[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] okay, lets go. Senator bennet we will turn to you. Mr. Chairman. It just seems to me was close to a quarter million americas children living in poverty and im sorry im calling up amendment 11. With almost a quarter for children living in poverty and the middle class struggling with lack of wages Early Childhood education is up and health care is up, that it seems to me we could have thought about a lot better use of this money then giving 39 billion to 1 of americans that are making over a Million Dollars a year and by the way its year after year after year. Thats when the deficit is so huge. Its year after year after year. I was at a meeting with some of my colleagues and President Trump called and im not saying anything that hasnt already been put in the newspapers but one of the things he said on the phone calling from asia was how terrible he said this plan is for the rich. I dont refer to people that way but he said turbo for the rich and he said what we know we are getting they are getting a 60,000 a year as a result of this plan and 90 Million People, not 570,000, 900 Million People are earning salaries of 50,000 or less good than talk about today are getting on average 160 which is 7. 60 a paycheck if you are paid every two weeks. I dont know what its like in the other states that colorados farmers and ranchers are not going to be ruled by talking about percentages in rates. They are going to follow the money and they are going to see 39 billion is money and its a huge amount that goes to 500,000 taxpayers in america. What is more galling about this is that its not paid for which means that our children are going to once again get stuck with the bill. They dont have a vote in this. The generation after them doesnt have a vote in this. They have only us, republicans and democrats working together and for years both sides have found it a lot easier to investments in archer was future and in our roads infrastructure bridges education and innovation while loading them with the debt. I know everyone in this room worries about that. That is why you are here and ive worked on so many projects with people on the other side of the aisle here. I believe it. I believe everyone in this room believes its a deeply unfair and deeply unjust. The question before us is a regal inn tease the burden of our children or are we going to add to it . I have said a lot tonight about my story about how we got to where we are. I know people in the other side of the aisle have a different story but whatever one thinks of out the specifics of this tax plan and we have debated them intensely this evening and i appreciate esther chairman the way you have run this meeting, marco. Surely we can agree that simply wrong to burden our kids with another 1. 5 to 2. 2 trillion of debt. We have no idea what challenges they are going to face and whatever it brings we owe them the freedom to make their own choices the same freedoms are parents and grandparents have the decency to provide for a bus bus. That strikes me as a reasonable responsibility of public office. My amendment is simple. It says any americanborn after january 1, 1982 would not have to pay for the 1. 5 to 2. 2 trillion in this new debt we will be creating with this bill. Middleclass people in colorado whether democrat, he independent or republican will not appreciate the fact that they and their children are being asked to finance and economic giveaway to people who have earned it. People at the top and i dont grudge them for being there but i think theres a lot better use of that money to help lift our middle class and left our children are poverty. That would be a worthy goal for us to have democrats and republicans working together in a bipartisan way and not saddling them with another 2 trillion in debt. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment and i appreciate the opportunity to offer it. Just briefly i would say you cannot tax your way out of the deficit and debt problem that we have. We have a fundamental structural problem which is that our big entitlement programs grow faster than the economy. As long as that is the case we are not on a sustainable fiscal path. You can fix that with any amount of taxes so until we have a bipartisan agreement about restructuring his programs so that they are growing at or more slowly than the economy we are making this problem worse. Id be delighted to work with anybody on both sides of the aisle to change the growth rate because its the trajectory of those programs that is the driver of our deficit and debt. Are we prepared to vote on this . I have 20 seconds left so id like to respond to my friend from pennsylvania. I would really like to work on this issue but to describe our position when the bill is providing 39 million in tax relief as punishing the rich and which is what you said earlier tonight i see it as a completely unfair characterization of our position. I agree with the 64 senators who signed the letter and 20 lebanon thing we need entitlement reform and we need tax reform. Unfortunately tonight we are only dealing with one of those things and we are doing it in a totally unbalanced way. Are right, the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the clerk will give the tele. 12 ayes, 14 nays. The amendment fails. Senator stabenow. Thank you mr. Chairman. I would call up stabenow wyden amendment number nine and this would make sure that 95 of americans arent cut out from the tax incentive for Charitable Giving. This tax reform proposal has the potential to dramatically reduce the amount of Charitable Giving and hurt our community and our people. I think this tax bill is estimated that Charitable Giving would drop by 13 billion and its hard to believe that colleagues would want that to happen. Im sure that people dont want it to happen but that is what is in this bill. Charitable