the fourth and final day of the house ways and means committee's review of the republican tax reform legislation. brady offers his manager's amendment which includes tax benefits for families with adopted and disabled children military families and small businesses. this is an hour and 20 minutes. brady offers his >> the committee will come to order. i have an amendment at the desk. the amendment has been distributed in advance. mr. neal. would you like me to address the amendment? let's do that. i am pleased for this amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute, on behalf of the majority on the ways and means committee, similar to the amendment i offered on monday. this amendment will refine several provisions in the tax cuts and jobs act. it also takes action on three crucial priorities. helping american families, providing tax relief to main street startups, and increasing american competitiveness. let's start with helping families. first, among other important improvements, this amendment will preserve the adoption tax credit. now, i know americans who adopt are not doing this for the tax benefit. we're doing it because we want to provide a safe and loving home for a child. i know from personal experience the adoption process can be expensive and time consuming and ultimately so rewarding. and i know the adoption tax credit is important to many members of our committee, republicans and democrats. we've had very thoughtful discussions about it over the past few days. so with this amendment, we're proposing to preserve this credit, priority led by mrs. black, mr. kelly and so many other. this will ensure that parents can continue to to receive additional tax relief as they open their hearts and homes to an adopted child. i'd also like to note that this amendment includes a provision led by ms. jenkins that will help families with dablesed children save for their future -- disabled children save for their future. it will allow them to rollover excess assets from a tax advantage 529 savings account into an able account, which are designed to help americans with disabilities lead successful and secure adult lives. this amendment also makes clear we're preserving an existing tax benefit that allows military families to deduct the cost of moving expenses. next, to help small businesses, this amendment offers several important provisions to make it easier for them to succeed and grow. this includes providing a new low tax rate for businesses earning less than $75,000 in income. these are main street startups who fuel innovation and job creation in communities across our country. and i have heard from just about every one of our republican members from mr. johnson to my right, all the way down the dias to mr. bishop in front of me, we've got to do more to help them thrive. so with this amendment we're taking action, we're going to provide our main street small job creators with a 9% marginal tax rate, and the bottom tax bracket, rather than the 15% that it is today and under the tax bill, a 12% rate. this additional rate relief will allow american entrepreneurs to keep more of their income in those crucial early years. the time period that really makes or breaks a small business. we want more small business success stories in america, this special 9% rate for startups will help make that possible. finally, this amendment includes provisions to further refine our international tax reform. to help accomplish our twin objectives of increasing american competitiveness while protecting the u.s. tax base and growing american jobs. these provisions come in addition to lowering america's corporate rate to 20%, moving to a modern territorial tax system. and providing tough but fair rules to prevent american jobs from moving overseas. is this area of the code complete? of course not. we have much work to do, as we work to ensure our american businesses can compete and win anywhere in the world. in foreign companies who want to invest in america, to create jobs as well, are addressed in the tough but fair manner. in other areas of our sector, including insurance, we continue to examine the provision in the original bill, make refinements and changes going forward, and i'm confident we will strengthen all sectors, as well as the insurance. for past several days we've had numerous discussions on many of these same priorities. these are areas where members on both sides of the aisle said we need to take a second look. we did. now i'm offering this amendment on behalf of our committee to put them in the bill. this is important with this amendment we include these important priorities and meet our reconciliation instruction. ensuring we can get this bill and this long-awaited tax relief to the house floor as soon as possible. and to the extent the members have additional ideas to help families and strengthen our economy, i look forward to working with you on those after our work on the tax cuts and jobs act in committee is finished. does anyone wish to be heard on the amendment? show >> mr. chairman. i think that we can conclude, as we've attempted to address the financial infrastructure of the country, that this process at best has been inartful, and at worst indefensible. after four days, not one democratic amendment has passed. when you look at h.r. 1, it contributes to complexity after having been advertised as the avenue to simplicity. it's harmful to the homeowner, it's harmful to the homebuilder. it's harmful of the municipal investor and those that are willing to take risks. it adds 2ds.3 trillion to the national debt -- $2.3 trillion to the national debt. we've had this argument now for days about guaranteed that this will put us north of 3% growth. guarantee. we could have used this time for the following purpose. to discuss simplicity. to discuss investment. and not just investment in finance, but investment in human capital. which is the surest path to address the labor participation rate in america today. one of the challenges that we face is the following. technology has changed the workplace. skill set has changed the workplace. two million men and women in america have an opiate drug addiction, who are home playing video games in the afternoon rather than in the workplace. coupled with the fact the opportunity existed for us to talk about an investment in community colleges, an investment for internship programs, and for all of us in this room today and viewing, an investment in vocational education to address the job shortfall in america, which the department of labor this week said was north of six million available jobs. 18,000 prevision manufacturing jobs in new england go un answered every single day. one million tech jobs across the country go unanswered every single day. instead we came to a conclusion and then went out to seek the documentation. the changes occurred every day in this proposal and shift largely based upon news accounts. every time there was a story that said the republican majority's numbers didn't add up, they ran back to make adjustments in the numbers. not in the policy. so we're being told that we can borrow $1.5 trillion based upon the premise that maybe it will generate 3% growth over the next decade. what happens if that doesn't occur? you cannot find many mainstream economists in america that say we're going north of 2.1% or 2.2% and arguably they say it will occur likely in the first year or so and then we are going to revert to the numbers that i spoke of earlier and not to miss the following, mr. chairman. this is about long-term demographic trends in america as well. we've got to address that issue of immigration reform and tie it to the whole mission to of job growth and investment -- notion of job growth and investment in the workplace. we had an opportunity to do. this i'm paying -- pained that we could highlight as we attempted to do the genius of the tax reform act of 1986 and then rush this through. even though it was done in daylight. it's still you are rushed through. we gave -- it's still rushed through. we gave some thoughtful commentary and pretty good amendments on our side and we wanted to fully participate and despite what some have said on the other side, i can guarantee you this, after 25 years on this kerks i did not start from the prems that i we should try to kill this bill -- premise that