Meeting will come to order. Weve had a lively back and forth. The one thing we havent done is process any amendments. I want to talk about the plan for how we will proceed this afternoon. Before that, id like to say just a few words in summation of this mornings debate. So far today the debate has been almost entirely about the meeting of the latest jct distribution table. As the discussions went on, weve seen in some smoke and mirrors and weve seen members talk past each other and weve heard our share of strong arm arguments. Cutting through all of this, here are the basic facts that should at this point be beyond dispute. First, nothing in the mark impacts the availability of the Insurance Premium tax credits. Weve heard the chief of staff of jct specifically tell us that was the case. Second, nothing in the mark discourages anyone from taking advantage of available tax credits to sub sidize the purchase of insurance. Mr. Barthold confirmed that. Third, the distributional effect weve seen that results in an increased tax burden in lower brackets is recorded rooted entirely in jc its behavioral assumptions about tax care voluntary choices. That was confirmed as l. But it doesnt end there. Fourth, the behavioral assumptions regarding the yutlization of tax credits do not result in more taxes being paid by those in lower brackets. We all heard mr. Barthold say the volunteer decision to forego a premium subsidy credit does not increase the taxpayers income tax liability. As a senator from pennsylvania indicated, when someone chooses on their own accord to not take advantage of a tax subsidy, one that is not, not to them but to an insurance company, they dont owe the government a single additional dime in taxes. So distributional table or no, its absurd to call that a tax hike. I havent heard any of my colleagues really try to argue otherwise. Most of them have conveniently side stepped that particular plan plain basic truth. The final fact that was plainly established this morning was this. When this specific behavioral impact of repeating repealing the individual mandate which no one can reasonably argue is a tax increase, is isolated and removed. The chairmans modified mark cuts taxes for every income bracket with the largest proportional benefit going to those in the middle class. There is a jct boudocument to t effect and weve all looked at it. So let me state the plain conclusion that stems from these facts which at this point should also be beyond a reasonable dispute. Under our plan, every income group will get a tax cut. And the biggest proportional tax cuts will go to those in the middle class. And quite certain of my colleagues will want to respond by once again citing the number from the table absent any context and ignoring the fact that our interpretation of the data has been confirmed by the expert at the table. But at this point, it is time to move on. This morning once the distribution table was released, i gave members of the committee an additional hour to go through it. Knowing that it contained a lot of information theyd want to discuss. Then we had roughly an hour and a half of upscheduled debate entirely on the information contained in the distribution table. So i think ive been more than accommodating on this particular point. In a moment i intend to turn it over to senator wyden for any additional comments hed like to make. After that were going to start processing amendments. We have an agreed upon cue of amendments, so well begin there and keep going for as long as it takes. If that means coming in tomorrow, so be it. But i have a feeling some members would rather finish this evening. Well have to see where it leads. With that ill turn to my friend and the ranking leader senator wyden. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Im going to be brief. And just point out that the joint committee on taxation, those are the folks the taxpayers, all the people listening to this, watching it, they have their tax dollars go to the joint committee on taxation to analyze these kinds of proposals. What we got in effect tuesday night at 10 30. And i know the majority has done somersaults to try to dismiss the findings. I have enormous respect for the economic talents of our colleague from pennsylvania. I told them during the break i thought he was in a tax ability, my partner on the first bipartisan one. But despite his psychoanalysis of a joint committee on taxation table, and he certainly made a case that might sound attractive to some, the figures on the bottom of page 6 of this distributional table dont lie. What the joint Committee Said is money is going to come right out of the middle classs pockets to the folks, for example, who make 1 million and over. And i will tell you, colleagues, i had a sense for quite a while that the majoritys numbers didnt really add up. And i thought what would happen is the majority would say just go to the multi nationals and tell them youre going to take a haircut. Youre just not going to get all the benefits originally promised. They didnt do that. In effect, they went to the middle class and couldnt just give them a haircut. They kind of got scalped. Theyre going to, if you look at the bottom of page 6, if youre making 40,000 to 50,000nd, youre going to pay 4,070 more. Thats what you lose. And if you make 1 million or more, you get a tax cut of getting close to 6,000. So everybodys entitled to their own opinion. I dont think youre entitled to your own set of facts. As i touched on today. And i think we also know that this does relate to behavior. Ive said from the very beginning, in my conversation with senator toomey, a lot of us over here feel that behavior does matter. But behavior also involves the chance to get Affordable Health coverage and because of the majoritys desire to repeal the individual mandate, the Congressional Budget Office has said that for millions of middle class people, health care will no longer be affordable. That their premiums will go up by 10 . And thats what my colleagues have said. So that was really the point. Maybe you get a little break on the income tax side, but you go even further in the hole