otherwise. there's so much to celebrate here. i will just echo what my friend from wyoming said, all the slings and airline rows -- air rows on both sides of the aisle to all 0 three of you gentleman, always a kind word and a real commitment understanding the gravity of the opportunity that each of you have and the roles you play, and i wish that more of my constituent back home could see what that means, the level of commitment that each of the three of you have, not just your cob city opportunities but to the country and i thank you for it. >> the gentleman gaves back his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would be fairly brave but probably extend my communities and our time has only controlled two minuteses of the time. mr. chairman, you began this meeting by saying that the republicans were only giving people what they want.

well, as mr. neil pointed out the least public opinion poll on what you're selling here today only 27% of the american people want it. so i don't know which people you're talking but but the people of this country don't want this particular bill. they love tax reform that's fair, that's geared more toward middle income americans, that they believe will actually result in economic growth, but they don't whatnot what you're selling -- they don't want what you're selling but a 2009 say something here because mr. cross mr. woodl talked about the glorious process. i mean, this process is terrible. no matter how you want to look at it. quite frankly, getting up here and saying your proud of this process, that's offensive. that's offensive to us. i think it's offensive to the american people. that's review. let's review the process. to start they have zero -- let me repeat -- zero hearings on. the bill was jammed through the ways and means committee where every single democratic

amendment was blocked and member s had less than an hour to review the final text before voting. then the ruled committee used emergency procedures to meet on the bill da day earlier with four hours notice. a record break 51st closed rowell that was reported, block 1:40 democratic and republican amendments. and the senate things didn't get any better. again, there was zero hearings on the text of hr1, and senators received the tex of the final bill within an hour of the floor vote. the nearly 500 page bill was riddled with errors, last-minute edits illegible handwritten changes in the margins. after the bill was passed to the senate, sham of a conference committee was schedule and things goss worse. at 10 will 50:00 a.m. republicans revealed to the media that an agreement had already been reached. i mean, this political show

became abundant lit clear when con fearees learned they were prohibited from offering amendment or seeing the negotiated text. conferees weren't shown the text of the report until friday night. when they were expected to sign it. so the final text of hr1, which is over a thousand pages, when you combine the text of the bill with the joint explanatory statement was posted friday night at 5:30 p.m. you honestly telling me that every single member has had time to read this bill and fully understand ramifications? and here we are again at the rules committee, using emergency procedures to consider your tax plan that will add 1.5 plus trillion dollars to the deficit, to pay for texas caught ford corporations, and the president, by the way, while funding for our government hangs in the balance? want to talk about an emergency? let talk about the chip program which is run out of time.

and the president of the united states has so misrepresented what this whole process was about. i remember the there was a time when he said he himself and his family will get nothing from this tax bill. they are going to lose money. that is a lie. i'd like to ask you unanimous consent to insert into the record a lives our all these wonderful provisions that amount to wonderful christmas gifts for president trump and his family. >> without objection. >> that will make lots of money off of this. the president said that he wanted to come to washington to drain the swamp. i have news for him. after reading this bill, the swamp upon. all kind goodies that are tucked into this bill. goodies for big corporations. even a provision in here that basically allows -- opens up the arctic national wildlife refuge to oil drilling. what i don't know what the hell has has to do with tax reform,

controversial issue for maybe years but here its tucked in the so-called tax reform bill. mr. ross talked about opportunities. there's lots of opportunities i think here for people who vote for this bill in terms of fundraising because that's about the extent of who is going to benefit from all of this. i mean, again, we have a process that is terribly broken. it didn't have to be this way. for the life of me i don't understand why we couldn't have done this through regular order, couldn't have ban give and take, at mr. neil pointed out well, have done that in the past. republicans and democrats actually get together, get every -- you cited everything they want but you have a bill that goes to the floor and is not purely an up or down partisan vote and that's what this is. i don't -- we have heard today that, oh, this is a great bill

because it's -- it repeals the estate tax. as if somehow that's what every person in this country is clamoring for. well, the last time i checked something like 99.8% of the estates in this country owe no estate tax. 99.8%. only the wealthiest point 2% of americans owe estate tax. last year i think there were only 50 people that paid estate taxes in the entire country. so the idea this is what middle class is clamoring for, that small and medium size farms, small and medium size busien. business are clamoring for the estate tax. that's not the case. that's not what i bet most people on the committee are hearing from constituents. we heard that don't worry about the repeal of the individual mandate in terms of the affordable care act. well, don't take my word for it. i'd like to insert speak record the congressional budget office report which says as a result of

that little maneuver, the number of people with health insurance would decrease by 4 million in 2019, and that premiums will actually go up. >> objection. >> so, look, we know what's going on here certification one is cut tax ford the. we ya under the guise of some magical growth from ceos paying fewer taxes and and he workers lose took benefits. step two complain that the deficit that you have helped add is to exploding and that we need reduce spending and cut more, and establish three, and again, the speaker is ranking member pointed out, the speaker already showed his hand. step three is to go after important programs that millions of americans reef lie on. programs like medicare, medicaid, social security. and i just think that this is a terrible approach, not only to -- this is not tax reform.

