this is the congress is on joint committee on taxation. >> chris, the numbers are very complicated. it depends on how you allocate them. one of the things they're doing is taking the pass-through allocation.which is small and medium-size businesses. they are allocating it back to the wealthy. same with the corporate tax cuts. we do not believe that. if you look at this simply, people look at personal taxes going up or down on a personal taxes side, middle income people are getting cuts. and most people are getting very little cuts or in certain

the amendment requires certification by the joint committee on taxation and the congressional budget office that no proposal in this legislation doesn't do three things, kicks people off health care, increase on thece premiums, hike middle classes of america. -- based on three fundamental guardrails, this proposal that we are making doesn't going to affect. colleagues, the committee hasn't had enough time to consider what is on -- especially in health care. went straight to markup, repealing the individual mandate, the coverage requirement. certainly was never the subject of a tax reform hearing in this committee. let me repeat that. repealing the individual mandate certainly was never the subject of a tax reform hearing index many. what parachuted in they relate and turned a tax bill into a and meant thatl we were going to see billions cut in health care in order to have tax bricks for multinational corporations. never discussed here in this committee. this is a "do no harm" proposal. we ought to hear from people who are knowledgeable but the budget office, the joint committee on tax

the second would require as score from the congressional budget office and joint committee on taxation on the impact of the individual mandate, repeal the number of those who would be uninsured, the premiums are out-of-pocket costs, for 72 hours before the committee votes and should anyone be curious about the origins of this, this is in effect a copy of what the late senator bunning, , republican ad a member of our committee, offered with respect to the affordable care act when this committee was considering it. now, colleagues, the point of this is, before we report the bill we ought to have all of the essential information, be able to hear from the public, to be able to make informed choices. we learned last night, for example, that now we aren't even talking about real tax reform anymore. we are talking about going back to yesteryear, to the crazy quilt world of tax extenders with different provisions expiring at different times, all kinds of potential interaction. i believe the american people have a right to know where does this leave middle-class taxpayers. in your five, in year

this is the congress is on joint committee on taxation. >> chris, the numbers are very complicated. it depends on how you allocate them. one of the things they're doing is taking the pass-through allocation.which is small and medium-size businesses. they are allocating it back to the wealthy. same with the corporate tax cuts. we do not believe that. if you look at this simply, people look at personal taxes going up or down on a personal taxes side, middle income people are getting cuts. and most people are getting very little cuts or in certain cases, increases. >> let me break that down sir. it seems to me it is a little bit more complicated than that. here is one reason why the gop tax plan according to analysts favors a wet plate and corporations. i want to put this up on the screen. in the senate plan, while corporate tax cuts permanent, almost all provisions for individuals including rate cuts and expanded standard deduction expire, go away at the end of 2025.the results according to the joint committee on taxation by 2027, this is the senate plan.anyone making less than $75,000

on 87 million american families. now, mr. president, we actually just had some information come out, just released to the public this evening. this is from the joint tax committee, the joint committee on taxation. these are the folks who are the professionals who look at the impact of the tax bill. they analyze it and they let people know the facts. here's what they say. when this bill runs its course in the year 2027, here's the bottom line. 23% of americans, households are going to see their taxes go up 16% will see their taxes go down. so more american households see their taxes go up than go down. 61%, they estimate, see virtually no changes at all. and, again, these are families, not corporations. the corporations, including those foreign stockholders, they keep seeing the benefits. now, here's the other thing the joint committee on taxation is telling us. that of the people who get a cut -- you see, the largest share in any one group are people making $1 million and up. in fact, it says that of those -- in that category, 57% of the households will get a tax cut. those are the millionaires. if you look at middle-income folks, much smaller percentages in those categories. now, mr. presiden

accounting gimmick if you will or or if it's sincere well i followed you so two things one this joint committee on taxation i mean i worked on the hill for about fifteen years you know it's it's been there since one thousand nine hundred twenty six it's bipartisan and you know that they look at things pretty level headed so that it's it is it is chaired by the republicans by the way as you know so fine if you're not going to count the health care but these people are going to have health care than i don't get me wrong the individual mandate causes a problem for a lot of people but if you take away that accounting that means people are not actually going to help have health care so maybe you know if you add that in things would be different but we'll see how that works out i guess the main thing is to get it out of the senate goes to the finance committee tomorrow goes to the senate what a week after thanksgiving you've steve yet you know we kept at thank you but one point on that health care this is by choice people will drop tell obamacare by choice who now take it because they have a threat of a penalty

