>> so, as you and i spoke briefly before we gavelled in, what i will do is defer these questions to chairman brady upon his arrival. i'm obviously not going to make a decision that bonds the chairman. i understand the nature of the argument and appreciate your willingness to thin the herd in terms of the amendments that are the highest priority of your members and chairman brady will engage with you substantively as the ranking member upon his return. is that acceptable? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> are there further amendments? mr. pasquell?

>> welcome, mr. camp. i want to just finish what said earlier. >> mr. chairman. i would like to reserve a point of order. >> reserve a point of order. >> i will not duplicate what i said earlier. i'll just get to the back end. >> sir, you recognize on the amendment. >> you had the amendment at the desk. >> will the gentleman suspend while it's being distributed? >> the corrections have been made, mr. chairman. >> mr. smith withdraws his point of order. recognized on the amendment. >> so, chairman, this is the amendment which goes to every disaster that has occurred recently.

just winding this up and winding this down when the challenge came to the amendment. that needed to be corrected was a deadline in there for the medicare aspect of this thing. we have taken that out. there's no question. so why puerto ricans today do not file most recipients on the mainland do not make enough to file either. puerto ricans pay federal pay roll taxes and pay social security and pay local sale taxes. this is a simple matter of fairness. and it would bring needed economic relief to families struggling to recover from hurricane maria. in addition, insurance residents of puerto rico could receive the full credit tax trial as residents of the mainland do.

the federal government administered today puerto ricans are unjustifiably left out. as many colleagues learned the hard way, after refusing, refusing to provide aid to victims of sandy, natural disasters can hit anywhere at any time. if my colleagues want to ensure that tax relief will be there for their constituents whether it be fire, water, whatever, they find themselves in need then they should support my amendment. so, i yield back, mr. chairman. make the case. let's see what we got. >> gentleman yields back. any members seeking recognition? i'll recognize myself. mr. neal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a very brief statement in support of the amendment. i have i believe the third largest number of puerto rican

constituents in america. 700,000 people and i'm very, very supportive of this proposal that has come and i think getting aid to those people on the island who still don't have power after weeks is a very important consideration. >> gentleman yields back. the others seeking recognition? >> mr. larsen. >> yes, i would like to associate myself with the remarks as well as mr. neal share a very large portion of puerto ricans but not only puerto ricans but americans in general who are concerned about what is happening to their fellow american citizens. so, his amendment is much needed and aempthetic and caring and te way americans respond when americans are in trouble and in need of assistance. >> mr. thompson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak in favor of what mr. paskrel has provided.

as you know from my earlier comments that i experienced one of the worst decan zasters in the country. the fires in california that just devastated, burned entire neighborhood to the ground. i have constituents who had to run out of their house as their home was on fire. they didn't even have time to grab their medicines or important papers. but as i said earlier, this isn't just about my district. it isn't just about the hurricane areas, this is about every one of us on this, every one of our colleagues in the house and every single constituent that we represent. this is about the next disaster. there's going to be a next disaster. and after that, there will be a next disaster. and we have an opportunity to make sure that with this amendment that survivors of natural disasters are treated equally. and that we could make sure that individuals and businesses are

able to recover and to rebuild. the provisions of this amendment are important to the victims of a disaster. and i tell you when people are trying to pick up their lives after disaster, they shouldn't face more obstacles and they certainly shouldn't face obstacles from the federal government. we should be supporting measures to help them get back on their feet, help them get back to work and help them rebuild. and that's what makes us a great nation. we come together of a history of coming together to help our communities. we should leave no american alone to pick up the pieces. so, i urge that this amendment be adopted and that we stand with those that we represent and who are experiencing the just devastation brought on by a disaster. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. on the amendment.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, want to support the amendment. i think it's really important that all of us really show the empathy that our colleagues are going through. i know when i first got elected my district, the university of alabama, tuscaloosa, birmingham got struck by horrible tornadoes and this body helped us out. congress came to the rescue and really helped us recover from that. i want to also make mention that mr. and i think that's really important to make that point because our american citizens in the virgin islands were dramatically affected by the hurricane, as well. so, i just want to echo my support for this amendment and ask for its passage.