this is just about taking -- giving rich people more tax cuts. this its not truly tax reform. the ranking member point it out that there was the other press conference, snuck you around where you handed president trump this little post card that said, every american will be able to do their taxes on the back of a post card. that turned out to also be a lie. i'd like to add -- ask unanimous concert to insert a story in "the new york times" entitled file your taxes on a post card question mark? a g.o.p. promise marked undeliverable. >> without objection. >> and, look, this is serious business, and it deserved a process that quite frankly was more respectful than the one we're following here and this is more than just about a press release so that my republican friends can say they passed something. this has long-term consequences. and the technical fixes to this

bill will probably be hundred's pages more when all is said and done. and that just shows that a lousy process usually results in a lousy product. we should have done this more carefully motion deliberately, should have been done in a bipartisan way, and at a minimum should have been hearings 0 where all these different proposals, which of which we're just learn about over the weekend added at the last minutes could have been vetted. so, please, spare us the compliments about the process. this process is lousy. and it is indefensible, and you can jam through a bill like this if you want because you control the house and the senate. but please don't defend this as some sort of process that is open and fair and deliberate because it's not and at the end of the day my constituents aren't going to be the ones who benefit from this. some colonels colonels and specl interests, lobbyists will benefit but any constituents are

not clamor ago for what you're trying to e sell here. i'd like to insert the article from in the "new york times" with billions at stake in tax ebait, lobbyists played hard ball." >> in the record. >> for my colleagues information this article showcases exactly who had the ear of this egregious bill's authors, lobbyists who opened up wallets and attended the fundraisers of public republican american and those writing the bill to they're point of view, end quote win. that yield back my time. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from louisville, texas, dr. michael burgess. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. bradie just feel compelled to ask you, it's been 31 years since major tax reform has been done. there is a reason why you take so long to do major tax re form? >> so, dr. burgess, this began as chairman ross said more than

five years ago. we have had 40 public hearings inies and means committee on tax reform. on these very issues. we have the markup four full days in daylight where every amendment was offer and at the end we said there are anymore you want to offer? anymore? that you want to offer? in all have been offed. that is a fair and open process. i'll just close with this. your point is i think a great one. less talking, more doing, it really is time to change this tax code. that's what we're doing. >> thank you. >> might i? there were no hearings on this particular bill. mr. ross you heard mr. mcgorge's views and your furiously scribbling notes. do you have some observations you wanted to share? >> the irony is it was leader pelosi who when she was speaker said we have to pass this bill so that you know what is in it and the irony is, she wasn't kidding. that bill was written in the

speaker's office as we know. i have an independent rex as minority member of the ways and means committee at the time when the affordable care act was debated in committee and we where are proposing to the chairman then i think it was charlie rangle and dave camp was asking when is the republican alternative going to be considered? and the reason i remember is he had the phrase, it's a gospel song. her said, soon and very soon, we're going to hear from our republican friends. of course that never came to fruition. so there's an i-y here. i mean, if you look at the news as of the last couple of days, this is not just stock buyback proposal. at&t announce is not just thunder the passage of hr1 and now reconfirmed we, at&t, based on the passage of this bill, are going to invest an additional billion dollars in the united states of america. that is the result of this piece

legislation, that's something to celebrate. i guess process is in the eye of the beholder, but i have -- look, there's a great temptation to litigate past activity and i always admonish myself never to do that but you just get drawn into it, and there's this provocation, but i think that this is a -- we can come to different conclusions about the process, but now it's ultimately time to make a decision about the merits of the bill, and reasonable people can differ. i go back to the disposition of the tribune, and it's my hometown paper but that they he valuated this, they said this will create prosperity and the sick tsk a vote against this is a vote in favor of the status quo mitchell friend on the other side of the aisle say we're not deferring the status quo but i argue they actually are and we

ought not squander an incredible opportunity. >> you are correct in not wanting to litigate the past but you have provoked me as well, and we were both here in 2009 with the passage of the affordable care act, and i do remember -- i remember a working group led by dave camp, and the rank can member often the health subcommittee was part of the working group and we worked late into the night through february, march, april and may of 2009, to produce the republican alternative. it doesn't sound like that was the activity that was going on coincidence with your development of this bill. i remember roy blunt convening meetings in the whip's office two times a week and we could come in with our healthcare ideas to talk about what the republican alternative might look like, so there was -- wasn't successful ultimately but