president, the joint committee on taxation told us just last night that by the year 2027, 150 million households in america making $200,000 a year or less will see their taxes go up, not down, under this disastrous bill. why? because the tax cuts for middle-class families expire by the end of 2025 while, surprise of all surprises, the tax breaks for large corporations are made permanent. the benefits for the middle class expire. they're temporary. the benefits for the corporate world are permanent. mr. president, the leadership of the republican party is telling the american people that trickle-down economics, giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations will expand the economy, will create new jobs, and will bring in so much revenue that magically it will pay for itself. just give tax breaks to billionaires and large corporations, and those tax breaks will pay for themselves. here is the reality. the reality is trickle-down economics is a fraudulent theory. when ronald reagan slashed taxes for the rich in 1981, economic growth went down by 1.9% the following year and

the distribution according not to fact checkers but the joint committee on taxation. $1 trillion of the tax cuts go to business. $230 billion to individuals. and $170 billion on the states. essentially. that doesn't add up to the $1.7 or $1.8 trillion that has been computed to be the deficit created -- additional debt created by this bill. in fact, that's why this bill is being rewritten right now. i guarantee you. you can call me on this next week. the bill that was introduced last thursday will not look like the bill that you consider on the floor. it won't. it won't because, first of all, the debt is a problem. for apparently some people. it's a big problem for me. we ought to pay for what we buy. that's what the chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. camp, did. a bill that was paid for. an honest bill that was paid for, as was the 1986 tax reform bill. it did not add to the debt. this adds an extraordinary amount to the debt. as a matter of fact, it adds in one fell swoop the debt that was created on the reagan administration, approximately $1.7 trillion. it's being rewritten

just this weekend, that one was .ot in my notes weekend we learn from the joint committee on taxation that 19 million middle-class households would pay more taxes. the new york times went even further saying one quarter of million -- middle-class families would see their taxes go up in the first year. what are republicans thinking? allrdless of the numbers, parties agree this is a tax hike on middle-class families and many of those hardest hit live in the suburbs, bedrock of the republican coalition for decades. passing a bill that raises taxes on the middle class while slashing them for the rich and wealthiest corporations is political insanity, plain and simple. the republicans are giving huge handouts to the wealthiest corporations and the other, they are taken away key suburban productions like state, local, medical sciences, student loans, and more. congressional republicans are doing their best to put their majorities at risk and if republicans thought was hard when elections last week, with the drag of an unpopular president, wait until voters hear about this bill as they are n

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 don't lie. what the joint committee said is money is going to come right out of the middle class's 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 majority's numbers didn't really add up. and i thought what would happen is the majority would say just go to the multi nationals and tell them you're going to take a haircut. you're just not going to get all the benefits originally promised. they didn't do that. in effect, they went to the middle class and couldn't just give them a haircut. they kind of got scalped. they're going to, if you look at the bottom of page 6, if you're making $40,000 to 50,000nd, you're going to pay $4,070 more. that's what you lose. and if you make $1 million or more, you get a tax cut of getting close to $6,000. so everybody's entitled to their own opinion. i don't think you'

that is the joint committee on taxi -- on taxation. yes. could -- you we had asked if we could distribute the affects of the market as modified absent the zero rated individual mandate penalty. and the effects of that. >> and when you look at the $20,000 to $30,000 income cohort, the savings is not the 7% that it was before, it is 9.5%. singleually, every cohort has a larger savings, which is to say a bigger tax cut under this more recent version then the previous version. so contrary to what our friend --m michigan said, >> do we have this document? i am trying to follow it. >> it was not a public document. i will have it provided to all of the members. >> i had no idea this was not being distributed. i put it on a chart. listen, the fact is, what we have done in the latest version is further reduce, and there is no mystery about how. what are some of the devices that were used to further reduce the tax burden for middle income families? >> you change. the original mark had tax brackets of 22 and half percent, middle brackets. each of thos

