Friend from california said this amendment kills this bill, doesnt kill anything. The only thing it does assess look at it on the road if its not working, will stop it. Whatever we all like to be able to stop it if its not working . This is a prime opportunity to be able to stop and fix it. He also said the difference between those of us on the side and those on the other side is on the side, we believe this is legislation that will work. Its Important Committee and we have smart people here. We dont have to rely on what we believe, we can get the data, we can get the facts, when get the true facts and base our arguments and legislation in good, solid data. If you do that theres some things you can glean from this. This bill is 2. 3 trillion to the national debt. If this happens it will hurt the local government, and the people that we represent. Well have to come back and look at cuts from infrastructure, crime, opiates, to medicare. That doesnt help anybody that we represent. The fact is, we have put in place over last 20 years where the democrats were in charge, we put in place checks on the runaway debt and deficit. It was called pay go. The first thing the republicans did was took away the pagel requirement from the tax side a policy. Cutting taxes is in fact spending. If you cut taxes your spending money. In this case your spending 2. 3 trillion that we dont have. And that bill will be sent her children and grandchildren. Thats not balancing the books. To mr. Reids brother what new york to, states have a constitutional requirement that they have to balance the books. We dont have that. We need to make every effort that we do that. This article that appeared in the paper was already referenced once. I want to reveal plain statement. Nearly half of all middleclass families would pay more taxes in 2026 then under current rules of the proposed text would become law. One third would pay more and 18. The striking finding for a bill promoted as a middleclass tax cut. Believe me, want to see this. I want to see the middleclass working families in my district see an increase in the amount of money they have in their pockets. This bill doesnt do it. The police and firefighters that my friend from ohio was talking about, i have one of each. Once on a firefighter and one son a police officer. I like to see more money in their pocket. This bill does the opposite. It increases taxes for many middleclass working families in the country. Might understand why my friend from ohio is pushing it. His state gets money from the donor states across the country. We need to make sure you keep that in perspective as well. California is a big donor state. Take away tax opportunities for constituents and many of the states represented, what happens is we pay more and get back class. Thats not incredibly fair at all. Ever talk about fairness in this tax bill. We want to see fair tax reform that helps the middleclass working families and works from the middleclass out. This bill does the opposite and as 2. 3 trillion toward debt. The typical family and all of the Congressional Districts represented in the typical family no country. Statistics show there is relief for every American Family. The median American Family that we all represent your. My colleague aabout 2200 per family and a lot of benefits to those that do not itemize the low and middle income americans approximately two thirds in his district and if we go down list we will see the same in every district represented on the committee and in every district in our country. Also there is a lot on this at is important in the sense of growing our economy. And making it more likely that we can Work Together to address the physical challenges. A lot of americans are worried, rightly so, about american corporations and Foreign Corporations exploiting our existing laws and existing rules. To shift jobs and profits overseas. And americans are being left behind. We do not have to turn our backs on all of that. Just because we also should address the physical challenges that we are facing as a country. I do not think that this design works well. I do not think that this is the broad solution we need to build a fiscally Sustainable Future for all americans. Especially for younger generations that worry about what our future may look like. But i think we can do both. I think we can help the typical family in our country. The family of four or five, six that are struggling that have not experienced economic recovery that so many people read about and so many talk about on television. We can do that, we can also reform the tax code to make sure that American Companies are doing right by the American Worker. That American Companies are doing more to invest in our country and yes, at the same time work to address this issue of fiscal sustainability which is quite frankly, one of the main reasons that i ran for congress. And i will be very sincere. I said it here we had secretary nugent. My personal preference, my personal preference is for revenue neutral tax reform. I think all of us on the committee know that no one member of Congress Gets everything they want. And the chairman would be the first to agree with that statement and we did have to make some sacrifices to deliver the type of tax relief that we believe American Families deserve. We did have to make some sacrifices to change the rules and make sure that companies both here at home and alone cannot explain things to the detriment of American Families and American Workers. I want to close by sincerely thanking my colleague for raising the issue. Because i think it is an issue that we should not shy away from. That we as a committee should Work Together and in a bipartisan manager address. I think it is a false choice that we either deliver on this important tax reform package or address of fiscal challenges. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. You are recognized. Chairman, since a few of my brothers have brought up policemen, firefighters i just got a letter which i would like to enter for the International Association for firefighters. Coming out strongly against this legislation. And the compromise that now exists. And i think that it is very important. As i said yesterday, these are the folks that i represent. New jersey, we have police and fire against this legislation as well. So i do not know who in gods name youre talking about we talk about police and fire and your talk about those in other countries, i do not know. Mr. Chairman, i want to bring your attention if i may, one of my favorite charts of all times. And that is, tax plus that we provided in 2001 and 2003. You have seen this chart before. And what they contributed to the deficit in trillions of dollars. If everyone will quite notice, very clear, that the major part of this deficit that we carried from year to year, that everybody has been choked up all about. You hear all of these Bumper Sticker stories. The major contributor was not the wars, it was not inflation, it was not current expenses from specific policies. It was the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. And it ballooned it got bigger and larger. And that is why the congressman amendment is critical to what we are talking about in terms of Circuit Breakers. This is an example. This is the color here of the tax cuts and as they balloon, the deficit and as the Interest Rate grew larger. Now you will add onto this, tax cuts. Most of which do not go to the policeman or firefighters or teachers or seamstresses or beauticians but go to the folks at the higher end of the ladder. Just think of piling it on and what this chart will look like. We made it this way, nobody else. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Remember that promise is a 2001 and 2003. What it would do to the gross domestic product. It was gross but not the increase. I yield back to mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Blumenauer you are recognized. By the way, as you are making your point i was thinking, your town halls are called on, youll get it back to your town halls are probably more interesting than mine. Well done. Mr. Blumenauer you are recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I really appreciate my friend from pennsylvania. In terms of areas that we as ray and i think if he and i were starting out and we had 1,000,000,000,000 and a half dollars to spend, on behalf of my constituents in his constituents i think we could come up with something. Infected think it will be much like what you would find out traveling all have to find out what people in ohio want. I suggest we go through that and we find that most people would say if youre going to have 1,000,000,000,000 and a half dollars you would not start with people at the very top. You will probably extend the earned income tax credit to the bottom 35 percent. I think they would want that. I do not think they want to take away the medical deductions for people in extreme situations that would really cause them great problems. I do not think they would want to change to change cpis of the brackets created. I bet if we go down to the coffee shop where we have our meeting, that your people would agree with my people that that is not where we would start. At the top with the inheritance tax. We could work on something on a pastor for Small Businesses that are really Small Businesses not hedge funds, not professional corporations and financial institutions. But focusing on real Small Business. Im convinced mr. Kelly, we could work that out and that is what is frustrating for some of us. You started at the top and not spending this morning on things that would make the most difference to the people that you and i both care about. Gentlemen, time has expired. You are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I listened to this debate and what concerns me is the people that are walking really will not listen to the facts. They will listen to the rhetoric that is being expressed because if you yell louder somehow is more persuasive. Lets look at the facts of the status quo which is being defended largely on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle before we came to address this. In the year beginning in 2008, just before we came here to congress. Eight years of the slowest recovery in modern American History. Two percent growth. This is eight years of the slowest recovery in modern American History. It was the slowest economic recovery since world war ii. The United States lost nearly 300,000 jobs in manufacturing. This is what we lost during this status quo. So what are we talking right now that would clearly create rates for americans across every tax bracket but we are really talking about jobs as well. The tax policy center. Again, factually looking, this would create 975,000 jobs. I just talked a little bit about looking at what people believe with respect to a tax reform could do. And when i looked at those who were investors, 77 percent said that they believe they actually had high hopes for growth in the aftermath of this. This is after what we saw during the other. Of the lowest recovery in American History. Now we have producers out there saying that 77 percent have high hopes for growth. And what is the most important priority for 41 percent of those . Lower taxes. When you go back to district where real jobs are created, everyone has a story. I am fortunate enough to have a plan in my district, one in which during the period of the tenure of my predecessor they were concerned about it closing down. The opportunity for global investment, they are not talking about 70,000 new american jobs because of the competitive global tax circumstance. It lets them compete across the country. And for every one of the jobs that is created, the most important thing is that these go down the line to the suppliers, to the people who service. The 