there was considerable energy spent in developing that alternative, and again, from what i've heard here today it was oppositional during the markup but as far as a grand vision for this is where we believe the country ought to go, those of us who have watched this can only believe that the alternative vision was, we like the code they way it is, and we like the growth of the economy the way it is, precisely your point that the "chicago tribune" made, and i actually somewhat shocked i'm agree withing the "chicago tribune" but there you have it. chairman brady, we talked a lot a year ago about one of the ought championed -- i'm sitting here next to the champion of the fair tax, and of course, i like a flat tax, and we talked about the simplification that might be available to us and that was actually one of the things that we talked about a year ago, the opportunity for simplification. we had to deal with the senate

so didn't turn out the way we both envisioned it a year ago. but doubling the personal exemption for significant numb number of people means tax simplification. >> the standard deduction by doubling it, we don't know that 90% of americans will file using a very simple system, joint tax will give us that number but the answer is many more than today will have a far simpler tax return. >> one of the argument is now i've come to ways and means committee and made the argue. immigrant might not be able to give someone back more money in their tacoma buts if i didn't have to make them miserable, give them back some time, that would be something, an accomplishment. now, someone has provided me with a list with every member of the rules committee and the percent of filers itemizing under current law and the median income for households and the tax cut for a married couple with two children, in the

district, looks like neimi district will get $3,400 back. so that sounds good. but what is missing from this and maybe it's because the answer is unknowable at this point and you just allude today joint tax providing us some additional information but it would be great to know percentage of filers itemizing under current law and the projected percentage that would itemize with the double offering personal exemption. obviously the number is going to go um. believe it's going up a lot. it would just be great to have a new make value to -- numeric value to assign to that. >> dr. bur just we got in the number from joint committee on taxation that says 13% of american taxpayers will have to itemize under this plan. they'll get their tax relief in the simpler approach. so it's nearly nine out of ten that it will be able to use a simpler signatures. those that don't there's a prone for it. we stripped the tax code down to

the basics. the post card, and said, this is not on tax code, belongs to you, the american people. what do you want so see? they wanted to see me medical and -- obamacare exploded out of pocket costs. they wanted help. teacher expenses. it's not a large amount, we as lawmakers his listen can back home, stayed lite do that, same as student tuition waiver, this tax bill reflects the pry ores of americans today. not 30 or 4050 years ago, and yes is it more than that we started with? yeah, but that's okay, too because this represents what they want. >> i represent a district that has two large public universities within it. i promise you i have heard a lot about the exclusion of graduate student tuition over the past several week, i appreciate your attention to that. and i acknowledge had you and i had that discussion last december i would have said that's okay could have the that graduate student exclusion in there but you heard from people, how important it was, and as a

consequence it is in the bill that is coming back to us. medical expenses, and -- rear repealing the part of obamacare that puts your until discussion from stenand a half percent up to ten percent and as you pound out correctly medical expensees have any measure increased significantsly since 2009. on the individual mandate and for me this becomes intensely personal, there is no part of thes could affordable care act i find more pernicious, more coercive than the individual mandate and redefines the relationship between the govern and those it purports to govern. the individual mandate is an enormous proposition and the criticism that we hear that we're going cut people off of medical insurance, i think mr. ross alluded to it. someone is look at the expense of their ballot shoot that

delivers no value and i've got do buy it because it's a law, why would i do that? you remover the law and i'm not going to undertake that activity that delivers no value to my family, and i might buy a policy that is not compliant. that actually covers the things need and protects my family at a price i can afford. i'll give you an example. we have a fox news studio in dale displays go down there from time to time and do interviews, and typically diane interview about health care so the little guy that was hooking me up and put thing microphone on and we do the interview and it's about health care and he is helping me undo it all and he said i hope you can get dish just heard you talk. i i hope you get that done because i got tell you right now, i'm paying the fine and that i've got go buy insurance policy that covers my family. it's cheaper for him to pay the fine and then go buy a noncompliant policy. we have freedom from that

onerous burden that this individual mandate placed upon him, and i don't know that people completely understand what a burden it has been for people. but talk but people losing their insurance, anybody losing a subsidy? >> no. >> is anybody getting cut off of their medicaid expansion under your pill and. >> none. >> no, so the that actually would be taking health -- arguably taking something away from shrub but you're not taking anything airplane from someone. just not coesting them to go in take that no normal person would go unless they were forced to do so but the tax code. let in the just ask a general question. the concern that this adds to the def simple. when i first started on the united states congress i was on the transportation committee. i learned what a finding of no significant impact was, and the

fonsi, what you do, an environmental assessment or -- an eis for a project, one thing you are by law required to consider is the no build scenario. so what is the no-build scenario with hr1 in there is a cost to not proceeding with this legislation? is there going to be an increase in deficit with low growth and under the current tax code? >> well, the -- yes. so, this comes down to this choice that we're being asked to make right now, and we can step back and stay, you know what? it's too hard, too overwhelming, too complicated and we will continue to sort of go along at this rather kind of bumpy pace of growth, and we proposing to do something different.