congress's own official score keeper, the joint committee on taxation, found 20% of americans would actually have a higher tax bill within ten years. both the house and senate plans would likely lower individual tax rates. the standard deduction would double to $12,000 for singles and $24,000 for couples. >> what i do know that it ends up eliminating the deductions that benefit me. it's going to end up costing me more. >> itemized deductsions could be eliminated or limited. mortgage interest deduction may change >> my tax deduction at the end of the year, if i buy a new house, i can't write that off anymore. >> for businesses they want to cut the top corporate rate from 35% down to 20% although it would be delayed a year until 2019 in the senate version. >> the way it's going i can purchase things at a better price. i'll have more money in my pocket. >> i think they are spaenlding a lot of time going nowhere. >> we still have a long way to go to find out if congress can reach an agreement on tax reform with what's already been proposed how would different types of taxpayers fare? thanks so m

that's what the joint committee on taxation has given us in terms of numbers. so every day this bill gets worked on it gets worse and worse or middle income and working class people. so let knee just ask a question regarding the child tax credit and by the way i should say that the personal exemption is eliminated in this bill so if you have more than one child you are going to be penalized. if you are a family of two children, three children, for children that personal exemption is gone which means you are stuck in a hole but the child tax credit to me is another example of how this is skewed to the top and trickle-down economics. the current child tax credit mr. barthold is a $1000, correct? >> that is correct senator. >> and the new version is 2000, correct? >> that's right. >> which sounds good. how much of that is refundable? >> under the chairman's modified mark, $1000 remains refundable and its index. >> so if there's an increase but you are a working family the mom that was just talked about you won't benefit from that increase but they raise the cap on

. >> the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation analyzed the tax bill and found that they think it would effectively raise taxes. let me read you part of the findings. if it becomes law americans earning $30,000 a year or below would pay higher taxes in 200021. now, i understand that some people might argue that eliminating obamacare subsidies is not the same thing as increasing taxes. but whatever you want to call it, lower income people will have less money so i guess the big question is how can republicans and the white house propose a bill that would simultaneously cut taxes for the wealthiest americans while effectively creating more of a burden for those earning less than $30,000 a year? >> the white house is not going to sign a bill that raises taxes for the middle class, but what you just read gets deep in the weeds of scoring those particular tax bills and one of the fundamental asaumplsumption getting rid of a mandate means folks are going to start to give stuff up. if they don't want it they don't have to have it but changing the mandate doesn't kick people off of policies. mo

the joint committee on taxation says the g.o.p. plan what effectively raise taxes on a pretty large portion of the middle class over time white house budget chief mick mulvaney has said the president won't sign a g.o.p. tax plan if it raises taxes on the middle class salt affects the middle class trumpets and asia not exactly focused on this when he gets back there will have been more infighting what do you think he's made a promise to his constituents as well how big is the fight going to be between the president capitol hill well i think the joint committee on taxation shows that sixty one percent will get a tax cut in the first year and ten years out in two thousand and twenty seven you're going to have of forty say only forty six percent will i think the president will be onboard the president needs a legislative victory like this and i think that there will be on board to that end the senate tomorrow will reveal supposedly its version of the plan so the president has sent gary cohn his top economic adviser and mark short his to

yesterday i received a letter from the independent congressional tax experts known as the joint committee on taxation and they gave us really important information about the bill. buried in one of those answers was information that ought to put a scare into millions of americans who work hard every day to get ahead. this bill showers trillions of dollars on multinational corporations but the fact is these multinational corporations are already awash in cash. what it means according to these independent congressional tax experts is interest rates are going up. the federal reserve will have to tighten the screws of the economy. here's the bottom line for what it means for a middle-class american in north carolina or oregon or anywhere else in the united states. if you want to buy a house this bill is going to make it more expensive. if you want to buy a car this bill is going to make it more expensive. if you want to get a credit card this bill is going to make it more expensive. if you want to take out a student loan, this bill is going to make it more expensive. and it's not just harm for typical fam

the joint committee on taxation released analysis of the senate bill that seems to prove their point. but the numbers, they tell a very different story. the jct analysis specifically looks at something called percent change in tax liabilities. that's how much less americans would pay in taxes relative to their household income. under the new plan compared to current law. but that metric is very misleading because it inflates the benefits to lower income taxpayers. we should be measuring the change americans would see in their after-tax incomes. lucky for us, david cayman, a to tax professor did just that and factored in the estate tax which benefits the rich. he found in the first version of the senate bill, americans making between $40,000 and $200,000 would see similar benefits in 2027, about an average 1% increase to their incomes after taxes. but the clear winners would be those who make between $500,000 and $1 million a year. their after-tax incomes would increase by 2.5% on average. and those making more than $1 million a year would still see a bigger benefit than anyone in the

