mr. barthold: yes, mr. kind. as i noted in the walk-through, the expansion of bonus to 100% expensing of those assets is only for a five-year period. it expires after five years. the expansion of the allowable toensing under section 179 $5 billion worth of annual capital expenditures also expires after five years. and the family flexibility tax credit? to mr.thold: i noted blumenauer that the family portion for the taxpayer and taxpayers spouse expires after five years. the child credit is permanent. kind: and one reason for doing that is clearly to mask the size of the shortfall in revenue. but you have been around here long enough to realize, as many of us do in committee, that when these popular tax provisions suddenly expire or are on the out, congressng doesn't have the stomach typically to let that happen and figures out a way of extending that. if that is true, the $1.5 trillion is a low ball when it comes to the public debt that will be ended -- added under the plan if congress does not let those provisio

mr. barthold, that will expose this. mr. barthold, would a local dentist that is not married and earns $110,000 a year be eligible for the passthrough deduction? >> no, senator. >> and would a casino developer that reports business income of a million dollars annually be eligible for the passthrough deduction? >> yes, senator. >> and would an engineer earning $200,000 be eligible for the passthrough, mr. barthold? >> is the engineer self-employed sole proprietor? >> yes. >> earning $200,000. >> correct. >> no. >> no, he wouldn't. how about the owner of a massage parlor earning $750,000 a year, would he be eligible for the passthrough? >> yes, senator. >> and would a husband and wife that own a small accounting firm and have a combined net income of $200,000 be eligible for the passthrough? >> no, they would be phased out of the income limitation. >> because they're making $200,000 a year, they would not be entitled. >> if the $200,000 is taxable. >> the massage parlor owner would be entitled to it? >> that's correct, senator.

mr. barthold, that will expose this. mr. barthold, would a local dentist that is not married and earns $110,000 a year be eligible for the pass-through deduction? >> no, senator. >> and would a casino developer that reports business income of a million dollars annually be eligible for the pass-through deduction? >> yes, senator. >> and would an engineer earning $200,000 be eligible for the pass-through, mr. barthold? >> is the engineer self-employed sole proprietor? >> yes. >> earning $200,000. >> no. >> no, he wouldn't. how about the owner of a massage parlor earning $750,000 a year, would he be eligible for the pass-through? >> yes, senator. >> and would a husband and wife that own a small accounting firm and have a combined net income of $200,000 be eligible for the pass-through. >> no, they would be phased out of the income limitation. >> because they're making $200,000 a year, they would not be entitled. the massage parlor owner would be entitled to it? >> that's correct, senator. >> would the owner of a golf course, let

mr. barthold. joining tom at the table once again are ms. jennifer acuna from the finance committee majority staff and ms. sarah schaefer, mr. adam caruso, and mr. ryan abraham and mr. drew crouch from the minority staff. in addition, we have mr. tom west, the tax legislative counsel from the treasury. with us today. all are present to answer questions of any member of this committee. members have any questions that members have about the modification, that is. i'm sure there are a number of matters my colleagues would like to discuss at this point, and that's customary. however, i do want to note that members had several hours yesterday to ask questions about the original mark, and through the latter part of the day, they chose to forego those opportunities. therefore, i hope that members will focus most of their attention today on the modification and less on the provisions of the mark that haven't changed. furthermore, i hope that members will focus their questions and discussion on the subject at hand, which once again, is tax reform. hea

mr. barthold? >> mr. rice, i'm actually confused about the statistic that you just cited. >> this is according to the census bureau. it says in 1990, the middle class made up 47% of the population, now it is 44% of the population. i'm looking for growth and i'm looking for opportunity. this tax plan, i know you -- the tax -- joint committee on taxation hasn't done their growth projections, but with rate reductions and with full expensing, do you expect this would encourage growth, mr. barts cbar barthold? >> as i mentioned earlier, there are things that would be pro growth and there's other considerations to consider. >> the tax foundation says it will increase gdp by.4%, and i have seen estimates as far as 5%. . >> thank you, mr. chairman, as i'm juggling all these coffee cups. mr. barthold, just a handful of quick things, i just want to make sure i'm getting my head around and then i thought it would be appropriate to share sort of a personal fixation, as your modeling, at this point, if our tax reform