we should try to kill this bill. i looked at a tax system in america that is ineefficient and underproductive and, yes, there is a legitimate argument about international competition that the country needs to address. so all of the good ideas and notions and thoughts that we had ourn side -- on our side were dismissed. i have never participated in a markup in all these years in the house where i was told more that there was a genuine affection for me. i was highly regarded. they really loved my amendment. they thought it could be considered. but we're not going vote for it. and the trouble with that is that that dismisses again what we could have done on so many of these amendments, some of which are really helpful. and as support begins to peel off, let me predict what's going to happen. we saw these changes over these four days. arbitrary changes in fact. and now i can tell you as a student of the institution where we're going. members will be asked to walk the plank on the republican side. and they're going to be told, oh, this will be changed in the rules committee. and then when it comes to the floor they're going to to be told, oh, if we could just pass this it will be reconciled when we work with the senate. i've seen a summary what have the senate has done. there's going to be some substantial changes. after this bill passes the house. so for those members who have thought that they were going to be done with issue today, when we conclude this vote, it's coming back. you can't do what we're doing to harm the middle class in america, all for the purpose of concentrating greater wealth at the very top. and you can't disguy it and you can't have -- disguise it and you can't have a nal sis of it. and you can't do it with just talking points. i wish this could have been done differently. i think the an opportunity missed. and we intend to have but one more speaker on our sirksde i believe, because we feel there's not much that we're going to do to shift what has occurred here during these four days. with that i yield back my 10 seconds. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. roskam, you're recognized to speak on the amendment. >> thank you, chairman braidy. this is not an opportunity to be missed. this is an opportunity to be seized. what we've had discussed among us over these past fow days openly, withrow bust -- robust conversation back and forth, and now a product that reflects several things. it's a product that says, let's not defend the status quo. and the subtext of all the arguments previously for changes to -- were changes to keep things as opposed to taking advantage of a transformational moment. so here's what we need to seize. i've heard from a lot of chambers of commerce in my district. crystal lake, illinois, st. charles, illinois, pal tine, illinois, naperville, illinois, lake ziric, illinois, wheaten, illinois, my hometown. and their sense of relief about the notion of coming in and recognizing that small business in particular, the business on main street that is desspreatly trying to get a foot hold, they are welcoming this today. the notion, mr. chairman, that you listened and that the committee listened and said, let's try and create an environment where first dollars are protected from the take of washington, d.c., is a welcome relief today. what we're proposing is no loophole, it's no exception. it's protection. and to echo up with of mr. curbelo's themes earlier on in the debate earlier today, it is to recognize that the united states is a unique place. and historically what we're in the midst of is this great debate. and you see it on full display basically today. there are these two views of the economy that are competing for the affections of the american people. on the one hand you have a group that essentially says, if you're successful, that comes at the demise of someone else. it's a zero-sum game view of the economy. if you're successful, it comes at someone's else's expense. we reject that fundamentally. we reject that wholeheartedly. we don't want to be associated with that. but on the other hand what we say is, no, that's not the way the economy works. it's not a zero-sum game. and when people are successful around us, it enures to our benefit and now for folks on main street, based on this type of amendment, where their first dollars are being prect, what does that do? that creates an environment where others can prosper around them. it is buoyant, it is dynamic, it is invitational. and here's proof that it is really in sync with who the american people have been historically. we are an interesting, charming, delightful people. and here's why. when someone is successful around us, we say, how nice for you. we don't say, i want your stuff. we say, how nice for you. because we think, that could be me. that could be my kids. that could be my grandchildren. and what this great debate is about today at its core are these two views. and what we're doing today, yeah, we're going to continue to debate this. we will continue to discuss this. this will be met with senate consternation and all kind of things but when it comes to it, what we're on the verge today is winning an argument. winning an argument about the future of our economy and what our world view is. because i'll tell what you. if younger people are coming out into this economy and they're basically told, you're stuck in your station in life, you're stuck, and fleece way for you to get out of your station in life unless you have some federal program or some federal handout, heaven help us. the lights get dark pretty quickly. if, however, kids come out today and they say, i can aspire to things, i can do things, i can invest and so forth and i can keep more of my dollars early from the protection of the taking of the federal government, that is a very bright future. so, mr. chairman, i just want to thank you for your work on this effort. we know there's more work to be done, that a markup is one part of a process. but i'll tell what you. it has been a long time coming. and i look forward to continuing this debate because the stakes are high and this is an opportunity to be seized today and i'm proud to be a part of it. i yield back. show less -- >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment? mr. lewis, you're recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to submit the brown university report on the cost of war for the record. >> without objection. the gentleman is recognized to speak on the amendment. >> mr. chairman, he don't attend social events at the white house. i've not been interested in socializing with the president who spends so much of his time attacking my constituents. but i have read that there's some nice events there and that when it gets around time to serving dessert, the president likes ice cream. but he always insists on him getting two scoops of ice cream and the other people at the table getting one. and there's a lot of similarity between that dessert practice and what's being served up here today. if you look at where the money is on the individual side, most expensive parts are the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax. there are donald trump's two personal dips. and they are big dips. we don't have any of his tax returns, we know from the one return that was partially disclosed that whether he put millions of dollars in his pocket by eliminating the alternative minimum tax. and the same for his billionaire buddies. and we know that by -- given the small portion of america that has any role in the inheritance tax, that by eliminating that, he will pay nothing on these millions of dollars that he has accumulated , as his father passed on to him and as he grew them here in america. nothing on the gain on those. and really, if you look at, it he gets a third scoop of ice cream here. because the pass-through provisions are the same pass-through provisions he's used in the past, in his real estate deals, with carried interest as well. he gets the big bowl of ice cream and the american people, they end up getting to lick the bowl and pay for the ice cream. because that's what's involved here. $2.3 trillion of additional debt that will come right down on the american people with so little benefit for them. now, it's also true, as i mentioned, in my opening motion to postpone, that donald