that's what the joint committee on taxation has given us in terms of numbers. so every day this bill gets worked on, it gets worse and worse for middle income and working class people. so let me just ask a question regarding the child tax credit. by the way, i should say that the personal exemption is eliminated in this bill so that if you have more than one child, you're going to be penalized. if you are a family of two children, three children, four children, that personal exemption is gone, which means you start in a hole. the child tax credit to me is another example of how this is skewed to the top and trickle down economics. the child tax credit is a thousand dollars, correct? >> that is correct, senator. >> and the new version is 2,000, correct? >> that is correct. >> which sounds good. how much of that is refundable? >> under chairman's modified mark, $1,000 remains refundable and that's indexed. >> so there's an increase, but if you're a working family, the mom that was just talked about, you won't benefit from that increase. but you know who benefits f

it's a joint committee on taxation that's making these decisions. that's a congressional body. it's not a bunch of partisan democrats. secondly, if you're talking about sherrod brown, i want to point out that sherrod brown wisely noted just a few days ago in this conversation with orrin hatch that corporations don't just give away money because they have extra money lying around and principle of the corporate tax cut in this plan is that somehow corporations are going to invest more and increase wages. there's no evidence that's going to happen. the trickle down economics that the republicans have been practicing since the reagan administration has failed and this policy, this tax plan just perpetuates that mythology. >> thank you both. have a good weekend. >>> the president counting the tax bill passing in the house as a win, but how is the rest of this week gone for him? our radio guys will join me next for their take. >>> a group of republican women rallied in alabama in support of roy moore. earlier i talked to the rally organizer becky garrettson. here's a new fox news pol

ness the joint committee on -- this is from the joint committee on taxation, completely independent of us. and the higher income folks, getting some tax relief. it is just not as much, relative to the savings on lower- and middle-income folks. these guys want higher folks. we like lower tax deduction. these guys like to distribute wealth. we like people to be able to keep more of what they earn. let's stick to the facts. these are the facts. let me move ton a discussion -- let me move ton a discussion about -- let me move on to a discussion about u second is making the changes to our business tax code so we can actually have the economic growth we have been waiting for, have the prosperity we've been waiting for. the fact is, madam president, as you know, we have lived through the weakest economic recovery in american history. every past severe recession, even ordinary recessions, the economy has always come roaring back, and we've achieved economic growth that put us back on the path we were on before the recession. that's what's normal for america, strong economic growth. didn't happ

in fact, those in the highest bracket, according to j.c.t., the joint committee on taxation, will pay a higher percentage of the overall tax burden than they do now. i expect we'll hear that by repealing the individual mandate tax, the bill will be taking people's health insurance away and raising taxes on the poor. that claim will be made despite confirmation from congressional score keepers that nothing, nothing in the bill removes or limits anyone's access to health insurance. but the approach they're taking toward health insurance would put us into a socialized medicine situation overnight. if anybody thinks that's a great idea, i ask them to look at the socialized medicine countries and compare them to what we've been able to have. instead, j.c.t. and c.b.o. project that with no individual mandate, people will choose to not get health insurance, even if they still have access to premium subsidies, employer-provided plans, or even free health coverage through medicaid. this bill provides choice. it doesn't take anything away from those individuals. we can quibble with that conclus

according to to the joint committee on taxation, these changes will cost students and families more than71 billion over the next decade, don. >> but you mentioned some sort of relief for the middle class. why is it short term? >> well because the tax rates that the middle class, that they do get, they don't last. in the senate version, the vast majority of individual tax cuts expire after 2025, this includes the expanded child tax credit, the bigger standard deduction as well. and then cuts in individual rates. but the corporate tax cut and most of the other goodies for businesses, those are actually permanent. so it's a big reason why the joint committee on taxation found this, that in the senate bill, all americans will get significant tax cults the first year, but then when you look in 2021, families who are earning 10,000 to $30,000 a year, middle class, of course, they're actually going to pay more, then by 2027, taxes go up for all americans who are making $75,000 or less, don. >> yeah, all right. brianna, i have to ask you about something, something that you reported on on yesterd