because of the increase in your health Insurance Premiums. So im not going to continue this, mr. Chairman. You and i have talked about the process going forward. Weve got some discussion that we will have. I just want colleagues to know before anybody talks about dismissing the work of the joint committee on taxation, there was a reason why i said tom barthold and his staff are very professional. And now we see it in the facts that they have given us with respect to the fact that not only are the tax cuts permanent for the multinationals, for the Multinational Corporations and temporary, to the middle class we see a very unfair distribution of that revenue. Mr. Chairman, that will conclude my remarks. I understand that you wanted to describe the process going forward. Well have a discussion about that. Were going to go to amendments now on each side. There will be five minutes to each side equally divided. On any amendments that come up. So im prepared to vote. Mr. Chairman, can i be recognized on that point . Sure. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As the chairman and i have discussed, the chairman has the power to call for a vote on an amendment if as the rule says, quote, he determines that the amendment has been adequately debated. He or she. But i hope that the chairman will exercise this power as he historically has in a reasonable and fairway. That is, what the chairman has always done in the past and as he and i have discussed, i have tried to be supportive of efforts to be fair to both sides. Now, the markup began on monday. We didnt get the real text of the chairmans proposal until tuesday night at 10 30. Following the schedule established by the chair, we began offering maamendments yesterday morning. We considered 14 amendments. I do not believe, colleagues, any member was dilatory. Just trying to stall things out. I believe it is appropriate for the chairman to allow i reasonable debate on each amendment without arbitrary time limits. There are issues, colleagues, today with extraordinary implications. Were going to consider the proposal to repeal the state and local Tax Deduction which involves 1 trillion in tax revenue and would be the most significant change in the fiscal relationship between the federal and state governments in more than a century. Possibly ever. Were going to consider the majoritys decision to make the tax cuts for families temporary. The tax cuts for multinationals permanent. Were going to consider how this Midnight Health care repeal amendment is going to affect the Health Care Coverage of millions of americans. I feel strongly that members should get a full and fair opportunity to debate. As ive indicated to the chairman, and weve talked about it with our colleagues, if somebodys dragging thing out or saying something thats just repetitive, we understand well work with the chairman to move things along. On the Affordable Care act, we started our markup on tuesday, september 22nd, 2009. The final vote to report the bill out of committee was on tuesday, october 13th, 21 days later. Markups of eight days. 64 hours. Over 500 amendments filed. Consideration of 120 amendments 70 roll call votes. On the 86 tax reform bill which always used to be considered the Gold Standard for bipartisanship the time from the beginning of the markup until the end was 48 days. We recognize your power to call for votes. Youve always been reasonable and fair and i just want to take this moment to say particularly on some of these votes that are especially important, that are precedent setting, i hope you and i can Work Together so that members can get a bit more than five minutes. I hope so, too, but i intend to allow five minutes for each side on the amendments. If we need more time, ask for it. We will. Count on it. Count on it, but i dont want to have that happen on every dog gone amendment. If thats the case, then were going to set more rigid rules. I dont intend this to go on forever. Its just the way it is. As far as im concerned, the mark is open for amendment. Mr. Chairman. Senator brown. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This is listed as brown Casey Bennett number one. For the past four days, democrats, one after another, have had one piece of advice for a republican colleagues. If you want to cut taxes from the middle class, then cut taxes for the middle class. We started with a bill that gave most of the tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy. Then in the middle of the night, mr. Chairman, you gave us a bill that made the tax cuts for corporations permanent and the tax cuts smaller, of course, but the tax cuts for working families temporary. Now you have a bill that raises taxes on every working family in the country and takes away health care for millions. Its all to finance permanent tax cuts for corporations and as weve demonstrated from the questions and answers weve had with the professional staff, many of these tax cuts go for corporations that outsource jobs as this new bill accelerates the outsources of jobs. Theres another bipartisan way. This amendment, the brown Casey Bennett amendment does three things. To put more money back in the pockets of working people. Rewa work. By expanding the earned income tax credit to workers without kids. Right now, these workers literally, because of the payroll tax these workers single workers can be taxed into poverty, taxed into poverty by the government. This amendment will fix that. Second, mr. Chairman, it expands the Child Tax Credit to help working families. It lets them start applying the credit on the very first dollar they earn. Why would you not want to incent that . Third, it creates a tax credit to help families afford children, which is critical for working parents. I want to thank senators casey and bennett for their work on this. We have been on this for a long time. They both during their careers devoted a lot of effort to childrens issues and especially Something Like this. Every single democrat on this Committee Supports this amendment. Ive heard it said over the past two days, that republicans want this process to be bipartisan. That they want