trump's conclusion about the health care bill here was that it was mean and go with the senate. and this very morning apparentliering according to news reports, -- apparently, according to news reports, he's called to say essentially the same thing about this bill. i'm sure he'll celebrate its passage but he's told the senators, look to your approach because it's better than what the house has and we haven't seen it so we're not able to compare the two. the issues here are not whether we will take away from someone, but whether we will create more opportunity for all americans to share in the american dream. we believe that the better way to grow our economy is to invest in americans, to invest in american jobs, to give more educational opportunities, to honor the contribution our dreamers and many of our immigrants can make here in america. those are sure tested ways to grow america. what we are presented with this (202) 628-0205 (202) 628-0205 (202) 628-0184 (202) 628-0184 -- trickle-down approach of giving most of the benefits to donald trump and his buddies is the approach that has failed to work to grow america time after time again. all that it does is grow speeches at republican conventions. but it does not help the american economy. as for the american economy, there is the other major issue of seeing even more of our american jobs outsourced abroad. and that's what -- exactly what will happen in this bill as they create a giant new loophole to incentivize the export of jobs abroad. as for the process here, you know, we tend to look at it from this side of the table. to consider the fact that our request for hearings over the last year have been rejected. we've had almost no consideration of this. the fact that president trump didn't have the courage and his administration didn't have the courage to send one person to testify at that table and answer questions about this. the fact that this bill was dropped on us at the last minute, a manager's amendment at the end of monday, and then a manager's amendment that the chairman will not even explain the provisions, won't tell us how much they cost, what they do, and we don't have anyone here to explain it. it's really not from looking at this side of the table that counts. it's from looking at the other side of the table. the side of the table that so many people across america are looking at this and trying to figure out, what god does do for me andify -- what good does it do for me and my family? the answer for most of them is nothing other than give you the opportunity to pay for more debt. this whole process is about a bad -- a bill that is so bad that they fear the involvement not only us as members of a committee on a fair and democratic basis, but they fear the examination of this bill by the american people. and that's why they pass it today in this con drived way and they will bring it up on the floor of the house next week. and it is only by the american people getting involved, by contacting their member, by demanding fairness in this bill, that we have the opportunity that i think can be achieved to ultimately reject it as it must be rejected. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nunes, you're recognized to speak on the amendment. : -- nunes : thank you, mr. chairman. first let me congratulate you and all of the tax team for putting this bill together in this manager's amendment. there's a reason why we haven't done this in nearly 40 years. it's difficult. and this committee has worked on it for many, many years. had many, many hearings. i know american people are frustrated because every year we say we're going fix the tax code and yet we never fix the tax code. this is as close to fixing the tax code as we can possibly get. this is going to simplify the tax code for nearly every american. probably 2/3 if not more of americans will no longer -- will be able fill out their taxes on a single piece of paper. that will be simplification. all americans will get a tax cut. but most importantly, it's about jobs and job creation. and that's really what is at the heart of this bill. what it does is it gets the government out of picking winners and losers. so for too long in this country , small business people, farmers and others, and any type of business, have had to deal with complicated scheme called depreciation. this bill gets rid of that. so no longer does somebody have to decide whether or not it's better to buy a new forklift versus to invest in some type of different manufacturing equipment. because one depreciates over five years and one depreciates over seven years. that's wiped away. that's what this is about. this is about letting small businesses, the job creaters in this country, decide what they want to spend their money on. so it is significant just for that. technically speaking, people will call it expensing. and in this committee we tend to get into the weeds and most americans don't know what all these complicated words mean in the tax code. but i can tell you this will matter when it gets out to the main street of america, where people will be able to no longer have to call their accountant to see what they can buy or what they cannot buy. and look, this is -- let me just say, my friends on the aisle who have had four days to offer amendments over credit under the sun, that they want to keep in the tax code, this is something that for some reason all of those got through the congress over the years. but what we did is we were putting in these tax credits or special exemptions for things that washington and politicses were deciding -- politicians were deciding what was best. we're getting out of that business. so there's nothing wrong with a lot of the credits that we're getting rid of. but the fact of the matter is we have to ask ourselves, should the government have been involved in these decisions in the first place? so, mr. chairman, i think we've worked a lot of hours on this bill. we've been through a lot of meetings, a lot of hearings starting with many chairmen before you. and it has not been easy. but i think through it all, this is a product that, as mr. roskam said, we should be celebrating today. and i hope that we can take the next step and get this bill to the house floor next week and pass it overwhelmingly. and i would hope that we would get some democrats that might join us in passing this bill. i won't count on it, but i would hope he would get some. then -- we would get some. then i'll go on and hope our colleagues in the senate will pass something so we can get to conference. because any time you take a complicated tax code like the one that's been created over four decades, and you try to fix that tax code, it's going to be complicated and you're going to have last-minute amendments because so many people around the country are impacted. and we have to be slow and methodical and careful and that's exactly what this committee has done under your leadership, mr. chairman. so congratulations. i want to thank you. all the members and all the staff. and i yield back the balance of my time. corrects -- >> there's really nothing complicated about what you've been doing. don't believe the rhetoric or the proper and -- propaganda. there's zero bipartisanship in this bill. zero. and when you have talked about that, it's been a veneer. this bill does pick winners and losers. the big winners are the very wealthy and some corporations. the losers are the middle class and the rest of america. so don't keep saying that everybody's going to get a tax cut. that's not true. there may be some slight modification, but still many, many tens of thousands of taxpayers will not get a tax cut and the main tax cut is going to go to the very wealthy . the speaker said at the beginning, the focus is on middle class tax relief. the focus is on directing that tax relief to the people in the middle. and the people are trying to get there. and that is why we put our emphasis on that tax relief for those people who are in the middle. that is simply not true about this bill. it's really the opposite. there's been some change in terms of the pass-through. but still from what we can tell , and he wasn't asked to explain the amendment, still, 80%, 90% of the pass-through money is going to go to wealthier people. the deficit, you brought it down a bit to meet the requirement, but it's still, what, $1.5 trillion? $1.5 trillion? and who's going to end up paying for that $is.5 trillion deficit? it's going -- $1.5 trillion deficit? it's going to be the typical family in the united states of america. the typical family. and i just want to finish. there's been talk about deliberation. i really think this makes a mockery out of the legislative process. you've gone through the motions , you've involved us not at all. and the reason is you're desperate. you have failed to pass anything of substance. anything. and so now in terms of the political situation, as well as the policy situation, you have been left with one option. pass a tax bill and you're going to pass it regardless of what is the impact on the typical family. and i just want to say this to you as you go through this pro-- process. st not going to -- this is not going wear well. in fact, the president has already said, don't get too hung up on the house bill. don't get too hung up. and that's because i think there's a realization that really left hanging out are the vast majority of people in this country. so this today is not an act of deliberation. it's an act of desperation. of desperation. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mrs. black, you're recognized to speak on the amendment. -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for the work you've done. this is hard work. and this is work that takes a lot of time, a lot of hours, and a lot of expertise. obviously no tax reform is ever going to be perfect. there's still more to be done. there's still pieces that i'd like to see in this tax reform and as we move forward we'll have that opportunity. but let me just say thank you for the restoring of the adoption tax credit. because i've worked for all of my career, as a matter of fact, the 45 years since i've been a nurse i've been working to make sure they're child has a forever family. i'll tell you just briefly about an inspiring story that happened just this year. of a family who adopted. and this family is a family from owens. this family's name is owens. they're from pennsylvania. mr. kelly's area. following an untimely passing of one of their previous children, a 3-year-old, they felt calling to a life to adopt a child with special needs. fast forward a few years, not only did they adopt one child with special needs, they adopted four children with special needs. and i still have in my office a picture of that family that visited me. because these are children who otherwise would not have had a forever family. adoption really is a beautiful choice for parents to make. and we should make sure that our laws work for these families and not against them. we have families across this country that have room in their hearts and maybe even room in their homes to adopt. but they may not have room in their budgets. today we have over 415,000 youths in foster care, including about 108,000 of these are eligible and they're actually waiting to be adopted right now today. yes, adoption is too expensive and that's something for another day. we have to look at that state and federal regulations that cause the cost of adoption to rise. adoptions can cost up to $40,000. and families obviously in many of these cases do not have those kinds of expendable dollars. so, thank you, mr. chairman, for preserving this adoption tax credit. we want to make certain that the tax code works for families who are willing to open up their homes to adoption and not against them. and i yield back the balance of my time. x thank you, mrs. black, and thank you for being a champion for adoption. mr. thompson, you're recognized to speak. let's -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, this isn't a bipartisan measure. there were no hearings. we didn't hear from any witnesses. we didn't hear from any experts. but the fact of the matter is there are some things that we knee for sure. we know that if this bill were to become law, our national debt would grow by $2.3 trillion. that's the cost that would be passed on to our kids and our grandkids. we know that homeowners in many states across this great nation would lose. they'd lose value on their homes, they'd lose savings and a retirement. because for many people, the value that they accrue in their homes is in fact their retirement savings. we'll take that away from them. we know that the state and local tax deduction will be reduced. we know what this does. not only does it hurt homeowners and taxpayers in high-cost states, but it also hurts the local governments and the state governments. and it hurts the people in those states that rely on and depend on the programs that those tax dollars go to fund. we know it hurts jobs, hurts infrastructure expansion and improvement. it hurts everything that is important to a community. we know it hurts folks who experience the tragedy of a disaster. i spoke on that early on in the week. this bill takes away people who experienced a disaster's ability to use the tax code to provide a little help for themselves and their families. and we know that in a real cruel twist, this bill was written in a way that grandfathers in some disaster victims, but going forward, it ignores other disaster victims. and please be warned, every one of us has a district that's subject to a disaster at some time and some point. and if it comes, then you're going to have to figure out how to get help for your constituents, how to do a separate bill to do it, where in fact if it were left alone, that would already be taken care of. and the people who were experiencing just a life-shattering change because of a natural disaster would be able to get the help that they want. this bill creates winners and losers. we know that veterans lose. we know that folks with high medical costs lose. as i said earlier, we know that our children and grandchildren lose. they are going to be footing the bill for this disastrous piece of legislation. we know those looking to build affordable housing and those looking for affordable housing to be able to accommodate their local jurisdictions, they are going to lose. we know students who carry a loan. --y are going to lose area lose. who wins? we know corporations win. we know wealthy folks win. someone said that it's not a zero-sum game. well, i agree with about half of that statement. probably better to say it's a crap shoot. because the proponents of this believe that if we pass it, somehow this trickle-down theory that's never worked before is going to materialize here. and there's going to be all this incredible growth. well, that's not anything short of an absolute crap shoot. the truth of the matter is it's a zero-sum game. corporations get a big win. wealthy folks get a big win. and that win comes at the expense of a middle class, comes at the expense of future generations. this bill is as bad for the american people as is the process that we went through to get here. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. brady: mr. buchanan, you're recognized to speak on the amendment. mr. buchanan: thank you, mr. chairman. i think this is a great bill. not perfect. but a great bill. it's obvious after listening for four days, we have a different philosophy. a lot of us come from different backgrounds, which is good. my background, i've been a job creator for 30, 40 years. 30 years before i created thousands of jobs as a blue collar kid out of detroit and my parents both worked in the factory and i was one six kids. so that's the perspective that i want to talk about. but let me -- as i look at the facts, and we had good-sized businesses, but i look at the past 10 years, we've ran up $10 trillion in debt. plenty of blame to go around. you can put part of it on bush. but it's not all bush. because you've fat to take some responsibility at some point for that debt. we talked about stimulus. $800 billion stimulus. we had a $10 trillion stimulus the last 10 years in my opinion. we've grown it 1% or 1.5%, never getting to 2%. the first time in 50 years we haven't had better growth than that. there's been very little or no pay increases for our employees. in my opinion as a result of that. i read something on the front page of "u.s.a. today" that i had to go back and double check it because i couldn't believe it. and it's sad. 62% of americans don't have $1,000 in the bank. and i thought to myself, as a blue collar kid, i've been there before. it's unimaginable. so we are going backwards. we need a change. status quo is not acceptable. the bottom line is we need to find a way to grow our economy. 