proposing to say that's not go that route. let's do something else. we're taking on debt. let's acknowledge it. speak to it. absolutely we are. but we take on debt in our own lives and night a couple of different fashions. only a personal level men of us take out a mortgage to buy something and what do we buy? something that increases in value. we're buying an asset that is ascending in value and makes all the sense in the world you use debt as a tool to -- in order to get that done. we also good out and we buy things and we go into debt for business and so forth. again, to purchase something that is foundational for the business that creates growth. what are we getting now? here getting a new tax code. that hasn't been updated since before the days of the internet with a commercial enterprise. since before the days when i.r.a. bnb and uthe shared economy existed and we're buying a new tax code literally. we're going out and paying for

one. then the thing we're getting is we're getting a more robust economy. my friends on the other side will criticize that and say it's just all pixie dust and nonsense don't think so. i think that what is actually happening here is we're making differences. we're learning from some of the tax debates of the past and saying, we're laying the seeds and the foundation for real growth. not to go back to the tribune editorial again are but they make this point and say, look, you like the way your 401(k) is right now? the 01k value have tax reform cooked into them of the. what to take away from that? walk away from tax reform and see a different enterprise. so, dr. burgess, yes, we're at really a pivotal point and i think what i'm encouraged by is is think the majority in this case has recognized it and said we're going to do this and the

difficulties of the health care debate chastened us and formed us as a group, and we recognized we ought not and we can't step back from this responsibility. so i'm not driven by the polling that mr. mcgovern cite e. when it comes down to is this is going to be eval bait the people that chairman brady mentioned at the beginning of his remarks, that is, those people who get real tax relief and then also in an environment and in an economy that is expanding. >> thank you, doctor. bush one and clinton twice. they had to come back and make adjustments based upon refer knew -- revenue decline. the act that mr. ross suggested is that he knows what this economy is going look like in three or four years, nobody this room that thinks the economy is going grow by 6% as the president says. getting north of 3% would be an

achievement. and when people say it's grown by 3% twice now during the trump years, i mean, i've been here for a long time. i've seen the vagueries of the markplace, the vagueries of the stock market and the suggestion that all of sudden noel now only growth isbaked into the projectioned. future success is not based on what happened in the past. this is a big roll of the dice. what is being signature here. borrowing $2.3 trillion because we know that it's going to be paid back through faster growth? not one of news this room knows that, doctor. >> again, i resubmit the question their cost of the no build option. where will we end up if we don't make this investment, take this -- follow this course. >> i argue that you continue to limp along with the status quo and would be the lost

opportunity of the lifetime, basically. >> i don't disagree that some of the games in people's 401(k)s the last year's time have been anticipatory growing there would be a reduction if we fail in this endeavor. i certainly don't intend. to thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> mr. chairman, dr. burgess, i have a belief that there are very few of us on the rules committee and perhaps in congress, that know as much as you do about healthcare, and i admire that, but i'm curious, when you say that all of the activity that took place on mr. ross' agreed with you that you all had task forces and you worked late into the night, after all of that, why then when you took the majority did you

all not pass a healthcare measure? i just am curious. i ask you that, dr. burgess, and i know you tried and i know the former health and human services director tried, but you all had the benefit of the majority and you didn't pass a healthcare measure. you spent time trying to repeal the existing healthcare measure, the affordable care act. >> i yield -- >> the gentleman will recall the white house was not of a mind to accept anything that republicans were going offer and you remember those discussions. you remember we are were working with the senate that was controlled by democrats and mr. harry harry reid was the may -- and weren't of a mind to -- >> we did pass a reconciliation nil december of 2015, and that reconciliation bill subsequently

vetoed by president obama became the health care bill offer at the beginning of this year. >> reclaiming my time. when you took the majority then and had the presidency, the senate and the house, why didn't you pass a healthcare measure? >> the gentleman will yield. >> i yield. >> the house did pass the reconciliation a big that passed in december of -- >> i'm not talking about the house, doctor. i'm talking about why didn't the republican majority pass a healthcare century. >> that's a question you need to pose to the united states senate. i believe the house did do it work. >> but you had the republican majority in the senate as well and i just want to point that out. >> if the gentleman will yield you recall in 2009 there were 60 democratic votes in the senate after arlen specter switched parties. we never had that -- enjoyed that degree of control of the

united states senate. it has been a one or two vote majority since -- >> we have spent a lot of time this year on repeal of the affordable care act, and i do want to set the record straight, in the house there were 79 bipartisan health insurance reform hearings, and markups over two years, 100 hours in hearings, 181 witnesses from both sides of the aisle, 239 republican and democratic amendmentes, 121 were accepted. 30 days of online review of the original house bill before the first markup and 72 hours, the number of hours on the house bill. so save time just ask unanimous consent to include in the record mr. neil's work on the affordable care act timeline, mr. chairman. >> without 0, so ordered.

