps facilitate a potential run around of the federal statute. Right. And thats something that my colleagues are considering, whether we need to further perfect the language that is suggested further, a really technical clarification of the language thats here on page 103. Mr. Chairman, part of whats going on, we have a massive piece of legislation. And as i mentioned earlier, its kind of like were bidding the airplane while were trying to figure out where to land it. Theres a lot of moving parts. I think we may find some more moving parts. But this is, i think, a very serious issue that needs to be addressed. New york state does, my understanding is, does impose a tax on empty bases. Give a credit back and be able to accomplish part of my concern in terms of it would be deductible. I dont again, this is something in the late hour, i dont want us to spend a lot of time. Ive supplied every member of the committee with the information change thats referred to by four Tax Professors indicating that they think this is a real opportunity. They also have provided some potential language. I think we just need to be clear about what it is. We need to be clear about the potential revenue lost and the equity that is involved. Thank you. Mr. Blummenneuer, i want to respectfully disagree with your characterization of the airplane. In the sense it is regular order for the chairman to offer a substitute in the commitment. Sometimes in the beginning, sometimes in the middle, sometimes at the end. This is not just routine but almost always occurs in major legislation as youre debating. In the managers amendment we intend to offer in a few moments reflects the consideration for members on both sides. Secondly, while i dont know how mr. Barthold in taxation does this, throughout the year, not just days, but for years now, they have provided remarkably remarkable work with great integrity and character in very sophisticated areas. I dont frankly know how they do it, and their staff, both sides of the capitol, doing amazing work for which i want to thank you. While there may be of the thousands of paragraphs and summaries that they do, this is onethird of it. While their verbal language has been on target which its been clear taxes paid on taxes or businesses will continue to be deductible by the business, the extent related to Business Property. Its clear in those discussions, theyre very kind in saying it will be corrected this mistake will be corrected. Thats what you do when youre providing, again, so much so many summaries something you correct. Mr. Chairman yes, sir. I understand what youre doing and you have the right to do this. Ive shared with you some suggestions i would have liked to have seen that would have put less strain on all of us and mr. Barthold. But you do what you have to do. Im not making a value just on that. Thank you. And i do deeply respect the hard work that mr. Barthold, and by proxy, his staff on both sides of the aisle, scrambling around trying to cram this through in a record short period of time. I marvel at how people do this. But this is not a small matter. And what i have identified as a potential loophole here could have grave consequences, if people, and make no mistake, there will be people as soon as this bill passes, if it passes, who will start looking at how they take advantage of the system. Thank you. I strongly disagree with that characterization but well continue that discussion. The question now is, we will consider postponing the amendment mr. Chairman, i want to be clear about that, this is important and i hope we zero in on what the consequences are. I could have just said this could have been resolved in two minutes tuesday or wednesday. And i would hope in the future on these things we can just maybe do sort of the comment you and i have had before, being able to save some of the chain of activity. Thank you. But i appreciate the letter, the clarification, and your intention trying to figure out what it means with joint tax and other people on the committee so people arent surprised. Thank you, sir. Yes, thank you again. We cannot leave this information without republican and democrat thanking tom barthold for extraordinary work for our nation and our capital. Tom, thank you very much. [ applause ] at this time, well consider postponing amendment votes. The question is on the chu amendment. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson, no. Mr. Nunez, mr. Nunez, no. Mr. Teaberry. Mr. Reichert no. Mr. Ratsum no. Mr. Buchanan no. Mr. Smith in nebraska, no. Miss jenkins no. Mr. Paulsen, mr. Paulsen no. Mr. Marchent. Mr. Marchent no. Mr. Black, no. Mr. Reed, mr. Reed, no. Mr. Kelly, mr. Kelly, no. Mr. Rinnazzi, no. Mr. Meehan no. This nome no. Mr. Holding, mr. Holding no. Mr. Smith of missouri. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Rice. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, no. Miss waloresky. No. Mr. Carmelo, no. Mr. Bishop, no. Mr. Neal, mr. Neal, yes. Mr. Levin, mr. Levin, yes. Mr. Lewis . Mr. Lewis, yes. Mr daggett, mr. Daggett yes. Mr. Thompson, mr. Thompson, aye. Mr. Larson. Mr. Larson, aye. Mr. Blummenneuer, mr mr. Blummenneuer aye. Mr. Kind, mr. Kind aye. Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Crowley, mr. Davis. Mr. Davis, aye. Miss sanchez. Miss sanchez, aye. Mr. Higgins, aye. Miss seoul, miss seoul, aye. Miss galbeni, aye. Mr. Chu, aye. Mr. Tea bberry. Mr. Wright, mr. Wright, no. Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Crowley. Chairman brady. Chairman brady, no. Mr. Chairman. The clerk will report the vote. 14 ayes, 4 nays. The amendment is not reached. The question is on the kind amendment. And the clerk will call the roll. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson, no. Mr. Nunez, mr. Nunez, no. Mr. Teaberry. Mr. Reichert. No. Mr. Raskin, no. Mr. Buchanan, mr. Buchanan, no. Mr. Smith in nebraska no. Miss jenkins, miss jenkins, no. Mr. Paulsen, mr. Paulsen, no. Mr. Marchent, mr. Marchent no. Mr. Black, mr. Black, no. Mr. Reed, mr. Reed, no. Mr. Kelly, mr. Kelly no. Mr. Rasey, no. This miss nome, no. Miss holmes in missouri, mr. Smith, no, mr. Wright, no. Mr. Schweikert, mr. Schweikert no. Miss mulearsky. No. Mr. Bishop, no. Mr. Neal, mr. Neal, yes. Mr. Levin, mr. Levin yes. Mr. Lewis, mr. Lewis, yes. Mr. Daggett. Mr. Daggett yes. Mr. Thompson, aye. Mr. Larson. Will larson, yes. Mr. Blummenneuer mr. Kind, for the sake of our farmers, aye. Mr. Kind, aye. Mr. Scpaskrel. Mr. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Higgins, aye. Mr. Zule aye. Miss chu aye. Mr. Teaberry, mr. Teaberry, no. Chairman brady. No. Chairman brady, no. The clerk will report the vote. 16 ayes, 24 nays. 16 ayes, 24 nos, the amendment is not agreed to. I just wanted to let you know i would have voted yes on the first one i was out an an emergency call. I also was not present for the first one, i would like to note i support miss chus amendment. Yes, sir, mr. Crowell. The question now involves the pascrell amendment, the clerk will call the roll. Mr. Johnson, mr. Johnson, no. Mr. Nunez, mr. Nunez, no. Mr. Teaberry, mr. Teaberry, no. Mr. Raskin, no. Buchanan. No. This jenkins no. Mr. Paulsen, mr. Paulsen, no. Mr. Marchent ms. Black. Ms. Black, no. Mr. Reed. Mr. Reed, no. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, no. Mr. Reinassi, mr. Meehan, no. Miss nome, no. Mr. Smith in missouri, mr. Smith no. Mr. Wright, mr. Wright, no. Will schweikert, mr. Schweikert, no. Mr. Carvelle, mr. Carvelle no. Mr. Bishop, no. Mr. Neal, mr. Neal, yes. Mr. Levin, mr. Levin, yes. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis, yes. Mr. Daggett, mr. Daggett yes. Mr. Thompson, aye. Mr. Larson, mr. Larson yes. Mr. Blummenneuer. Mr. Kind, aye. Mr. Pascrell, yes. Mr. Crowley, aye. Mr. Davis, mr. Davis aye. Miss sanchez, miss sanchez aye. Mr. Higgins, aye. Miss sowell, aye. And miss chu, aye. Mr. Marchent mr. Marchent no. Chairman brady . No. Chairman brady no. Mr. Chairman. The clerk will call the roll excuse me, the clerk will report the vote. 16 yeas, 24 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any other amendments within the bill . On behalf of the majority, i am prepared to offer the amendment through regular order in order 0 to ensure the tax reform bill prevents a tax reform that is simpler, to grow jobs and leapfrogs americans back. These four days of markups have been extraordinary. Four days of full and thoughtful consideration. And of a number of amendments. Most of this has occurred 2 00 in the morning, in the date hours so that the American People could be part of this debate as well. And all of this is in contrast to the treatment that our democratic friends provide us as we may push through the Affordable Care act. The amendment that i am prepared to offer is 29 pages long. In contrast to the 300 pages of Committee Amendments that were presented with no time to study, im preparing to recess this committee until 1 50, so that our minority friends can review the managers amendment. And we can begin consideration. Mr. Chairman . Mr. Neal. Mr. Chairman, so youre suggesting that after having no hearing, no witnesses, that were going to have 20 minutes to review the 63rd page of the managers amendment, considering what happened monday night as well . So. I took a Speed Reading course in college but ive got to give you look, youve given us 300 pages with no notice. We managed to handle it. Is that the way legislation is done now, are we suggesting this ought to be tit for tat . Mr. Neal, mr. Neal, you had this is extraordinary regular order out there the four days, throughout all of the amendments, the ability for debate. Ive asked do you want to offer more amendments, the answer is no. You cant offer an amendment, mr. Chairman for an amendment you havent seen . You offered 300 pages. When . When did we offer 300 pages of amendments . With no time to review. When . In regular order. Through these four days. So, at this time, we will recess until 1 50. Mr. Chairman taking a break here in the markup of the house gop tax reform bill of the house ways and Means Committee. Been working on it since monday of this week. And possible to see the bill itself on the floor of the house by next week. Ill also let you know that the senate is planning on releasing its version of tax cuts and tax reform later today. Well bring you any information about that on the cspan networks. Taking a break until about 1 50 p. M. Eastern time or that abouts, so, well bring you back here to the hearing room while they return but while they are in a break, were going to take a look back at some of the work on the markup of the measure earlier this morning. And also remind you on the congressional chronicle, you can find some of the issue, cspan. Org congress. The committee will come to order. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute . Is. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir, mr. Neal. Might i request information as to how we intend to proceed today, when we will see the managers amendment . Will there be sufficient time to digest the document before the break for veterans day. And because of time constraints and the obvious view that we hold on this side that we want time, to be able to take a look based on the amendment, based on whats happening monday night and based on what happened on thursday, it appears likely that we will at this schedule and pace have very little time to see it