3000 boeing workers at a plant of mine, five times as many more people will be employed. And those employees are the very same people. The ones that are making the solid, middleclass, american wage. American jobs for American Workers at a height american wage. This is what this is bringing. Not the status quo. And we keep hearing these presentations about returning to something and predictions. This is what the investors are saying we can do. But i look not through that but for the people that i know are going to be working tomorrow in my district. Because theyre going to have the ability to take this wage and as they demonstrated, these are the very same workers in which, because of the tax reform, they will have dollars in their pocket. And they will make the determination. In pennsylvania, it is estimated that this is going to create 39,673 jobs across the state. That is pretty significant growth. For a state like pennsylvania. These are the numbers, these are the facts. Those who are watching are going to be all impressed by the rhetoric. But look at the facts. Look at the opportunity and most important, compared to where we have been, compared to where we have been. The promise of where we can go. If you want to get stuck in the past, go back and put the wagon back in the right. Just stay with the old policies. We can be right back where we were 2008. To the lowest. In recent American History or you can believe in the possibility of the future and i know that the people who got real paychecks, real american jobs and in a district like mine through boeing, who appreciate that we reached for the future and compete globally with this tax reform plan. Thank you, mr. Speaker. Gentlemen yield back. You are recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think you for your comedy and the way that you have conducted the hearings. I also want to thank is your microphone on mr. Larson . Yes, it is. I would also like to commend the staff for a number of things that we ask of them in this crucible of having to bring forth a bill of absolutely no Expert Witnesses and so, everybody claims that they want to be about the facts. But we have not one Expert Witness who could talk about those facts. However, we do find ourselves in a situation where as the president lincoln would say, a house divided cannot stand. And so, we find in states of connecticut, even in pennsylvania if you are from the pittsburgh area, you find that your house is divided in that one set of middle income taxpayers is paying more than another. And that the apeter king have said, this is a massive tax shift from one group of taxpayers within the middle class to another group of taxpayers. Coincidentally, a lot of the taxpayer shifts were from blue states to red states. I am not shocked by that. I get it. This is a political document. This is what this is intended for but that is what the facts are. I would like to thank for looking at specifically, factually, zip code 06117. Household income of 125,000 and what they have come up with in three various examples is that people will in fact, be paying more. They will be paying more so that as mr. Neil points out before somebody who benefits from the estate tax had more than 1 million to get a break so that a working class family has to pay for it . That is the fact. Ronald reagan said facts are stubborn things. Mr. Blumenauer i think has argued and articulated that we ought to have an opportunity here to at least have this Circuit Breaker on this. And he has gone back and forth with what i think are very levelheaded arguments to try and appeal to your better angels. But this is not about appealing to your better angels. This is about 2416. That is what the vote will be at the end of the day on his amendment and every amendment but i will yield to my colleague from oregon. On that note of optimism, thank you. I appreciate my friend. I want to zero and for a moment on our friend from ohios notion that we have a spending problem. It is interesting. The republican budget, they have been in charge 22 out of 1822 years including the last seven in the house. They have unified government control right now. And although you can have budgets that sort of squeeze down the 302 budget allocations, they get so small that your appropriators cant pass the budgets. They can bring them to the floor because theyre not realistic. Republicans like them in the abstract. But when it comes down to cutting money for opioids, cutting money for transportation, cutting money for veterans. You do not have the votes. You cannot get them through. And now we are going to do this on steroids we are going to have increased pressure on the budgets. On things that you cant pass now. Because it is about the next election or is about theoretical activities or it is some magic Budget Amendment that will force us to do what we could do now but we are afraid to. Because the American People do not want it. And i go back to what i said. I would be happy to have some fun in ohio. And take the joy to have trillion dollars and take that into deficit and find out what people in ohio would prioritize. Repealing the inheritance tax . Or as we both want, put more money in infrastructure. Would we repeal the medical deductions for people who have extraordinary expenses . I dont think so. Would we have bracket so that people are going to be pulled up into higher brackets . And like what happened with Ronald Reagan, no. I do not think that is the test. I think we should at least have this Circuit Breaker and i will give you five years for the Circuit Breaker. But this is an important principle. Less time is expired. You are recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate listening to the discussion and debate this morning. I have ai think he is a good decent fellow. He finds himself in a position to have to defend a clunker of a bill. That is what this is. A real clunker. The average person, they are not w