mr. barthold. joining tom at the table are jennifer akuna from the finance committee majority staff, and i believe miss sarah schaeffer will come later. mr. adam caruso. mr. ryan abraham and mr. drew crouch from the minority staff. all are present to answer questions about the mark. we are also joined by mr. tom west who serves as tax legislative council at tom landry. mr. west is here to give us the administration's perspective on issues under discussion. i'm sure members of the committee have several questions about the mark. i will recognize members for if purpose of asking such questions in the appropriate order under the rules of the committee. so we'll just go from there. turn to you senator. >> thank you mr. chairman. and the first thing i want to say is tom barthold and his team at the joint committee on taxation, in my view, are the gold standard for professionalism in this field. they call in on the basis of the facts. they are objective. they are straight with democrats. they are straight

mr. barthold. if you were a lawyer -- a tax lawyer for someone well off how would you advise them to gain the tax system and avoid taxes under this bill? >> first of all senator nelson, you know you're asking me to play make believe because i'm not a tax lawyer. i do not have a good answer for you at this time. >> i guess it goes a little it into -- >> let's talk about loopholes. >>. >> what loop holds would you want to use or what loopholes should we close? >> well, again, there are things -- there might be provisions of presented law that are unchanged by the chairman's mark that you might like to address, some things that the chairman's mark addresses would change the -- maybe change the relative advantage of transfer pricing. i know the committee has been worried about transfer pricing but that's in a business context. >> let me ask mr. -- >> your colleagues have raised a few ideas earlier in the mark-up talking about rate differentials. the ranking member was talking about the 35% corporate ra

mr. barthold and then i have an opening statement and questions of my own. mr. barthold, we don't have distribution analysis that supports what the chairman just got into. does such a distribution analysis exist from jct? >> senator wyden, we prepared a distribution analysis on the underlying mark, and as i noted this morning, we are working on preparing an updated analysis to reflect the changes in the modification. >> so there is no distribution analysis for the bill that is the bill before us. and i appreciate your clarifying it. >> that isn't what he said. >> it is. he said he had done a distribution analysis for what was considered earlier but he is going to have to do another version, what he called an updated version, for the modified mark. and i am glad we got into that. now, mr. chairman, you are surprised that we oppose your back-door effort to get rid of the affordable care act. i will have to tell you, i am kind of surprised that you and your colleagues don't care about the 13 million people who are going to lose coverage and the 10 million more who a

mr. barthold confirmed that. third, the distributional effect we've seen that results in an increased tax burden in lower brackets is recorded -- rooted entirely in jc it's behavioral assumptions about tax care voluntary choices. that was confirmed as l. but it doesn't end there. fourth, the behavioral assumptions regarding the yutlization of tax credits do not result in more taxes being paid by those in lower brackets. we all heard mr. barthold say the volunteer decision to forego a premium subsidy credit does not increase the taxpayer's income tax liability. as a senator from pennsylvania indicated, when someone chooses on their own accord to not take advantage of a tax subsidy, one that is not, not to them but to an insurance company, they don't owe the government a single additional dime in taxes. so distributional table or no, it's absurd to call that a tax hike. i haven't heard any of my colleagues really try to argue otherwise. most of them have conveniently side stepped that particular plan -- plain basic

mr. barthold. mr. barthold, this amendment that's under consideration now, do you consider it likely that it would cost jobs, it would cause job losses? >> sorry. mr. carbello, we haven't done any macro economic analysis on any of the proposals. the general thrust as was pointed out was to increase corporate -- or corporate tax burden relative to the chairman's -- the chairman's mark. the chairman's mark relatively decreases the corporate tax burden. i can't tell you where this proposal would end up. you could still be at a net decrease in the corporate tax burden and as a general matter net decrease in effect of marginal tax rates on corporate investments should generally be pro growth. so i don't have an answer for you. >> could it have the effect of shifting jobs from higher tax states to lower tax states? >> the deductibility across -- across states it would -- it would increase without thinking -- completely thinking through all of the state tax -- state taxes it would generally accentuate differen