1% growth is $2.8 trillion in economic activity. we've had two quarters at 3%. that doesn't mean a lot, but ideally we need to move to 3%, 3.5%. it makes a big difference in terms of working families and their paychecks. one of the things that i'm most excited about, and we have a philosophical difference probably on this, you don't have any jobs, you don't have any pay increases, in my opinion, unless you can have small businesses -- be successful, because that he create most of the jocks, not all of the jobs, i was the chairman of the florida chamber. 95% of those businesses frankly were -- they made less than $100,000 a year. 50 employees or less. the fact that this bill addresses a 9% tax on them, on the first $100,000, is a huge benefit to them. we can talk about pass-throughs. and it does help companies that are larger. but i'm first to admit it. the nfib, a lot of them don't participate at that level. but they do at the 9% level. so on the first 100,000, first 90,000, 9% is a huge factor and they create most of the jobs. and i always tell my friends, my parents were union works. you don't have any unions. if you don't have successful businesses. i think america's in the business of business. especially small business. that's where i put my focus. the other thing is on startups. we've had more businesses close in the last decade than open. never in the history of our country, that's what i understand, that that's happened. we need to do more about entrepreneurship. we need to do more about helping startups. i did a conference in my district, had all women there, all ladies, c.e.o.'s of small and medium sized businesses. someone said, why are you doing that? i said, because i read and i believe 57% of the startups, 57% of the startups, in the next 10 years, will be women-led. that's where we need to focus on is congress, what can we do for entrepreneurs? what can we do for startups? what can we do for small businesses? because at the end of the day, if they're more successful, we're going to have more good-paying jobs and that makes a big difference. also, i would like it say in closing, i want america to be best place in the country, in the world, to do business. and i think we've had a lot of companies moving out. the goal of this tax bill is to get companies to move back in, to move the money offshore back into our country, and i'd like to declare today, america is back in business. thank you. i yield back. mr. brady: thank you. mr. kind, you're recognized to speak on the amendment. mr. kind: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i can't help but sit here and think, what a missed opportunity this whole process has been. there are many of us on this side of the aisle, mr. chairman, who were eager to work with you to take a serious run at the tax code for the first time in 31 years. it's become way too complicated. riddled, full of special interest tax loop holes, less productive when it comes to economic growth. many of us were interested in working with you to simplify the code, to broaden the base, make it fair for working families and small businesses, family farms back home. to promote pro-growth, keep us competitive in the global economy. but also to do in a fiscally responsible manner. unfortunately, it's a missed opportunity. and many of the conversations that you had with some of us on side, asking for our input, it started with the principle of "let's do this with revenue neutrality." "let's not employee a hole in the budget. and increase the debt again." you were in agreement with that. but this bill falls far short of that. if we had more time to debate and consider more of our amendments, i was hoping to offer one that was meant to protect many of you on that side. it would have expanded the endangered species list to have the include fiscally conservative republicans. because you're on the verge of going extinct with this bill. you still have, even with the manager's mark, a $2.3 trillion shortfall that will be added to future generations' burden. and unlike tax cuts in the past, 1981, we've run out of time. we don't have the luxury of time and the recovery if we make a huge fiscal mistake today. we have 70 million baby boomers beginning their massive retirement in this country. 10,000 a day. and joining social security, medicare. this bill goes forward and economic growth projections that you're betting on don't materialize, social security and medicare is on the chopping block. because there's no way we're going to have the resources or financing to protect that for this baby boom generation, let alone future generations afterwards. that's a missed opportunity, mr. chairman. it didn't have to be this way. we should also approach this under the premise of first do no harm. let's not screw around with things that aren't important and that are working. earlier today i offered an amendment to preserve, protect and expand the importance of section 199, the incentive for domestic manufacturing and our family farmers, so they can keep jobs here. and stay competitive on the global environment. that was rejected out of hand. i'm hearing from a lot of my businesses and farmers from farm how detrimental the loss of 199 will be to them. many of them operating on the margin today, just trying to stay above water. many of our farmers too are concerned about the elimination under the chair's mark of exchanges and that operating loss carrybacks. important provisions for them to stay in business so we don't lose more of our family farmers. and we didn't have any hearings, no discussion about the intended or the unintended consequences of many of the policy changes that are being made in your mark. and i still see with a quick review, and we've only had a little over an hour to review the chairman's latest amendment, that you still want to politicize our places of worship. what a terrible policy idea that that can result in. right now if they want to participate in political campaigns, endorse candidates, they can do that. they just loose their tax-exempt status. you're saying it's already for them to do it and maintain their tax-exempt status. this creates a huge back door loophole for political contributors to funnel money through places of worship so they can direct i get involved in the outcome campaigns and the potential for strife in our communities, where our places of worship is one of the last remaining institutions or refuges for us to come together as americans in fellowship, and to spend some time together, regardless of political affiliation, is in jeopardy. you do i notice add some restrictive language on that. these organizations' expenses relating to such political speech have to be diminimus. we don't have a clear definition what have that means. that seems ripe for lawsuits and being tied up in courts for years. i would certainly hope as this process moves forward, if it is going to be moving forward, we take another look at that in particular. but today we're talking about the future of our children and our grandchildren. and one thing that this bill is guaranteeing them, even with all your projected growth expectations, is that this will add $2.3 trillion on our national credit card. i for one am getting tired of republican administrations leaving a fiscals mess for the next administration to clean up. i yield back. mr. brady: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. reed: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, as we close this debate out, i want to say thank you to you and your staff for all of the hard work and for mr. barthold for his work. mr. chairman, i've been sitting here all week with this stack of papers. i'm glad to be able to do my part today to say this will be a thing of history when we're done here in the house of representatives as the senate and get this signed to the president's desk. and to be replaced with a simpler, fairer, tax code that is going to deliver $1,606 to the typical family in my district of western new york. mr. chairman, as the youngest of 12, whose father passed away when i was 2, who was raised by a single mother, $1,606 is a heck