>> yields back. ms. black on the amendment. >> obviously, when people are in disaster situations, we want to be there for them especially when they're life threatening but then also help people to get back on their feet. we are, after all, a nation of people who look after one another. we are founded upon that principal and we continue to do that. those circumstances since i've been here over the last seven years, i don't recall there being a time when we didn't respond when there was a national disaster and a natural disaster and to help. earlier this year, congress did advance the disaster tax and relief and airport and airway extension act of 2017 that addressed that devastation that was caused by harvey and irma and maria, which, gosh, we haven't seen that in a very long

time. but that legislation was targeted. at those particular situations, which really is the right approach because then all of the situations are not the same. and not the same amount of money is needed and not the same amount of resources. matter of fact, i had an opportunity to be with the surgeon general, the new surgeon general the other day and we were chatting about these, what, what had occurred both there in puerto rico and also the u.s. virgin islands. and one of the things that he talked about in his observation is that not necessarily were there not tools there that could be used, but just the coordination of those tools was a real problem because there were supplies and people willing to help. but because of the lack of coordination, those in some areas were not getting the kinds of services that they necessarily needed. so, i believe that we really need to take a look at our response. making sure that we are well

prepared and i know it was extraordinary to be able to have or to have five, or, excuse me, three class five hurricanes in this short period of time and in different parts of the nation really distressed the situation. however, i would say that we should determine the right relief that is necessary, the exercise with respect to that new situation. >> will the general lady yield? >> i will not. i have 30 second left. but for now -- i do urge us to reject this amendment and focus on some structural comprehensive tax reform legislation that is in front of us and to continue to work together for disaster relief legislation in the future and mr. pascrell, i would be happy to work with you on a comprehensive plan. not just for the dollars, but to make sure that we are having a comprehensive plan for these types of disasters that do occur and i do yield back the balance

of my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i join with my colleagues who have expressed support for the pascrell amendment and i make a point that the city of chicago has circled the wagons on puerto rico. and for the last two weeks or more, many of the churches, synagogues and other public entities have had rallies collecting money, still doing so. much of it led by the reverend jesse jackson and operation push and i now yield the rest of my time to mr. pascrell. >> thank you, mr. davis. i cannot believe the young lady who i have a great deal of respect for worked on the pass of the budget committee is making the statement that everybody's treated the same. let me tell her what happened in sandy's case. 180 republicans voted no on

sandy. that is not to add insult to injury, not only did they vote no, but sandy never got the aid specifics that came from katrina in terms of property damage, insurance, all of that. they're all different. how can you sit there and say -- you, obviously, didn't, number one, read the bill. second, the amendment, i'm sorry. and, second of all, there are so many instances i could point out where -- >> gentleman yield. >> where people got treated differently. sure, go ahead, i'll yield. >> i think we just got this amendment put in front of us a few moments ago. it's a lot to read. if you want to have maybe a recess and we'll read the bill. >> i hope you extended us the same courtesy to read your bill. you know what's good for one is good for all. that's all i'm saying. it's called democracy. we ought to try it once in a while. it is or it isn't. it exists or doesn't exist.

all i'm saying, treat everybody the same. 180. and some of the very people who i went to their district when they had a catastrophe still voted no. you call that equality? oh, so what's good for this group is not good for that group. who are we kidding here? read the facts. read the facts. we're not second-class citizens. nobody is in this country. i yield. >> mr. kelly, on the amendment. >> thank you, chairman. i was actually here for sandy and when you talk about people who voted against that piece, they didn't vote against that piece because they didn't want to help the sandy victims. i think what bothered more than anything else is all the other 49 states said, well, i'll vote for it if you throw something in there for me, too. i remember it very clearly because my concern was for those folks that lived under that specific situation that really