giving would drop by about her teen billion dollars a year. Thats a combined total of all the donations to the united way, catholic charities, salvation army, ymca, boys and girls club, habitat or humanity and the American Cancer Society and 2016. Thats the combined Charitable Giving for all of those very, very critical organizations. Its 144 million meals for people in our country. Our amendment will allow many more americans to receive a tax cut through Charitable Giving. Tax or form should not be about freezing money for americans who are trying to help people in need or to put more money in the pockets of the wealthiest among us. Thats not right, its not fair and it will have a disparate impact on our community and on people across the country. I would urge colleagues to consider this amendment. Mr. Chairman we have made charity on this committee a bipartisan effort. Im particularly recursive senator thune. He and i think for close to five years not led a bipartisan effort and charitable deduction is a lifeline and not a loophole and i requested a brief board from the joint committee on taxation what they found is a charitable deduction would be cut by 40 next year under the house plan. As far as i know the bill we are marking up here today doesnt look much different. We are charitable people. We are anxious to always help. When the joint committee on taxation says the house plan is going to cut charitable donations by 40 that is trampling on the bipartisan effort that has been alleged in this committee for Something Like five years. Senator thune has been a great supporter of charities. Anybody else want to talk . The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] i thought someone was going to make a point that we are keeping charitable deductions in the bill. Thats right. By doubling the standard deduction those people who are taking advantage of that which their interestrate for a lot of families. 4000 bucks thats the reason Charitable Giving is being affected. I guess youd have to say you would like those people not to be doubling the standard induction which is a huge tax cut. I think a better economy is very important. I support Charitable Giving of course. We keep it and im glad we do and i think short of taking away a doubling of their standard deduction i think we should address the issue we are talking about and thats a good great. Mr. Chairman if i might. I would say two different things. First of all taking away the personal exemption for each child in your family is not a good trade for most families. The reality is that most families, if you have one child thats a loser. Secondly doing this means 95 of people in this country who file for taxes would no longer get any kind of benefit from the charitable deduction and i can only tell you that those involved in providing really important work across our country are totally opposed to this. They estimate that Charitable Giving would drop i 13 billion a year and so when we look at all of these important works that have been done by other charities. They are adamantly opposed. Mr. Chairman i want to get a phot but i cant let this thing stanford you said 95 of people who are able to now, thats not accurate. Most of your constituents take the standard eduction right now. So its 70 some already. Lets just be accurate. Would the senator yield . Shura. Mr. Chairman i believe the senator from michigan said if you have additional children you are somehow being denied a deduction but in addition to the standard eduction there is a Child Tax Credit for each child, correct . Double the current tax. If i might just expand on that because it involves putting the whole picture together which is wiping you put the whole picture together this is so skewed to the wealthy and the latest numbers show folks under 75,000 a year going to end up with tax increases because yes there is a double standard but yes there is also limiting the personal exemption and yes the child credit is double for working people will not get the benefit of that. If currently 1000 is refundable it goes to 2000 that all may an additional 100 of that is refundable so it goes to 2000 the income level that can then benefit from that goes from 75,000 for an individual to 500,000, half a Million Dollars so what keeps happening is you are increasing the folks at 200, three under, 40,000 a year to get a child credit by the only miniscule the increasing the benefit to working people because its not refundable. I think we need to go to a vote but let me clarify here it doesnt take anything away from people who get the doubling of the Child Tax Credit. They get a doubling of the Child Tax Credit. Someone with an higher income doesnt mean that they dont get it such just inaccurate. Would you tell us how much of the 2000 the new credit is refundable . The base amount that is refundable as 1000. Thats indexed so our projection is starting next year that would mean 1100 would be refundable. So its 2000 that working folks im going to get the benefit of 2000 so thank you. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the chairman votes no. The clerk will report the mr. Chairman the tallies are 12 ayes, 14 nays. Senator brown. Thank you mr. Chairman. I hope this is your last one. Is exactly my last. That would be great. If you were to agree to this it might be the last one for months. Holy cow thats an offer. This amendment is 21 modified hctz for opioids. Between now and midnight in my state someone will likely die of an overdose print statistics predict we will lose 11 no high wind to this epidemic, not predict statistics show we lose 11 no high wind to this epidemic every day. Right now 220,000 no high wind are getting Addiction Treatment because of coverage they got from the Affordable Care act. 220,000 no high wind and thats why governor kasich is against the medicaid cuts and why so many have around the country. This bill threatens their treatment according to the congressional budget office. Changes made in this bill in the dead of night as we know kick 13 Million People off of their insurance and that doesnt count increasing premiums. Thats not the issue here. The issue here is 13 Million People will lose their insurance under this legislation. This amendment is simple. He gives anyone who loses their insurance as a result of this bill a tax credit to pay for Addiction Treatment so 220,000 people in ohio and i believe the numbers 9 million nationally, whatever the number is. Thats 240,000 no high wind that are getting Addiction Treatment. Many of them lose their treatment because of his tax health care bill. They would get a track that tax credit to help pay for their treatment. Thats the least this committee could do to show working americans and americans that are addicted that we actually do care about them and not just talk about caring about them. Any comments . The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the chairman votes no. The clerk will report. The final tally is 12 ayes, 14 nays. Center wyden i guess guess agger turn. Thank you mr. Chairman. This is wyden 14. Recognized . Can that be recognize . Yes, sure. This amendment colleagues makes permanent twoyear Craft Beverages provision in the chairmans modification. What is in the bill is a twoyear version of the bipartisan Craft Beverages bill that i wrote with senator blunt. Its going to take a couple of minutes to describe why this shortterm version is tax reform done wrong and a major loss of opportunity. The legislation i wrote with senator blunt for giving booster shots to a growing industry is responsible for a lot of good paying jobs in my state and i think in the states of many represent here on the committee. We made a judgment with this bipartisan bill we could help industry grow. For example in our state we have grains and we have hops and people who make the equipment and truckers and hospitality. We have these big economic motivators. We are going to give the industry a chance to grow. The bill got 55 Senate Cosponsors and i guess at this point im not sure you can get 55 senators to agree that water is actually what. We got 55 on board. The house companion has to 96. What is in the chairmans modified mark is not our whole bill. Its a twoyear version of my bill and i want to be clear because ive done some homework on this, why this is a problem. First the Treasury Department has told us that the twoyear provision would expire before they could even write the regulation to implement it. Right out of the gate the shortterm version is going to be a dud but its not just an implementation issue. As i talked about last night with my friend from ohio i dont understand why they are interested in taking up a bill that wants to make a permanent change in tax policy with overwhelming bipartisan support and send us back to yesteryear with stop and go tax extender policy. With this shortterm proposal does is it puts the brewers cider makers and distillers in a position where every year or two they are going to come back to lawmakers to extend their tax incentive. 55 members of the senate and 296 members of the house say the bill ought to be permanent. The republican plan makes the shortterm initiative, takes us back to yesteryear. We have tax extenders. Talk about a full Employment Plan for lobbyist you are going to have all of these groups come back every year or two. Im just going to wrap up mr. Chairman by saying i think especially its important to note that the reason the Craft Beverage makers arent getting any certainty really doesnt have anything to do with the merits of the proposal just because the majority decided to spend their 1. 5 trillion deficit allowance on all of these big breaks. The multinationals rather than Something Like senator blunt and i have tried to do. Instead of a job creating build job creating toga we put forward Craft Beverage producers are stuck with the shortterm bill that i think represents a missed opportunity for a fair and site will invest in more than anything we talked about with mr. Bartholdi yesterday another example of how everybody on the other side talks about how its real tax reform. We have extenders and its going to be a real colleagues doesnt have to be this way. My amendment would take us back to the proposal senator blunt and i have offered and makes it permanent. We can do it virtually come everybody on this committee on both sides of the aisle cosponsored this legislation as well. We can either do that or we can proceed with something the Treasury Department has told us is going to work. Its not like we are making it up here. They told us the twoyear provision would expire. Mr. Chairman if senator portman would like we can go back and forth but im ready for a vote. I dont recall our conversation but i do know we have reached out to see if you could offer an amendment. I would say to my colleague we have never had a conversation about it. We did have conversations. We have this wonderful thing called phones. I would just like to the chairman for putting it in the mark because this is an important bill. I supported in many of the people in this committee or cosponsors of it. The wine institute, wine america the distilled beer counsel the American Craft beer also support the amendment and senator blunt support the amendment that we were able to get into the chairmans markup. Its one that my colleagues on the side of the aisle have a hard time with. Love to make this permanent and id love to work with you on this. You have been a leader on the senator wyden as ive said. Reinstating the taxes something that will take away a benefit from some of these companies that would be looking for a benefit that are trying to expand the opportunity in this area of craft breweries in craft distilleries so its kind of taking with one hand and gi