had one week of markup in the senate finance committee during which the bill shape shifted on several occasions. aside from the testimony of one representative from the joint committee on taxation, the senate hasn't heard from any expert witness in a hearing room. can you believe that? a major tax bill in front of the american people, changing lives dramatically, no expert witnesses except the j.c.t. gentleman. and the bill's likely to change drastically again on the floor of the senate, with little time for senators of either party to grapple with the consequences. the republicans are moving so fast, the joint tax committee will not have time to produce a full analysis of the economic impact of the bill. until after the bill is voted on. is that backwards or what? the republican tax bill will affect every taxpayer and business in america, and my colleagues won't know many of its impacts before they vote on it. two things about this bill, however, seems certain. first, it will raise taxes on millions of middle-class families in every state of the union. second, it will explode the deficit. every independent analysis of the senate tax bill shows that millions of families making

yesterday the joint committee on taxation told me that they hoped to have what the republicans said was the essence of why their bill worked -- a dynamic score of the tax legislation. we haven't seen that either. so, mr. president, i hope our colleagues will vote no on the motion to proceed because i don't think it's too much to say that, as senators, when we're talking about going to a bill that involves $10 trillion worth of tax policy changes, here in the senate we ought to know what the senate will actually be debating. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. perdue: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: thank you, mr. president. when president trump took office, he said that job one this year was to get the economy growing again. as a business guy -- and i am going to speak very quickly because you think our majority leader is on the way down to the floor -- i said, the first thing we need do is get the economy growing. there were three things. one, pull back on the onerous federal regulations. so far this year 876 rules and regulations have been

brady: yes, we do have a joint committee on taxation score. it is well within our $1.5 trillion budget number and we'll be glad to release it. thank you, all, very much. >> now, today's house and ways -- house ways and means committee markup on the tax bill. this four-hour, 45-minute committee meeting ends with a vote approving the republican bill. it begins with committee chair kevin brady. >> might i request information on how we intend to proceed today, when we will see the manager's amendment, and will there be sufficient time to digest the document understanding we are going to , and becausevote of time constraints and the obvious view we hold on this side that we want time to be able to take a look at what is in the manager's amendment based on what has happened as of monday evening? it appears likely that we will, at the schedule and pace, see the manager's amendment and then professionally react to it. the second question, based upon what we have seen this morning, is there a possibility for republicans to have seen and read and devoure

the result, according to the joint committee on taxation, bike 2027, this is the senate plan, anyone0 will see a tax hike, while those making more than $75,000 will see a tax cut. how do you respond to that? >> secretary mnuchin: the problem is that underhe rules, using reconciliation, there's very specific rules. we are changing from an international system to a territorial system. we need to make the corporate tax cuts permanent. you can't tell corporations they are going back to a worldwide system. because of that, we were forced to phase out the personal tax side, but nobody thinks that's going to be the case. of course congress is going to vote down the road to keep these cuts. it's not about allocating cuts to the corporations. it's about we have to fix the business tax side and make it permanent. >> chris: but isn't it -- this is what critics are saying -- isn't it a statement of your priorities? the real reason that you make the individual cuts temporary, and they expire 2025 is otherwise her deficit is going to be too big. some people say it's a budget gimmick, but isn't it

on this tax bill. we are debating it in committee right now and it has real middle-class tax cuts that the joint committee on taxation is willing to show us to look at their tables on what they say is that the family in america that is at the median family income is going to get a 1500-dollar tax cut. and ohio it's about 2400 bucks so it's even higher and these are folks who need it. a lot of them are people who are living paycheck to paycheck. they haven't seen their wages go up in a couple of decades even though it was we have had economic road lately. this is a critical part of the bill but also it's important that we fixed the tax code so we don't continue to lose jobs and investment overseas and that's what's happening right now. so for those who are defending the status quo i would ask them does it make sense that almost 5000 companies have become foreign companies over the past decade or so because of our broken tax code? those companies would have been american companies based on a study done recently by ernst & young if we have the tax code we are talking about. as a makes sense we have $2.5232 billion lock