>> thank you very much. >> i told you, dr. burgess knows more about this stuff than anybody. >> the gentleman has not yielded to the chair yet. >> the -- today i read an article written by paul krugman, and he said precisely what i feel this you all are doing with this measure. you're afflicting the afflicted and you are comforting the comfortable. afflicting the afflicted, and comforting the comfortable. one of the things that we are doing is a terrible disservice to the american public and mr. neil has pointed it out, that none of us know what two or three years from now are going

to look like. the upcoming spending bill, we're leaving puerto rico and the virgin island inside the lurch, wildfires all over the place in california, and today demonstrating our weakness in infrastructure the state of washington, a terrible train accident occurred, something that we probably should be dealing with. but here's where we are making a big mistake in all of us, the public understanding in this regard. we have not in spite of the fact we have seen an exploding globalization, we are not contemplating what that is going to do, not only to this particular tax measure but to our nation as a whole, and then

worst yet, when you come to benefiting corporations, you leave news the position of ignoring the rapidity of artificial intelligence in this country and what that is going to do to the job market, and it doesn't have very much to do with any of this stuff. i want to put another thing to rest. this business about stock market and your 401(k)? it's variable for individuals but during that same period of time, pension funds and all-time horror show. talked with a group of teamsters from michigan in the hallway they the day and they were agonizing about their pension fund. it's troubling. mr. neil, perhaps you can help me, is there any outside analysis that shows that this bill will lead to the growth rate that republicans are claiming? >> no.

there isn't. in fact, i think that even the joint tax analysis has come ban and suggested that maybe .8% growth at best, and in addition i think that my knowledge only been one right leaning think tank suggest there's growth. the otherred have said at best short of one percent. >> and any model -- let's use -- you cite to president reagan, president president bush, and president clinton, and i remember in the comeback, on tax increases, including ronald reagan, that's talked about an awful lot, my rex recollection is president reagan had to raise taxes. >> 11 times. >> and true of the bush tax cuts and true of the clinton tax cuts. >> the broader point you make,

is the following and it's right on target. ronald reagan and george burn suburb did not anticipate the collapse of the soviet union so they're additional revenue and then bill clinton decided that with the advice of alan greenspan they're going to keep raise low, pay down the debt. then greenspan says to us, if you recall in a mystical moment, you're paying down the debt too quickly because the deficit has been elabel nateed. this idea that even bush junior's years you know what is going 0 happen so we knew that 9-1-1 was coming. or that we all knew that recession was coming or we all know right now that afghanistan, after 16 years is going to be regular length quiched just don't know the things. my friend here suggest they are certain that this is all going to happen. there's no evidence that supports us are going to know that. >> i agree. mr. chairman i ask unanimous

consent to place into the record the statement of administration policy. >> without objection. >> i lift from the it that the administration strongly supports this measure and i don't think that comes as any surprise to any of us, cutting taxes for middle income families, simplifying the tax code and reducing business taxes so that american employers can create jobs, raise wages for their workers, and better compete with foreign businesses than bring back money that is currently held offshore. it was alluded to a moment ago but i couldn't resist pointing out the buyback amount that various corporations have announced since the senate passed its bill. ms. slaughter gave us the total number but what happens you should hear what -- perhaps you should hear what home depot did. 15 million, oracle, 12 million.

honeywell -- buybacks -- 6-1/2. bank of america, 5 million, anthem, boeing, five million. mastercard, unite airlines, it goes on and on, until it comes to that figure that mrs. slaughter pointed to. 750 million. it just -- it is astounding we would think that these people -- remember, correspond don't have consciouses and in spite of what romney said, they're not people, and their bottom line twice going to look at and when they get -- i turn to my colleague and i asked him a question and he replied to me that the greatest majority of the tax cuts that we are dealing with go to corporations. there is anybody here that denies that? of the three of you?

>> can you stay that it. >> i school mr. pollis what his thinking was and he shared with me that he majority of the taxes in this measure are going to corporations. is that correct? >> i'm not sure that is the case when you look at the family tax relief and then our small business tax relief who file as individuals. tear taxed like you and me -- >> you're letting them become the escort of themselves, those small business. are in neil, what's your take on this. >> they're already s corps. >> i think mr. pollis is correct. >> let me put in the record some of the organizations -- and these are -- that oppose this measure. and this is as of today. aarp, i ask unanimous consent,

mr. chairman, chairman burgessor, -- he's not there, either. i'll come back and clean it up. afscme is opposed to this measure. ask unanimous consent. the union of professionals, that's an american federation of teachers, organizations, and they are opposed to this measure. the alliance for retired americans, very important group to this measure, and they cite to the triggering of rules which require that tax cuts be fully offset or accompanied by immediate across the board cuts to many mandatory programs and that's why you hear all of us citing to the fact when we finish this measure, i have said