mr. barthold? mr. barthold: as i noted earlier, there are a number of provisions that are clearly pro-growth. there are other considerations to consider. i don't want to prejudge the analysis. >> well it is said it will increase gdp growth by 24%. i have had estimates as high as -- my time is expired. thank you mr. chairman. i am juggling these coffee cups. just a handful of quick things. i want to make sure i'm getting my head around and then i thought it would be appropriate --.hare sort of a personal legislationeform were to become law today is written, you see only 6% of americans having to itemize anymore. that would be our projection for next year, that is correct. so, 94% of americans would be just using the standardized deduction. >> that is correct. >> have you ever taken a quick look to see, with that actually changed tax compliance because of it becoming so dramatically simpler for so many people? >> actually, compliance is part of all of our estimates. so, some of the changes would be note t

mr. barthold and i would ask to enter into the record, mr. chairman, is accurate, there is a lot more revenue that's going to be lost. i put the question to him, and i would put the question to you not now -- i don't want to trap anybody -- but find out whether or not the committee's statement of yesterday about whether the loophole exists, and joint tax understanding, are harmonized. because it could have a big impact. so i don't want to debate it now. i wanted to serve notice. i give you a copy. >> thank you. >> i gave it to mr. barthold, and i would hope that we could clarify at some point in the course of the day or certainly by tomorrow. >> thank you, mr. blumenauer. so you have an amendment? point of order has been reserved. the clerk will distribute the amendment. i ask the gentleman to suspend while the clerk distributes. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman. while she is a passing that out may i ask unanimous consent to put this letter from county supervisor susan goran into the record? >> without objection. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, i

mr. barthold? >> there's no analysis on that point. >> according to cbo, how would the individual mandate repeal affect insurance premiums in the small group sponsored health insurance markets? same two witnesses, please. >> i don't believe cbo has gotten into the actual premium impact, but i do think in their recent analysis they say two million fewer people have employer based insurance. >> no analysis on that. >> and my last question is based on your understanding of the revised -- latest revised chairman's mark, is there anything in this latest revised bill that would guarantee healthy mix of patience and prevent that -- >> the senate finance committee review of the republican's tax plan freom earlier today. we'll leave it here. you see it at cspan.org. committee members returning from a break to continue their work. live coverage here on cspan3. >> we're going to continue with another round of questions about the modification. we will then conclude this portion of the markup at the completion

mr. barthold.do you have the expertise the congressional budget office has to describe given our projection this is a $300 billion cut in health care spending to tell us who is going to be harmed in terms of premium hikes and loss of insurance? that's the question. do you have the expertise the congressional budget office has? >> senator, in jcx-57 we provided the estimate of the change being discussed. as you reported, it's approximate ly a $300 billion change over the budget period. as i noted, my colleagues and i are working to provide an updated distributional analysis of the entire chairman's mark, which will include, to the best of our ability, those effects. as to your more general question about the joint committee's level of expertise in terms of national coverage and insurance premiums, no, that is more general ly the work of the congressional budget office. >> thank you. >> let me proceed then. >> we have the tax cuts and job act which under the roles is subject to a chairman's modificat

mr. barthold whether it's true that people at this level are paying lots of taxes. i won't even use that characterization. are paying taxes, state and local taxes, payroll taxes. theiss a federal tax. >> mr. chairman, the distortion of what i said -- i said federal tax liability. i didn't say they don't pay federal taxes. i said federal tax liability. >> okay. >> you have to understand. you have to understand that. >> i agree. i appreciate that. mr. barthold, could you answer my question? >> certainly, sir. there are many taxes lech vied at different levels of government and at the federal level we have the income tax, we have payroll tax, we have some selected excise taxes. >> right. >> and many people, particularly low-income people, purchase gasoline, purchase alcoholic beverages, tobacco products -- >> thank you. and that's federal tax reliability. i enjoy sod much the chance to work with the senator from nevada on our infrastructure subcommittee from this committee and i thank the chairman for putting that together. i really think that all -- what all this revea