of a lot of money. and that is money these people have earned. and by doing the work we have done here, and i hope to work with my colleagues across the aisle as we go through this process to the finish line and we can do better for those individuals back home, we're giving direct relief to them. and thank you for the opportunity with it. but, mr. chairman, i also want to note one thing. i have been very passionate about the issue of college costs and college debts. and i note in the chairman's mark the section that dealt with the excise tax on endowments for private colleges and universities. and to my colleagues on the other side, i was listening to your debate. when you researched the paradise island papers, i went through it with a comb. i'll note to you "the new york times" article of november 8, where it uncovered many endowments are potentially listed in those papers where they are shifting income to tax havens and they're not even taxable. in order to shield their investment strategies as to where they're investing their money. i'm going to take this on, mr. chairman, and i appreciate you allowing us the opportunity to get into this issue of college costs and debt which has gone up 500% since the year 2000. when i see investment managers getting paid $28,839,353 from 2010 to 2015, from an institution like columbia, when i see the level of compensation, where endowment distributions are going three to one to investment managers as opposed to a dollar that's just going to tuition reduction and scholarship, i'm going ask the question, is that right? is that fair? and i will tell you, this provision that we have introduced here is just the step in the right direction to get college costs under control and student debt going in the right direction and that is down. so with all that, mr. chairman, i say thank you. thank you for allowing me to be part of it. thank you for allowing me to deliver relief to middle class america. and we'll continue to fight as we move this to the president's desk. with that i yield back. mr. brady: thank you, mr. reed. i too was raised by a single mom who raised five of us by herself after dad was killed. like your mom she would say, you're going to have to pick up all those books, young man. just be aware of that. [laughter] mr. crowley, you're recognized to speak on the amendment. mr. crowley: i thank the gentleman. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. i'll be very, very brief. i just want to if i could enter into the record, mr. chairman, a letter from june 23 of this year, 2017. by seven my republican colleagues from new york state in opposition to the salt provisions. provisions that led them to vote against the budget resolution that went before the house last week because the salt elimination was in the republican house tax bill. my understanding is that the salt provision is full bore in the senate proposal. so, mr. chairman, if i could for the record, it's signed by my colleagues, dan donovan of staten island, john katko of syracuse, elise stefanik, congressman zeldin, john faso of the 19th district. peter king of long island and claudia tenney. just to point out that those seven individuals, either they got it right and the salt provisions are egregious in terms of this bill, or they're wrong and my other colleagues are correct. mr. brady: without objection, mr. crowley. mr. crowley: thank you. either they got it wrong, mr. chairman, all seven of those republicans, or they're cow towing to concerns about their district and election and they aren't brave enough to stand up. either they got it wrong and mr. reed and others have gotten it right, but if this letter, they knew back then that the elimination of salt, the deductibility of state and local taxes would be crippling to their constituents and they've expressed that back in june, they expressed it last week, three of these individuals are already gone public and said they would not support this republican tax scam on the floor next week. and i suspect when the full salt provision is included in the senate bill, that we will see more of my republican colleagues peeling off to support this bill that really is in the interest of special interest corporations, the most wealthiest of this country at the expense of the working , not only in my district and state but the country as well. i'd like to yield the balance of my time to mr. davis of illinois. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. as we wind down to the close of this discussion, i am reminded that government should help the people, not harm them. government should strengthen the economic well-being of the middle class whose wages have stagnated, not the most secure and not washington special interests. the tax policy center estimates that the current plan will save the bottom 80% between $50 and $450 in taxes per year. but it bestows the top 1% an average of $129,000 a year. it gives almost half of the individual tax cuts to households earning more than $500,000 and over one-third to households earning $1 million or more. corporate special interests reap almost 70% of the total tax cuts. the medium income in my district is $54,000, not $500,000. so chicagoans will lose. illinois will lose. and the country will lose. and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. brady: excuse me. the gentleman yields back. mr. kelly, you're recognized to speak on the amendment. mr. kelly: mr. chairman, i, too, like the rest of the committee, will thank you for your hard work. this has been an interesting four days. we started off with one idea and it makes sense. it was to make america great again and also improve our economy. so i think we have done as we have created an opportunity right now. as i said early on, my faith is in the american people when you give them the opportunity, they will take it and run with it. we will have more take-home pay for individuals. we will also more competitive in the world. we'll be able to compete with a lot of folks around the world. we are no longer in the backseat. so many things have happened last couple days are good for america. we will make america boom again. also, i wanted to thank you for the work on the adoption piece with mrs. black. it's so important that more americans have a greater opportunity to adopt children. nobody knows better than you about adopting children. so i would just say in conclusion, i enjoyed the back and forth with our folks on the other side. it has been very interesting. i think at the end of this exercise, the american people are the ones will take a look and say, you know what, you guys did really well. thank you. so i thank you, mr. chairman. i also thank mr. barthold for what he went through, and the staff that worked so hard on both sides of the aisle, by the way, to make sure we were able to hear and voice our opinion. so thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. mr. brady: thank you, mr. kelly. mr. blumenauer, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate my friend, mr. kelly, talking about opportunity. you know, actually i appreciate mr. reed clearing that up. i thought he had those books stacked up so people couldn't see him based on what's going on here. mr. reed: a face for radio. that's what i do. mr. blumenauer: but now we're moving into the next phase. it's unclear to me what the president is going to regard this. i remember he celebrated your efforts to dismantle the affordable care act at the white house before he denounced it as being a mean bill. and i don't know when the stories start coming out about what's really in this bill and the feedback, i don't know if he's going to stand behind you or not. but i know in terms of what we have now, it's actually a very good bill for donald trump. most of the trump enterprises are pass-through entities. not small business. pass-through entities. and he'll be able to take advantage of that lower tax rate. he'll be able to have hundreds of millions or billions, however many dollars he has, to pass on to his children without being taxed. we do know from the one tax form that was released, that it was the alternative minimum tax that forced him to pay anything meaningful on hundreds of millions of dollars of income. and you've eliminated the alternative minimum tax. i think mr. trump will be happy about that. and we all know