it on the floor and i say it here again, next year we will be talking about medicare and medicaid. we may not talk very much about social security because you are pretty afraid of that one but the other two i think you're going to hear a lot of talk about it. in addition, americans are against double taxation, a statement on the conference committee. this is a group that is uptight about the changes. the communications workers of america, the fact of our coalition, the american medical association, american health insurance plans, blue cross blue shield, company i do business with, american hospital association, the federal racing of american hospitals, all of them oppose this measure. the international association of

machinist and aerospace workers and the national committee to preserve social security and medicare, also opposed, and here comes a list that ought to cause all of us to take notice. the cancer action network, the american heart association, the march of dimes, how many of you as children raised money for the march of dimes with those little things you get the dimes and put it in and then carry it to school? the american lung association, arthritis foundation, the cystic fibrosis foundation, the multiple sclerosis society, the american diabetes association, the women heart national coalition. the epilepsy foundation, the lutheran services in america, family voices, project sleep,

distonya medical research foundation, the national alopecia foundation. i ask unanimous consent that all of these be included in the record, mr. chairman. mr. neil, am i correct in my understanding that the tax cuts for corporations, many of the other benefit in other words wealthy, are permanent? and so in my view at least will be nearly impossible to scale back in the future? >> that's correct. >> and how do you anticipate republicans will deal with the massive deficit increase that will clearly result from this bill? >> it's for certain if you dent get to 3-1/2 or 4% growth to pay down the debt they'll go after the entitlement initiatives they've already discussed, speaker ryan has already said that's what he intends to do. >> the working figure we are dealing with is anywhere from 1.3 trillion to 1.4. but i heard -- >> actually -- >> heard --

>> that's 2.3 trillion them federal reserve board raise interest rates on friday. >> tell us how that happened. >> they said they're going raise interest rates again, telegraphed to the country three more times next year so if you have more inflation, they anticipated down the road, going to raise interest rates again. this idea that you're borrowing money over ten years so subject to a series of rate increased. i don't know anybody heard they're going to cut rates. >> do you feel if this measure passes its would force at least a carter trillion dollar cut in medicare. >> i think that is the safe assumption. >> never happen. >> judge, that sort of thing --er in been true. republicans, democrats, since it was put into headquarters that hat never happened. i don't want to call it fearmongerring on behalf of our seniors, but it really is pretty close to that. >> we're. >> we may have hey differences but there's no need to --

>> we'll get a chance to see next year. you act like we don't know who the speaker is and what he has said. it's already been cited to in this measure. let me ask you something, mr. brady. talk to me in real terms. you and mr. neil obviously get along and that's good, but can you sit there and say to us that mr. neil and the other persons on the conference committee were in a conference the way that you and i and mr. neil and mr. sessions and mr. mcgone, all of us that have been around here, 15 or 20 years when they used have conferences and everybody got a chance to participate, can you tell me mr. neil had an opportunity to present his ideas in that conference? >> he did. in fact every member had a chance to spend time presenting their idea but also questioning mr. barkle of joint tax about the house and senate bills do.

>> >> was be per plated to offer amendments? >> are in neil. >> in the -- >> in the conference in the conference. >> in obamacare conference. >> this conference. >> there was no obamacare conference. >> no no time talking this conference. >> that one you wrote in secret. >> let's back up. >> republicans w. not allowed -- >> no, no i'm. no talk can becks. >> missed those. >> i'm not talking about the obamacare -- >> awe, okay. >> host: i'm talking about your conference. >> our members hey the opportunity to present ideas -- >> let ask you about one of those dirk. >> constant frees report to vote against it. >> i think you know what you are doing, and i think you are in error if you would have me believe that mr. neil, mr. --s miss caster and other people of that were democrats in that conference, including number stabenow and other democrats hat a meaningful input.

i've been on a conference and i had an opportunity to present my ideas on something as important as the intelligence of this nation, and i had an opportunity to off amendments that were made a part of the conference report. did any democrat sign this conference report? >> no, sir: it so sad because in your district, the average family of four will see a tax cut of 1,679s. they're not rich people. they're making $60,000. >> you got that right. >> those tax kurts matter to them. >> dirks i. >> i hope you'll step forward and support this tax relief. >> let me make it keir could toe you if you made them permanent then you we have had something like me supporting hilted but you made corporations permanent and you depend make those individual that you just cited to in my congressional district, permanent. there, i'll stand the test o voting against this because you

did not allow democrats to have any input whatsoever. >> so any democrat -- >> judge, any democrat quds have voted for this to make it permanent in the senate. >> that is not how the processes made. >> you talked about you could hardly wait to build the reel peel these tax cuts. ju just said you're eager to come back and stop your constituents from getting tax cut. >> you didn't hear me say that put i can ashower you i adopt what you just said. i don't have any problem with that. >> vote to repeal, so i just want to understand do. >> no association on to railroad now to make sure you end at the tax its for your family. >> i did not say that. juice i. >> but a you are now. >> i'm saying to you that this measure, i am going to vote against it in spite of the fact that you say those tax cuts are going to my district as well as others and you did this on the floor the other day, anybody that was talking, you talked about the tax cuts. that is one year. what happens in 2025?