mr. barthold about this extraordinary news of this morning. now, mr. barthold and colleagues, i've been asking for the distribution table -- >> wait, wait. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to ask the question like you did. >> i'm going to run the committee. what we're going to do is we're going to have ten minutes to each person. everybody will get their chance to ask questions. i apologize to you for asking asked a question of mr. barthold. >> parliamentary inquiry. in the interest of just fairness, could i now ask one questioning after my opening statement? >> sure. go ahead. >> thank you for your courtesy. i've been asking for a distribution table on the modified mark for the past two days. i still haven't received the table directly, but i understand the table was put out earlier today. my understanding is that by 2027 almost every middle class taxpayer is going to get a tax hike or crumbs. i would like mr. barthold to describe what the result is of this new plan for middle class people in 2027. that is my one question. as i've indicated my colleagues have

mr. barthold. thank you for your service and as the chief of staff of the non bipartisan tax -- staff committee. you do great work and we have come to rely upon you and your staff to give us good-faith answers. both democrats and republicans, we appreciate your work as we draft any tax measure, including this one. you are the only voice we can really agree upon as being an honest broker. you said yesterday in response to a question i had that two out of every 1,000 americans benefits by the elimination of the estate tax. .002%. i need a little more clarification on the section of this bill. some social media accounts include claims or comments that it is false that this tax -- this tax little bill, hr-1 repeals the medical suspense -- expense deduction. can you clarify once and for all if this bill in its currents form repeals the medical expense deduction? hr-1 repeals the itemized deduction for medical expenses. >> so america understands that hr-1 in its presents form does repeal the medical expe

mr. barthold let me ask you a couple questions if i could. and i want to focus on taxes that people actually have to pay, not payments that the federal government makes to insurance companies so let's not of the sun payments that my colleagues are certainly suggesting is a tax increase. if you look at the actual taxes that are actually paid by human beings and i look at the chart that was produced on november 11, i see reductions in every single cohort, every income cohort. let's take for instance the 20 to 30,000-dollar cohort. that's the number on my sheet here is the 7% average reduction in taxes. do you see that number? i'm sorry, 2023. >> the senator is referring to j.c. x. 53 which was the distribution analysis for the underlying chairman's mark and yes in the 20 to 30,000 we have estimated that the total taxes collected attributable to that income group would fall by 7%. >> right and in all the brackets brackets. >> hughes on page three of j.c. x. 53-73 which was the distribution of the chairman's mark before the distribution. >> which

mr. barthold, at a time when we're nearing full employment, is permanent tax policy more supportive of growth than temporary tax policy, all else held equal? >> permanent policy is generally better in any economic environment because of the uncertainty of the temporary policy, sir. >> what about a permanent corporate tax rate versus a temporary tax rate cut? >> i would actually like to work with my colleagues to run the analysis on it rather than wing it from the table. >> i don't think it would be winging it asking that question. i mean, the answer to that question is obviously it would significantly deter growth if tax cuts are to sunset, don't you agree with that? >> as i said, permanent policy is always better in any

mr. barthold, i'm sorry to do this to you, mr. barthold, but we are discussing page one of the distribution tables and the fact that it clearly shows a cut of $33 billion for people earning $1 million and over. and the second question i asked was, what proportion of the tate tax does that group benefit from? >> senator bennett, i think i sent to all members of the committee two days ago an analysis of that based on 2013 decedents and i don't recall the specific results, but if you give me a couple of minutes. mr. bennet: thank you, i'll wait. i'll be brief about this amendment, mr. chairman. according to the congressional budget office this plan would cause 13 million americans to lose health insurance. it also would raise premiums on the individual market. the congressional budget office says by 1% each year. and still people on the other side said that even if premiums increased, people would be made whole by the tax cuts in their plan. we just saw how small those tax cuts are for people making $50,000 and below and i'll give you

mr. barthold. if the fraud has not been crs, why are we doing this? in comparison to what else is in this particular amendment. when did you get this amendment? mr. chairman? >> if the gentleman would yield i can explain this amendment if you like. >> i am talking to mr. brady. mr. brady? >> for what purpose? >> i said, when did your side get this amendment? >> at this time. words, -- just as when you propose amendments, you show to all parties at the same time then we begin the questioning and debate. >> so another words, your membership did not discuss is with you before? >>'s is was delivered to all members at the same time. >> down answer the question directly, i understand that. >> we're not talking about fraud here. we're not talking about fraud. the washington post article said he came out of three: already. we are talking about those corporations that have money offshore. beginning with apple. all the way down . $240 billion. they manipulated the system. an fact, there does not seem to be anything illegal about what they did. on face value. we