the joint committee on taxation? we are rushing to build through so quickly we cannot allow artificial scorekeeper. this is not a once in a generation tax reforms process. when you do a tax cuts with borrowed money similar to where we are right now with relatively full employment no way to see economic growth per don't take my word for it, alan greenspan pointed this out within the last two weeks. the tax cuts paidrr for to not provide the growth forro curve but because of an the tax rates in the territorial system where they have to build that factory in the high tax state with the intellectual property. to average out the tax bill to pay our country nothing. and then to see job loss. there are a group of us along with my colleagues on the floor that came together yesterday to say time now. we will workor with you juju irresponsible format. we share many of the same goes unfortunately that process to reach the arbitrary christmas p present is not the way we should do responsive of tax reform. i hope my colleagues wi

the second would require a score from the congressional budget office and joint committee on taxationon the impact of the individual mandate repeal, the number of those who are uninsured, the premiums, out-of-pocket costs, for 72 hours before the committee votes, and should anyone be curious about are the origins of this, this is, in effect, a copy of what the late senator bunning, a republican, and member of our committee, offered with respect to the affordable care act when this committee was considering it. now, colleagues, the point of this is, before we report a bill, we ought to have all of the essential information, be able to hear from the public, to it be able to make informed choices. we learned last night, for example, that now we aren't even talking about real tax reform anymore. we are talking about going back to yes tear year to the crazy quilt word of tax extenders with different provisions expiring at different times, all kinds of potential interactions. i believe the american people have the right to know where does this leave middle class taxpayers? in year five, in

according to to the joint committee on taxation, it will not. ng element here is you put it perfectly, this train is leaving the station right now. republicans are on the path to pass this at some point in the next day or two. the big question now is, this is falling short of what several of the members want. obviously they're working on a america nich ne mechanism, this is not a number republicans are looking for and it certainly goes the opposite direction of the number of republicans said they would get growth wise in this bill, brooke. >> i've got to you for another minute, phil, what's the actual timeline? i mean, what happens today, tomorrow, and might there actually be the vote happening friday? >> reporter: yeah, i think that's extremely possible. look, right now everybody's in a holding pattern and walking you through behind the scenes right now. there are a couple of issues. i was talking about that deficit trigger. bob corker, jeff flake has been huddling multiple times behind closed doors trying to figure out how to structure it. look

wh what's driving the administration with this. >> another finding from the nonpartisan joint committee on taxationd that americans earning $75,000 or less would also face large increase by 2027 because of the the plthe -- why are the tax cuts perm ner innocent and the ones for individuals sun setted. >> this is where washington really does speak a different language, so much of what you're seeing, all of these intra casseys of this expires after five years, this is permanent, maybe this is not, the estate tax is -- because of the absurd rules in the senate that require 60 votes on just about everything, in order to get the 50-vote treatment we get under reconciliation, we have to follow these very specific requirements of the budget act of 1964. it doesn't speak to the quality of the policy, it simply manipulates the number so you can gain -- >> every single major piece of legislation has done it since we have been using reconciliation, not the least of which is obama care. >> i think it costs a lot less than that. >> that $1.5 trillion in and of itself is a gimmick, because it's a completely stat

that's what the joint committee on taxation has given us in terms of numbers. so every day this bill gets worked on it gets worse and worse for middle-income and working-class people. laegs a question -- by the way, the personal exemption is limited in this bill so that if you have more than one child you're going to be penalized. if you are a family of two children, three children, four children, that personal exemption is gone, which means you start in the hole. but the child tax credit to me is another example of how this is skewed to the top and trickle-down economics. the current child tax credit is $1,000, correct? >> that's correct, senator. >> and the new version is $2,000, correct? >> that's correct. >> which sounds good. how much of that is refundable? >> under the chairman's modified mark, $1,000 remains refundable and that's indexed. >> okay. >> which is a change for the -- >> so there's an increase, but if you're a working family, the mom that was just talked about, you won't benefit from that increase. but you know who benefits from that increase?