that donald trump has bragged to be about the king of debt. he borrowed right, left and sideways, stiffed people, was able to get out with multiple bankruptcies. he's played the debt card. and with this bill, we are playing a debt card. we're increasing the national debt, not a trillion and a half but probably $2.3 trillion after we pay interest on it and as i pointed out during our deliberations when i tried to have a circuit breaker to protect us if this goes south that a 1% increase in historic low interest rates will add another trillion and a half. so the king of debt will like that. but this ultimately is a lost opportunity. i couldn't agree more with my friend, mr. kind. there are many things that we agree upon that we could have worked on together. we -- if you think something needs to happen with the production tax credit, you didn't have to throw it out. we could worked on it, not break a commitment to that industry. we could have really helped small business. they are not going to get anything. the vast majority of small businesses are not going to get anything out of the pass-through because they don't hit the 25%. they pay far less than that. we could have done a better job. we could have embraced some of the concepts that your republican colleagues are talking about in the senate to extend the earned income tax credit. we could have made it refundable. we could have helped 35% of the people who are completely left out with your bill. we could have done that together. you chose instead to go a slightly different direction on your own, no hearings, no opportunities to go back and forth with this. four days of debate. i like debate. i don't mind. but we could have actually been involved in legislating. serious, bipartisan legislating, knowing what's actually in the legislation and working together to refine it for small business, working to refine it for our failing infrastructure. these are things that are within our capacity. this is a lost opportunity. some of you had a chance to meet my young grandson when we kicked this off. little quinn. mr. brady: he's a cutie. mr. blumenauer: and i feel bad because this lost opportunity means is that for quinn and your children and grandchildren and the people who follow them, that their problems are going to be greater. we miss an opportunity to work with them, and we have failed in our fundamental opportunity and obligation to work together to solve americans' problems. i think it's unfortunate, and i'm done. mr. brady: thank you, mr. blumenauer. mr. holding will control the final comments. mr. holding: thank you. mr. brady: mr. holding, you're recognized. mr. holding: thank you, mr. chairman. i really appreciate and my constituents really appreciate all the efforts taken to put together this bill. the status quo is unacceptable and this bill provides our best chance to finally get the economic economy booming again. plus, for a median income household of four in the second congressional district of north carolina, a $2,300 tax cut. now, one of the most important aspects of the bill i worked on a lot is moving to a territorial system. and finally allowing american companies to be on a level playing field with their foreign competitors. removing the punitive barriers of current worldwide system. but we were not able in this bill or in the amendment to move to a territorial system for citizens. currently we're one of the few countries that have a citizenship-based taxation. so worldwide taxation for citizens. and i hoped we would be able to move to a residency tax-based taxation system to ensure american citizens have a level playing field around the globe as well as corporations having a level playing field. as i highlighted to the committee before, american citizens around 40% more expensive than their foreign counterparts to employ any jobs overseas. so as american companies begin to see the benefits of a territorial system, i look forward to continuing to work on a solution to provide our citizens overseas with similar benefits and thus ensure that talent, not tax burden, is the driving factor in hiring decisions within the global operations of multinational companies. so mr. chairman, i want to thank you again. i'm proud of this bill. i'm proud of my work on it. i'm proud of my colleagues. i'm honored to sit here today with them and look forward to seeing the benefits of this bill going forward. with that, i yield the remainder of my time to mr. marchant of texas. mr. marchant: thank you, mr. holding. 31 years since this committee has done this kind of historic work. i'd like to congratulate the chairman, first of all, for his hard work and his guidance. it's been a privilege for me to be on this committee and have part of this process. and i want to thank him for allowing me to represent my constituents every day that i'm on this committee and bring their priorities to this committee. i've asked myself three questions throughout this process about this bill. does it make the tax code simpler? the answer is yes. does it reward the hardworking families in my district with a tax cut? the answer is yes. does it give small businesses in my district an opportunity to grow and hire more people? the answer is yes. thank you very much. i yield back. mr. brady: thank you, mr. marchant. ms. sanchez, unanimous consent request. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. chairman. i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the director of the california department of finance outlining 10 different provisions and especially the salt, removing the salt deductions. that would be extremely harmful to california families. mr. brady: thank you. mr. higgins, i understand you're the final speaker. ms. sanchez: mr. chairman, was that accepted? mr. brady: yes. mr. higgins. mr. higgins: thank you. from the beginning this was nothing more than an attempt to cut taxes for corporate america and for the highest earners among us. if you make over $750,000 a year, your raise next year will be 8% just because of this tax cut. and everything else has been a money chase to find a way to pay for this massive tax cut for corporate america and for high-end earners. and unfortunately middle america got hit hard. you know, my friend mr. reed talked about the $1,100 savings that a western new york family will realize. well, you know what, it just got obliterated because there's no longer a deduction for state and local taxes. the treasury secretary said that these tax cuts would pay for themselves, that they're revenue neutral and there will be an additional $2 trillion of economic activity beyond that. that is a bold-face lie. nobody believes that. not the tax center. not the wharton school. not goldman economists, from which the economic counselor came from. the white house council of economic advisors had the audacity to suggest that these corporate tax cuts would result in a $4,000 to $9,000 annual increase in middle america. not one of my colleagues on the other side have made reference to that as a benefit. another bold-face lie by this white house perpetrated against the american people. mr. brady: if the gentleman will suspend. you're over the guardrails on decorum in this committee. mr. higgins: corporate america. exxonmobil made $8 billion in the last five years. you're not even giving them a tax cut because they didn't pay any taxes. general electric made $29 billion over the last five years. you're not giving them a tax cut because they don't pay any taxes in the last five years. in fact, they get a tax rebate. apple. apple made $74 billion over the last five years and paid no taxes. but what's even more egregious than that, apple took the technology that was paid for by the american taxpayer, cut screen technology, the internet, global positioning satellite, voice activated personal assistant, they took all of that technology, innovation that was paid for by the american people. it's in everybody's smartphone in this room. and they went and they made all of their smartphones in china. mr. chairman, it wasn't always like this. it wasn't always like this in america. all the captains of industry 40 years ago believed it was their responsibility to help balance the economic interests of all of the stakeholders in the economy. the owners, the managers, workers, the communities which they operated. charlie wilson from general motors, reg jones from g.e., shapiro from dupont, now they have abandoned that to push all of the profits that they make to their shareholders screwing the american people. there was a time where you had economic growth and the wages of american workers were pretty much consistent. 