mr. barthold please walk us hrough the manager's amendment. >> quickly. >> but, mr. chairman, i would like to amendment. >> echo the chairman's request. we need this summary. we just got a draft to it. there are a lot of changes in it. we haven't had any time to review the changes. we haven't had a chance to ask any questions. as far as i can tell folks on the other side went in the back while we were taking these votes and they have been talking about making these changes and it seemed to me that would have been a natural opportunity to talk about ways to find common ground. so it looks to me like the last hour or so on this we enforce partisanship here. so we need you to take us through what these changes are. e may have some questions. >> let's move on. we did walk your staff through it. >> this is the first i've heard of it. >> that's not my problem. i get it from my staff. you can get it from yours. >> nobody had this. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> there is no roll. >> are you kid sng >> mr. chairman, you asked -- >> the walk thru. i'm so upset. let's do t

mr. barr told a question. barthold io ask mr. know i am interested in reducing any corporation to the 20% rate and for the transition, but beyond that, i am not interested and i hope we've not done anything for the oil industry. senator grassley, it is a fair assessment to say that some part of this is complicated. the mark, there are a couple of oil concepts to think about. the point that senator cantwell brought up about foreign-based company oil related income. cory, provides that for oil related income is currently taxable under present law. that is what's being repealed. he is income from sources outside the united states into primary products come chemicals or gasoline. from the transportation or distribution of sale oil and gas, their primary assets related to that, and other related services, which could include transportation of the oil or gas. fogei,s distinct from which is income derived from the extraction of oil and gas -- from the well. , the markark does is as noted by senator cantwell, repeals forei. it would be s

mr. barthold in terms of folks all across the spectrum being able to benefit and folks all across the spectrum benefit that creates more customers and those customers create more jobs. thank you mr. chairman and i yield back. >> mr. levin. >> i hope everybody is as confused as mr. blumenauer is. mr. blumenauer said it's confusing because we are repealing the deduction for state and local taxes for individuals but not for corporations. and why are we doing that? mr. nunes' answer is that all corporations are being treated the same but that doesn't answer the question why are you making a distinction between the individual and the corporation? a family farm is an individual so what is the answer? you say that you want to do this because states tax people the income tax individual too high and you want to discourage that. why doesn't that apply to taxes for corporations, state taxes and corporations? so i think somebody should answer what is the logic in this deciding individuals cannot do that there individual state and local taxes and property taxes? but letting corporations do it. i will yield

mr. barthold, could you describe to us on the bill we are at nine today? b >> yes, mr.neil, the distribution analysis we provided is gc acts 4917. this is the standard analysis that the staff is prepared for the committee. we actually have unnerved website available the explanation behind it. what we tried to do here is the book at what changes affect business that we look at the economic principle that ultimately businesses don't pay taxes. those taxes are born somewhere else, so there is an incident assumption based in it, which is with a substantial non-empirical economic literature. beyond not, the table somewhat speaks for itself in terms of looking at changes in average tax rates thatit would result, totaling the effects were business changes in individual changes. that is what we see in every other year basis starting with 201919 through 2027. >> when you take a look at the pastor changes come pastor changes, do you consider those in the individual bucket or corporate bucket or both? >> will come in the table itself as i was just noting combines everything. if yo

mr. barthold: that is correct. sen. cardin: we're talking about losing $185 billion of subsidies that go to middle income .amilies $185 billion of subsidies that would otherwise be available for health care. they chose under the mandate their behavior. then there is $179 billion a in the medicaid subsidies. these are people who qualify for medicaid. veterans qualify for medicaid. we have that debate on the floor of the united states senate. these individuals right now don't come forward because there is no mandate, and they lose those benefits. >> that is correct. there is reduction in outlays. middle income families are getting a lot of conversation, but it is disingenuous to say you are providing $43 lien of relief when you're taking away 300 and $60 billion of benefits. am i missing something? >> the analysis you provided on benefits seems accurate. sen. cardin: let me make a plea here. i do not know what impact this is going to have on the state of maryland. i do know we haven't all payer rate structure which is uni