barre tell because he's with the joint committee on taxation. do you have the ability to do what the congressional budget does and talk about who would actually be harmed by the $300 billion in cuts in health care. >> senator, a lot of the -- most of the analysis in your affordable care act was done jointly with the congressional budget office and my colleagues on staff. e we do not have expertise in all areas, but i do have some information related to it. as you and other members asked yesterday, we're working on providing an updated analysis of the chairman's mark ads as modified. i don't know if that's sufficient information to satisfy. >> let me be in control of this committee. not you. i'm tired of being interrupted all the time and you calling on people and so forth. i love you personally, but we're going to run this thing like it should be run. jct can certainly talk about the tax implications of what is being done here. they have every bit of knowledge to talk about them. and that's what woer going to do. so let's not try to change that

that means the joint committee on taxation will assist with the scorekeeping. and will be at the table. if that means -- and it means that if my colleagues want to raise health care matters from the internal revenue code, their amendments will be germane. any amendments that go beyond the tax code will not be germane. let me say this, if my colleagues believe we need to discuss our broader health care system, and come up with solutions, i agree with them. we absolutely should get to work on fixing what ails our federal health programs. but we're not going to do so in the context of a tax markup. by the way, the individual mandate isn't just any tax. it's a terribly regressive tax that imposes harsh burdens on low and middle-income taxpayers. according to the irs, roughly 80% of americans who have paid the individual mandate tax in 2015 made less than $50,000 a year. zeroing out the mandate will raise $318 billion over ten years, money we use in our mark to actually lower taxes for the middle class. some colleagues have spent a great deal of time over the last c

now, i'll also make available to you a new letter i just got from the joint committee on taxation where somehow there is going to be an effort to produce a dynamic score almost at the speed of light. but you know, the reality is the real scoring is done by the congressional budget office and joint committee on taxation. >> do you think republicans were ever serious about working with democrats based on their actions? >> you will have to let them speak for themselves, but as far as i can tell, mitch mcconditionmcconnell decided on day one, the very first day, that he wanted to take the most partisan off ramp in american government, which is reconciliati reconciliation. and what i -- and this was also a part of what we have talked about with moderates of both political parties is that's not how you get the give and take you need to get a responsible bipartisan bill. senator bradley calls every few days because he can't believe the process that is being used now compared to what he remembers when we had our last tax reform bill. this is a textbook for how to write a wholly partisan bill an

they've heard from people like the joint committee on taxation who says millions of americans are in brackets that possibly could be taxes go up in five years that some provisions within the tax bill actually expire even if it becomes law. democrats like tom larsen of connecticut were furious. >> it's going to be 2416 right down the line. all the way until they can get this to the floor of the house. on the floor of the house though continued to perpetuate this great myth that somehow we went through any kind of regular order where there was any bipartisanship. >> republicans on the committee like mike kelly from pennsylvania insist they need to middle class now. >> this is how we peered you'll hear about what we are not doing for certain people. i submit to my friends that this effort is a three decade effort to change the tide of america's project three. >> they are going through the legislation line by line. so i'm amendment and eventually send this to the house. we should find out next week with the senate is proposing in wallop a look the same, it will be different when orin hat

that no provision of the chairman's mark as modified shall take effect until unless the joint committee on taxation and the congressional budget office certify that the bill will, number one, not reduce the number of individuals 50 or older covered by insurance, or, two, increase premiums for health insurance for americans for individuals 50 and older. mr. hatch: we understand that you've modified your amendment. we're going to reserve that and then go to senator stabenow and listen to her. then we'll have the two votes on both amendments. >> could i speak briefly on the casey amendment? like a minute? mr. hatch: sure. >> colleagues, it's casey amendment, it's exceptionally important. i began to see this back in the days when i was director of the great panthers. you're between 55 and 65, pre-medicare, you are out there lost in a health care desert. mr. wyden: and these are some of the people who face the toughest economic challenges in our country. sometimes they've been victims of age discrimination. so i really urge my colleagues to support the casey amendment and, mr. chairman, out of deference

i also want to thank -- say how grateful i am to everyone at the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation and the house office of legislative council. their work, careful analysis, contributed so much to this bill. finally i want to give special recognition to barbara anges, our chief counsel, and all of our staff on the committee. they put their hearts and souls and many sleepless nights in the development this bill. i can't thank them enough. for the hard work and dedication. mr. speaker, the house of representatives is by its very design the chamber of congress closest to the american people. today this house, the people's house, will pass historic legislation to improve the lives of americans nationwide. for too long this broken tax code has put the needs of the people second. propping up washington special interests at the expense of hardworking americans. for too long this broken tax code has rewarded companies for outsourcing american jobs instead of encouraging them to create jobs here at home. for too long this broken tax code has eroded america's economic leadership around the w