had been deeply hurt. then i watched, okay, i get it. so, i take a disaster and try to tap into it on a lot of different issues on the other 49 states or other areas that weren't affected. all of a sudden get our hands into a pot of cash that is supplied by hard-working american taxpayers. listen, i don't think there is anybody in here that would ever say we didn't want to help the people in puerto rico. we didn't want to help the people in texas. we don't want to help the people in california. we do and we do it specifically to when that happens. and when it occurs. right now we're involved in a tremendous effort to change our tax code so that we get positive growth. so we get a huge lift in our economy. we had this dynamic situation that america has always been known for. and i understand why you want to put these things in. i get all that. i don't disagree with you. certainly, we want to help people. but can we keep it specific to what it is we're working on

today. as these issues coming up because i don't know. >> excuse me, mr. pascrell, it's my time. let me just finish. >> you finish. >> when harvey happened, that was exclusive. >> relax, don't get hot under the collar. >> it's my time. do you mind? it is my time, mr. pascrell. >>i i'm just asking -- >> this is a habit that i think -- you know what, i'm glad this is on tv so that every american can see what's actually going on here. so, we pick on a disaster and we say you don't want to help these people, i can't believe you didn't want to help these folks and you turned your back on them. no, we didn't. we turned our backs from nobody. we tried to help out and what happens? everybody says said this is a free for all. let me grab something that i want to help out, too. i'll bring something to the picnic. listen, we can keep going on ad nauseam about what we're trying to do.

comprehensive tax reform is what we're working on right now that makes sure every american has more takehome pay and we can compete globally. i tell you this, a dynamic economy, an economy that is really going on all eight cylinders and turning things out and just really capturing what it is that we are as americans is where we have to go. i understand your concern. i share that concern with you. yes, i would love to help these people. you know what works? i can't tell you how many times my heart has been willing but my heart has been weak. let's emamake sure we get it healthy, again. i'll gladly get with you any time there is a disaster to help those folks that are directly impacted by it. >> agreeing on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying roll call is demanded. further proceedings of the amendment will be postponed. >> mr. chairman, can i ask

consent to have this record from the double taxation group and talking about the negative impact of the state and local tax deduction being removed. >> without objection. >> numerous members of the republican party and the congress are listed here speaking out against what you're trying to do in this bill and talking >> mr. chairman, ton last amendment? >> what's your point of order. a report that determined that every provision was justified in hurricane sandy. >>. >> i have an amendment at the desk.

>> i reserve. >> reserves the point of order. will the gentle lady suspend while the amendment is being distributed. >> mr. chairman, i withdraw. >> he withdraws. >> thank you mr. chairman, when chairman brady was advancing the path act last congress, a bill that i supported he said quote as we all know too well how our country manages its tax code makes absolutely no sense. how can families and local businesses vote on tax relief each year as long as congress can't decide what's permanent and what's not? he also said americans will no longer have to worry if congress will extend certain tax relief measures they have come to rely on. now here we are.

just about two years after that bipartisan legislation passed with the chairman's praises for delivering certainty to families, starring down, we are starring down at a bill with provisions that will expire, leaving working families with a tax increase for massive corporate tax cuts. we are doing nothing at all to address things like the cadillac tax, the permanent repeal for which has been a bipartisan for at least as long as i have been in congress. it is intended to be a narrowly targeted tax on the most extravagant plans. the tax will hit working families because of a variety of factors beyond their control like age, geography or occupation. that's why my amendment will once and for all repeal the tax that both republicans and

democrats have agreed on and give american families some certainty so they can plan. this impacts people like the brave first responders who have been battling wild fires out west and delivering life saving aid to people who have been impacted by the recent hurricanes. it would also hit family plans two times as harshly as individual plans. we have learned over time that families costs are often much more than two times those of individuals. by leading leaving this in place we are allows to carry a tax burden. that's the kind of unfairness that comprehensive tax reform should be about. we should be fixing these things in the code and yet maybe i shouldn't be surprised as countless experts have said since this legislation was released, this bill isn't tax reform.