97% for growth. 95% for wages. today, 93% of economic growth over the past 30 years, real wages have grown by 9%. by 9%. and you're giving a tax cut to corporate america. this is fundamentally unfair. this will not produce any good growth in the american economy. this will saddle future generations with more debt. you know, everybody talks here about they're deficit hawks. where are all the deficit hawks? where are any of the deficit hawks? every credible economic review of this plan says this will drive up deficit, this will produce no good economic growth and this benefits wealthy people and wealthy corporations at the expense of middle america. mr. brady: mr. neal is recognized for a u.c. request. mr. neal: this wraps it up on our side, mr. chairman. i have a statement for the record from veterans' affairs committee tim walz. the updated tax policy center's preliminary distribution analysis. letter signed by dozens of organizations asking for us to hold onto the orphan drug tax credit. a letter asking us to hold onto the orphan drug tax credit. mr. brady: without objection. mr. renacci: i ask unanimous consent to offer in the record the "washington post" article the four pinocchios that senate democrats falsely claim g.o.p. plan will raise taxes for most working class families. it says any democrat should delete the tweets and make clear they are in error. mr. brady: without objection. so today we are sending a very clear message to those of you who defend the status quo, to those who love this complexity, who crave their special tax breaks, who relish the fact that washington has the first claim over your dollars as a family, as a person, your days are over. americans deserve a new tax code for a new era of prosperity, and today we deliver. the question is on agreeing to the brady amendment. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. a roll call is requested. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: mr. johnson. mr. johnson aye. mr. nunes aye. mr. tiberi aye. mr. reichert aye. mr. roskam aye. mr. buchanan aye. mr. smith of nebraska. mr. smith aye. ms. jenkins aye. mr. paulsen aye. mr. marchant aye. mrs. black aye. mr. reed aye. mr. kelly aye. mr. renacci aye. mr. meehan aye. mrs. noem aye. mr. holding aye. mr. smith of missouri yes. mr. wright yes. mr. schweikert aye. mrs. walorski yes. mr. curbelo aye. mr. bishop aye. mr. neal no. mr. levin no. mr. lewis no. mr. doggett no. mr. thompson no. mr. larson no. mr. blumenauer no. mr. kind no. mr. pascrell no. mr. crowley no. mr. davis no. ms. sanchez no. mr. higgins no. ms. sewell no. ms. delbene no. ms. chu no. chairman brady aye. mr. brady: the clerk will report the vote. 24 aye's and 16 no's. the amendment is agreed to. the question is now on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. i'll now recognize mr. johnson for the purpose of offering a motion. mr. johnson: mr. chairman, i now ask the committee favorably report amendment 1 to the house of representatives. mr. brady: the question is on favorably reporting the bill h.r. 1 as amended. all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to, and h.r. 1, as amended, is ordered favorably reported to the house. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: mr. johnson aye. mr. nunes aye. mr. tiberi aye. mr. reichert aye. mr. roskam aye. mr. buchanan aye. mr. smith of nebraska aye. ms. jenkins aye. mr. paulsen aye. mr. marchant aye. mrs. black aye. mr. reed aye. mr. kelly aye. mr. renacci aye. mr. meehan aye. mrs. noem aye. mr. holding aye. mr. smith of missouri yes. mr. smith yes. mr. wright yes. mr. schweikert yes. mrs. walorski aye. mr. curbelo aye. mr. bishop aye. mr. neal no. mr. levin no. mr. lewis no. mr. doggett no. mr. thompson no. mr. larson no. mr. blumenauer no. mr. kind no. mr. pascrell no. mr. crowley no. mr. davis no. ms. sanchez no. mr. higgins no. ms. sewell. ms. sewell no. ms. delbene no. ms. chu no. chairman brady. mr. brady: aye. the clerk: chairman brady aye. mr. chairman. 24 yeas, 16 nays. mr. brady: on this vote the ayes have 24. the nays are 16. h.r. 1 as amended is favorably reported to the house of representatives. without objection, i ask the staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and the members will have five days to submit views. before we adjourn, i also like to take the moment to thank the members of this committee for their tireless hours of work on the tax cuts and jobs act. i'd also like to thank the brilliant draftors, the house office of legislative council who have been working on this bill for many months. and thanks to the hardworking team of joint committee on taxation. attorneys, accountants, economists, staff who advise us and our staff without whom none of this would be even possible. the bill is passed. the committee is adjourned. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> watch c-span next week as congress debates attack reform. the senate finance committee begins a review of its bill monday, live coverage on c-span. the house debates its bill on thursday. live coverage on c-span. it details about both bills on c-span.org/congress, and get free details on tax reform using the c-span radio app. before leaving vietnam early this morning, president trump held a bilateral news conference with the vietnamese president in hanoi. president trump was asked about his most recent reading -- meeting with russian president vladimir putin, where they talked about russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. here is the president's response. you, you talked about your meetings with russian president vladimir putin yesterday. you said you received further assurances from him that he did not meddle in the u.s. election. there was some uncertainty that brewed in the united states over your statement, what you say when he tells me that,, i believe he means it. that was taken in some circles mean that you believe that he did not interfere. can you say whether or not you believe that president putin and/or russia interfered in the election? pres. trump: i'm surprised there is any conflict on this. i said i believe he believes that, and that is very important for someone to believe. i believe that he believes that he and russia did not meddle in the u.s. election. as to whether i believe it or not, i am with our agent is, especially as currently constituted with their leadership. i believe that our intelligence agencies, i have worked with them very strongly. were not 17 as was previously reported, but there were four. people,ntly led by fine i believe, very much and i intelligence agencies. at the same time, i want to be able -- i believe it is very important to get along with russia, to get along with china, to get along with vietnam, to get along with lots of countries because we have a lot of things we have to sell. frankly, russia and china in particular can help us with the north korea problem, which is one of our truly great problems. i'm not looking to stand and start arguing with somebody when this report -- when there are reporters all around and cameras recording and seeing our conversation area i think it was obvious to everybody that i believe that president putin really feel, and he feels strongly, that he did not meddle in our election. what he believes is what he believes. what i believe is that we have to get to work, and everyone understood this who heard the answer. we need to sell syria, north korea, the ukraine, the self terrorism. realize that russia has been very, very heavily sanctioned. they were stationed at a very high level, and that took place very recently. it is now time to get back to healing a world

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Missouri , Washington , China , Florida , Vietnam , Republic Of , Illinois , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Syria , Russia , Ukraine , Nebraska , Pennsylvania , Naperville , Wharton School , Americans , Russian , Vietnamese , American , Charlie Wilson , Elise Stefanik , Tim Walz , Dan Donovan , Peter King , John Faso , America Exxonmobil ,