what happens in 2025. >> you have an opportunity to vote to make them permanent. >> and i suspect, i'll have an opportunity in the majority because of what you are doing. let me ask a few more questions of mr. neil. if you do spaingle, mr. neil, what are their implications then of the deficit and what happens -- how do when it kicks in, what happens to this budget in its present form? >> i don't think that we can satisfy ourselves by suggesting, for example, that it's fearmongerring when it looms. it's out there. and it becomes a path to do entitlement reform, and i think

that all of us need to be mindle of that. the average social security benefit, judge, $15,000 a year. and there are challenges that confront medicare and' for all of us in a bipartisan manner going forward that we should be able to do takeup that challenge. the idea that you're going cut taxes for wealthy people here, remember, top rate goes from 39.6 to 37, and you got to go somewhere down the road for the rev enough if the debt and deficit explodes and it's been suggested that all we don't have 0 worry about what the federal reserve board is doing with interest rate increase is nonsense. >> mr. neil, were you in the room when the measure for master limited partnerships was put in this measure that we have here today? >> no. >> how did that happen? mr. -- i was telling you about reading on the way here. i read where senator corn

slipped this measure into the bill and i ham just curious about it because he also said in the article that i quote from, that democrats had every opportunity to participate in this measure. clear this up for me. where did that come from. >> i have sender on conference committees over my time. real conference committees here. and i must tell you that the fluidity of the give and take is instrumental in coming up with legislation that people can find common agreement with. this was anything but. that. >> that was the dodd-frank conference committee. >> i'm talking about going bag to the s & l conference committee. >> dodd-frank -- >> my first term here. >> the housing side back and forth were conference committees actually met it and was at the notion that of give and take. >> in the '86 tax bill, how many hears were held.

>> how many? 30. 450 witnesses offered testimony. >> how many in this particular. >> zip. >> and zip is not the football team. so, then, back to what mr. mcgovern talked about. i can't resist this. i heard you all touting in my dear friend, mr. wood al, touting how wonderful this process has been if want to say to him the republican majority made clear to them there's no such thing as regular order with the number of closed rule wes have had up here and this one is going to be a closed rule. there's no such thing as transparency, or bipartisan barnship when it comes to tax reform and perhaps because this bill was written to give tax cuts to your donors or at the expense of everyone else, this bill is going to be harmful in

many of these particulars. what effect, mr. neil, will the repeal of the individual mandate have for middle class americans and their healthcare coverage increases? >> it's estimated 13 million people will lose their insurance and that's based upon the assumption that $338 billion was taken from the subsidies for the purpose of offering tax cuts and i think if i just -- i know that the evening is wearing on all of us but i think there's another part of it that is something that we need to come to grips with and that is uncompensated care. i understand the argument about individual liberty and you shouldn't be told to do this or that it but why she rest of us be told to pay 100 decide on our own insurance people numbs to take care of those that don't have to good sense to buy health insures attendance? and he hospitals, it's uncompensate it okay. you're show up, 29 years old doesn't want health insurance and hit as tree on friday night

in his car. what we are going to sculpt -- suggest you bike insurance after your hit the tree? after the house burns down? and. >> what is interesting. >> it's risk. >> what is interesting about the affordable care act that has been attacked repeatedly by the republican majority, is in spite of the trunkate imtime period in spite of the lack of advertising money and the cutback on advertising money, as of the 15th of december, 13.2 million americans signed up for obamacare. that is 500,000 short of the time period that was extended and when money was spent to try to get people insured. i can tell you this much. i'm going to delight, mr. brady, in being able to say, i told you so and i'm going to delight in

being able to point out as we go along, maybe mr. neil will help me with this -- i pointed to the cornyn gimmick. there are other gimmicks in this measure? >> judge hastings, the mlp -- >> i was talking to mr. neil. >> there are series of issues that were taken up after the conference committee. >> after the conference committee. >> after, and during the conference committee, after the ways and means committee actually passed out of bill and after the senate finance committee passed on the bill. you seek what happened in the case of senator rubio, he city ford additional money. went to 13 hundred the child tax credit and i understand the idea of trying to figure out how to get to a majority but let's not make it sound as though this process was sanitized. >> were the llcs a part of the regular conference or did they -- >> not that it recall. >> came afterwards. do remember all of that business

before about the nebraska corn husker buyback? those were gimmicks and obviously were pointed to. my friend seemed to forget that along the way. mr. brady, you were going to say? >> the mlp provision was added in senate before it went to the floor, was voted on. that was not in conference committee. worked out between the house and senate. fully debated on the senate floor. >> now that you bring it up it does allow for 16 members of congress, both in the senate and the house, to make a ton of money, and ain't going to call no names. you know them just as well as i do. and somewhere along the line, however it got in there, it got in in wrong. and there's a whole lot of stuff, like miss pelosi said you have to pass the bill so you know what is in it? we're going to pass it tomorrow or wednesday or whenever you all

vote on it, and then we still won't know what's in it but somewhere along the line more and more will trickle out and when it does, then you are going to have hell to pay and i hope that it has a result that will allow for a change in the majority in this house sew so we can straight out the mess. >> the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm not going to do labor this bus i think it is interesting that as we talk about this, political terms but ms. my friend from florida just made a point to say that basically out of -- whether we agree or disgreet about long term effects and she said none of us know what the next two yearsing are going to look like. we no it could be good or bad.