it is tax cuts. this amendment is an opportunity to help our firefighters, seniors and works families to ensure 200,000 more americans according to estimates by cbo and jct that they would -- 200,000 more would have insurance. so many of us agree on the need for this. i urge my colleagues to vote yes to protecting working families on yet another tax increase. i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. mr. kelly on the amendment. >> yes. thank you, chairman. gent gentle lady from washington, it is too bad that only you, by the warks on that side, you weren't here to vote on it, every single member on that side voted for this to be included in the affordable care act. look, as an employer and somebody who does supply

insurance, health insurance for his employees or associates, i believe in what you're doing. we delayed this several times. recently we voted to delay to 2025. i will object not because i don't believe in what you're saying, this never had to be an issue. this all goes back to the affordable care act and what i don't understand is we are saying today is well, you all don't want to help out on this. we do want to help out. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes, ma'am, go ahead. >> we had a conversation when we were doing the markup on the health care bill a few months ago. i brought up an amendment to repeal the cadillac tax. you said we should work on this. yet nothing has happened. >> i take it back. no. excuse me. excuse me. you said we have done nothing.

it has 201 cosponsors and so no, 201 of us have got on that piece. it never even had to be repealed if it had not been placed in the affordable care act to begin with. i don't know how you say -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> they say we don't want to do it because it was bad policy. it was never enforced. that's part of the problem. i will yield to it but i don't think in what we are talking about today it should go into the health care piece. >> we have a tax plan right here. >> yes. we do. >> we have an opportunity to do something bipartisan. we have an amendment right here that does it. i'm confused you say -- >> no. reclaiming my time? neither one of us had to be confused. neither was here at the time. at the time it was terrible policy that became part of the affordable care achlt.

this was put into law and passed, by the way, when you all were in the majority. i find it odd all of a sudden we say today is the day we'll take care. we always have voted twice. i will object to your amendment. i don't think today is the time or place for it. with that i yield back my time. >> gentleman yields back, mr. sanchez. >> i'm noticing an sbregs theme here. we can't vote with you on that today. well, the time to do that work was prior to hr 1 being introduced. we didn't have sub committee hearings and mark-ups there. we simply just got a closed door process in which democrats were completely shut out. we have now a tax bill before us that wants to give these huge give aways to wealthy families

and to corporations and literally take it out of the hide of hard working americans. but i believe if that process would have happened prior to this week there's a very good chance we would have had a bipartisan agreement on repealing the cadillac tax. i know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support that notion. we can go back and relitigate aca forever but we have a chance to move forward and to make the necessary fixes and yet every time we bring that up she gets shut down and you all vote no against it. we should act now to repeal the 40% tax on working families health benefits because it's a problem we need to address now. employers have already started shifting costs to their workers in anticipation of the tax by increasing workers deductibles, co-pays and coinsurance.

why now when we have a chance to fix it would members want to make this situation even worse? we should help working people, middle class families in california and across the country avoid facing a massive penalty on the benefits they have earned just to give tax breaks to wealthy individuals, families and corporations. again, repealing this tax is long enjoyed bipartisan support. it is another common sense tweak to the tax code that you are not going to include in this bill. i urge my colleagues to work and support congresswoman's amendment to repeal this tax instead of offering the same over and over and over again. we are happy to work with you but not before we produce major pieces of legislation. i really wish we could take your words at their face value as an

offer you interested in working with us. with that i yield back my time. >> i yield any time to mr. kelly. >> i appreciate the gentle lady's comments. let me be perfectly clear on this. for an employer who always used his own money, not taxpayer money to provide health care i really find it as an insult to ayou really didn't care.

sit your health care bill, not our health care bill. i never looked to the government to say you know what? i think you ought to pick up the tab on it. i don't think it's fair i should have to pick up the tab on it. to turn it around that we don't care about these folks? are you kidding me? are you absolutely kidding me? every one of you voted for the affordable care act and this was in it. i watched the obama administration refuse to enforce it because you know it was bad policy. maybe you should have read the bill before you passed the bill. when we say this is a cadillac health care piece, you know why?