democrats to be part of the process. Well, this idea has universal democratic support. Its an idea that President Trump at the white house, and we were in the library of congress on the telephone, told me he supports. Most importantly, its something that puts real money into the pockets of working families. Families making 25, 50, 75, up to 100,000. Include this amendment, and we change the conversation on tax reform. Build this whole process build this this is a major, major amendment that will put real dollars in the pockets of working families and middle class workers. Build from this. We can have a bipartisan process. We show the people we work for tax reform that really is about cutting taxes for the middle class. And i yield to my two co sponsors. Thank you, senator brown, for your leadership. Recently, i met a mother in rifle, colorado, at a daycare center. We were having some conversation earlier about single moms. She told me, ive got a job so i can have Health Insurance. And every single dollar that i earn goes to pay for this Early Childhood center. And theres so many people in our states that are like that. Too Many Americans face this vicious cycle forced into impossible choices their parents and grandparents never had to make. Consumer spending drives 70 of our economy. And when costs rise and wages stagnate, as they have for middle class families in this country, families cut back on gracious, be on school supplies, even on health care. And that hurts our economy. Thats why our economy has been slow. Not and thats the problem that we should be addressing. And with that, ill turn it over to senator casey for the last minute and five seconds. Lets have the chair recognized. Im sorry. Okay . Im sorry, mr. Chairman. Thats okay. But from here on in, lets ask the chair. I apologize. Thats okay. No problem. I just want to establish a situation. I understand. So we dont run into just a constant hubbub of irritation to everybody, okay . Go ahead, senator. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just in one minute, the child independent care tax credit is the only federal tax credit that specifically assists parents with child care expenses, but very few families are able to benefit from it. Just in 2016 alone, 65 of the benefits were estimated to accrue to families with adjusted gross incomes of above above 60,000. We want this to apply to most working families. We want to make sure that families can benefit so they can go to work every day, if thats what they choose to do. And be able to benefit from the security of knowing theyre going to get help with child care, which, for most families, most working families, might be their number one worry. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me say a word or two. The mark is designed to reduce tax rates across the board with a specific focus on providing overall tax relief for the middle class. Weve all worked to maximize Child Tax Credits, as well as other tax benefits, for families in the form of lower rates. And increase standard. Weve increased the refundability and the overall availability of the Child Tax Credit so that larger credit can be claimed by more middle class families. I guess what im getting to is, let me ask the i understand the people if people believe we shouldnt have been more generous, but i believe we have balanced the necessary factors and resources to arrive where we are. Therefore, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. But let me just ask mr. Barthold just one question. Does the amendment score as revenue positive . We have not been able to do a formal estimate. But all of the provisions in it, as i read them, would reduce the would reduce revenue relative to the chairmans mark. So it does not score as revenue positive . Mr. Chairman, if i could. Mr. Chairman . Over here . The offset or the exit tax in striking the amt the individual amt repeal, according to a letter from mr. Barthold. Well, are you prepared for a vote . Yeah. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Grassley. No. Mr. Crapo. No. Mr. Roberts. No by proxy. Mr. Enzi. No. Mr. Cornyn. No by proxy. Mr. Thune. No. Mr. Burr. No by proxy. Mr. Isaacson. No by proxy. Mr. Portman. No. Mr. Toomey. No. Mr. Heller. No. Mr. Scott. No by proxy. Mr. Cassidy. No by proxy. Mr. Wyden. Aye. Miss stab now. Aye. Ms. Cant well. Aye. Mr. Nelson. Aye by proxy. Mr. Menendez. Aye by proxy. Mr. Carper. Aye by proxy. Mr. Carden. Aye by proxy. Mr. Brown. Aye. Mr. Bennett. Aye. Mr. Casey. Aye. Mr. Warner. Aye by proxy. Mrs. Mccaskill. Aye. Mr. Chairman. No. Chairman votes no. The report. The final tally is 12 ayes, 14 nays. The amendment is defeated. Mr. Chairman . Were going to keep trying to be bipartisan. And this was an amendment that really did give the middle class a tax break. All kinds of working families. And the president supported the idea. And i dont know where we go to become bipartisan. Were going to keep trying. I hope youll give us some guidance. Keep trying. Real tax policy thats bipartisan. Senator wyden. Senator wyden. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And i guess apropos of senator browns comment, well have a chance now to be bipartisan. I have amendment 161. I guess its senator wyden 17. Several of my republican colleagues have said theyre on board with making the individual tax cuts in the bill permanent. This amendment is your chance to do it. And to pay for it. What we would do here is make the individual tax cuts permanent and make the Corporate Tax cuts temporary. And before we get to debate, heres why i think this is necessary. The individual the middle class person drives 70 of the Economic Activity in our economy. These are the people who buy houses and they buy cars and they pay for education and they pay for child care. And it just seems to me to give them short shrift with a temporary break, and say that the Multinational Corporation should get their relief permanent, shows that what this has been about from day one is to write into black letter law a double economic standard. And it seems particularly unfair, given the spectacle that we watched on television involving mr. Gary cohn,