we don't know. i'm in the military, nix day would could have a blowup and be in another war or kite actually work like what has been said. and we also know that is a fact that some people are going as we look at this, people are going to see real factually, and i think it's interesting to wish that to be bad, but, okay, i'll take my chances. i appreciate what you have done, chairman brady. mr. neil, one of the better witnessed from your side to couple here and i appreciate that. disagree with you've but that's okay. that's why we're here. that is -- i think i would rather choose to hope on the better angels. would rather choose to hope on the fact that this will help. and may seem small and we may smith 1,000 or $2,000 for a median family in each of the members of thite and say that's not enough or affects this. maybe i just used to say maybe that $2,000 to that family means

something to them that we in this room could never know. maybe we'll be start of a business that will actually add a job that adds to the next big decision, somebody has a job that start something that ends up affecting. i just choose to look on the better side. if that's the way we go, fine. elections come and go. for us up here we talk about that and that's great. we'll all stand for re-election this year. especially this side. the other ooh body does differently. at the end of the day, if you do what you feel is right, you feel that you have the american people and you try to help them, and i choose to stay there. i choose to look forward to voting for this. i'll happily go home and talk to folks who will get a tax decrease, will be able to help their business and we'll talk about the things that it may -- for those who don't like it but for this day and nor this night, i choose to look on the bright side of what we can do and

believe that america, when unleashed, can grow and continue to do the things we have. i thank you for your work and with that i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time trevor gentleman from colorado. >> thank you, mr. chairman. unfortunately this tax bill doesn't reflect a number of the priority its have in from colorado. one of them that i want to discuss with the chairman is there's some businesses in colorado that pay an effective tax rate of 70% and those are our marijuana businesses, both on the grow side, the dispensary side, and the reason they pay an effective rate of 70% is because they're not able to take deductions under 280e of the internal refer knew code so they cannot deduct legitimate

business expenses. so we're knock talking about deducting the cost of the product which people might have issues with, it's legal or illegal. we're talking about the payroll, the displays, insurance for employees, all the normal things that any business deducts, these significant number of businesses in my state that employ thousands of people are not able to, again, leading to a tax rate of over 70%. so i want to ask the chair, if we might be able to work on addressing that and if in the interest of pro business and cutting taxes for businesses, isn't it unfair that some of these business are taxed at a 70% rate? thank you for bringing that bill -- carlos is a leader along i think with you in this. he makes it compelling case. ... i understand there's a lot

of other good ideas but this one is kind of urgent and i just want to make sure the committee doesn't contemplate it with anything to do with that we are just talking about the payroll, things like that. >> the example you use runs contrary to the taxation.

>> i appreciate the work and i hope the committee can elevate the work on that important priority. and another priority i want to briefly address one you've probably heard about the increased use of crypto pendency like bitcoin. we have a bill that would provide exemption like other areas for six purchases of $600 or less for the reporting requirements basically to make sure the consumers who buy normal things, groceries, restaurant, $600 or less don't have to file tax implications i just want to ask about the status of that. >> a great member of the

committee has made the case and continue to work on that. >> there is a run up right now but it's not going away. there are others who use them who might even be out of compliance with the irs laws. one final bill that would bring up the crypto currency has to do with a product like other products like apple cider if it is left ou out it could fermentd

have a higher alcohol content and there is no clarity on how it is taxed. i was examining several pages of special treatment for things that blow up a whole content and i just wanted to say for mr. tipton and i priority would be clarifying the status of the tea products to avoid attacks on companies that are selling products that have been negligible alcohol content and i want to bring that to the chair's attention as well. >> you cannot be an expert on every part of the tax code. these are what the business is in my district are doing with a 70% tax rate you can imagine how upset the businesses or that are not sure about the taxation of their product and might face a higher excise tax even though it doesn't contain alcohol and of

course the concerns of the users not only in my district but i'm sure in yours as well. >> senator scott has gone on to great things in the committee, united states senate to be a leader on important conversations about race into the lead sponsor in the senate and my mama fo by one of the spn the house on the investigative opportunity act. i would have liked to see more things like this in the tax bill. it is not an incentive that is the way people can incur capital gains if it is reinvested in a targ a