it is the best you can possibly buy. they say no. no. no. they are too generous. you come here and say you don't want to repeal the cadillac tax? absolutely. i have been filing against it since it first came out. to come here today and try to put some kind of a spin on it that some how it's not who we are, i want to remind you again in teaching and coaching better to use repetition, repetition, repetition, if you hadn't passed it we wouldn't be facing it today. >> the gentleman yield? >> i suggest you look at how you voted. i yield back my time. it's great to be here today with people who have a different view of the past. >> okay. let me make a suggestion. we have a lot of work to do. we have a lot of journeys together over this next several hours. and my suggestion is that we if be forward leaning and forward

looking and talk about the bill in front of us. there is going to be a lot of temptations to run all over the place to be talking about a lot of other things. i think we would all be well served if at 10 to 4:00 we do our best to focus in on blast before us. let's see how long it lasts, the invitation, mr. larson, can you lead us now in this renewed focus? ♪ amazing grace, how sweet thousand art ♪ >> we thank for the comedy they are providing us now but i want to say this for my good friend from pennsylvania. he always leads with his heart.

he is indeed the author of a letter along with the original sponsor of this bill, joe courtney. and that's why i strongly support her effort. i would say to my friend that the reason that we are going through this frustration is because we are not in regular order and because we haven't, as mr. roscom indaicated allowed fr one another to go back and forth. i know that mr. kelly who lead the effort on the republican side, who has gotten 79 cosponsors -- >> 201. >> well, total there's 100 plus democrats. so there's 122 democrats and 79 republicans. you lead that effort to bring your colleagues along.

and so i commend you for that. what has happened here and as you indicated -- and i think you're illustrating our frustration as well because what we feel is the same kind of amendment process and mr. neil asked a very poignant question. we may beb seeing further repeals of the affordable care act. as we have been meeting here and people have been meeting elsewhere behind closed doors instead of in regular order and then we are told what we are going to do is follow regular order throughout all of this, well regular order only means muzzling people during a time or not being able to get the full details, never having expert

witnesses etcetera. yes, i will yield. >> i would have gladly used joe's name. he asked me not to do that unless i had his permission first -- >> no no. he is an honorable man and so are you. i adhere what the chairman is saying in that we should go forward on this. there should be a full understanding by the american people. you're talking about regular order. this is not regular order. this is disorder in the kind that should never take place in this committee. there is where the frustration stems from. >> gentleman yields back. >> i yield back.

i hope that some of my colleagues will look at some of the deductions that you have put into the tax bill. you might say the same thing that i'm saying about the cadillac plan and that is it's not going to work, has not worked just as i don't think some of the deductions are going to work.

>> we tried to do this during a health care bill and that wasn't the right time in another mark-up we were doing a mark-up through the night. i heard mr. kelly and others say this isn't the right time. american people want to see us get things done. this is the time we should be bringing this up and actually do something bipartisan. i also want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two letters in support of this amendment from the international

brotherhood of electrical workers. >> without objection. >> does the gentle lady yield back? >> i yield back. >> i strongly support the amendment to repeal the cadillac tax. this tax will have a disproportionate impact on working families, particularly families with incomes between 38,100,000 a year while sparing the wealthy. in fact they found out if this were to go into effect 25% of workers with single coverage in my home state would be impacted in the next decade and that would be especially harmful for many workplaces who negotiated lower salaries in exchange for more comprehensive health care plans. we should not allow anti union

to undermind the men and women to put food on the table. we must make sure that working families are made whole. we need to repeal this tax. >> gentle lady yields back. the question is on agreeing to the amendment. all those in favor signify by sayi saying aye. further proceedings will be post poend. any additional amendments? mr. higgins? >> yeah. thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is very simple. it would require that as the white house council have said that each americans income will

rise by 4 to $9,000 a year directly attributable to this corporate tax cut reducing the statutory rate from 25% to 30%. >> could i invite you to suspend for a minute while it is being distributed? >> yes! reserves a point of