mr. barthold and others. >> yes, sir. >> and i'm asking to have distributed to the committee a copy of the exchange that i've had over the last four days that talks about this being a problem, so that i should have done it monday. the committee members understand what's going on. i'd like to have that ability for each committee member before we get into a discussion. >> thank you very much for that. >> i draw the point of order. >> the gentleman from oregon is recognize for five minutes on this amendment. >> for how many minutes, mr. chairman? >> three minutes. >> three minutes. >> you should have taken the first -- >> no, mr. chairman, my time plays straight with you. i made a mistake, i wanted to clarify. >> the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> before the time start, mr. chairman, may i ask for some items to be submitted to the record? >> sure. >> they are from the hill magazine titled "congress turns its back on the american workers." from the american wind energy so, house reneges on tax deal buts america at risk. not only that, a map showing the distribution of all of the

mr. barthold. i yield back. >> that's also -- the definition of commenced construction is also modified by the legislation. >> gentleman time has expired. anyone else wish to speak? mr. crowley, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think it's interesting the direction of focus and the change of direction of focus in terms of this debate in terms of motivations as to the leadership of either side of the house. my good friend, the gentleman from new york, one of the co-chairs of the problem-solvers caucus is creating more problems for new yorkers and for our country in the passage of this bill. and to question the motivations of the leadership, let's be clear. our leadership wants to see this bill defeated because it is not reflective, not reflective, of the values of our country. that's why we want this bill defeated. it is not in the interests of our constituents nor do we believe in the interests of our country to see this bill move forward. in terms of back

mr. barthold a question to

mr. barthold. i would like to have clarification whether the committee's position is creator mr. barthold's information that he provided is accurate and regardless i'd like to know what premise the revenue estimate was based on because this could have a very significant impact. >> thank you. i'm not aware of that issue. we will have time when we reconvene in fraeamendment procr striking that word. so the committee is recessed for 30 minutes and we'll reconvene then. >>> the bill was unveiled last week. this is the third day of meetings. committee chair kevin braiddy ds say he wants to finish work on the bill tomorrow. we heard from mitch mcconnell today announcing that he would like to see the september release its version of the tax reform bill on friday. earlier today congressional democrats announced their plan to you can see that news conference on our website at csp cspan.org. while we wait for members to return from this break, we're actually going to show you that news conference right now. again, it's available

mr. barthold, i just heard my colleague from florida mention individuals going to college. being able to have regular lives. could you tell me how much in direct cuts are made with respect to provisions to individuals to pay for college. >> mr. davis, you're asking for changes in the chairman's mark that relate to education provisions under present law. i'd noted in the initial overview that there were some -- there was some expansions to the american opportunity tax credit and section 529 plans, but i also noted that certain other provisions were repealed. some of those provisions would be the deduction for student loan interest, special rule for education savings bonds. as part of the modifications the american opportunities credit, the lifetime learning credit is repealed. the exclusion for employer provided educational assistance would also be repealed. it ends -- hr 1 would end contributions to coverdale savings accounted but provides they be rolled over into modifications of sections 529 plans. also repeals an exclusion for employer provided tuition deductions. >> i'v

mr. barthold for his work. mr. chairman, i've been sitting here all week with this stack of papers. i'm glad to be able to do my part today to say this will be a thing of history when we're done here in the house of representatives as the senate and get this signed to the president's desk. and to be replaced with a simpler, fairer, tax code that is going to deliver $1,606 to the typical family in my district of western new york. mr. chairman, as the youngest of 12, whose father passed away when i was 2, who was raised by a single mother, $1,606 is a heck of a lot of money. and that is money these people have earned. and by doing the work we have done here, and i hope to work with my colleagues across the aisle as we go through this process to the finish line and we can do better for those individuals back home, we're giving direct relief to them. and thank you for the opportunity with it. but, mr. chairman, i also want to note one thing. i have been very passionate about the issue of college costs and college debts. and i note in the chairman's mark the section that dealt with the e

mr. barthold had indicated. but it became clear to me that we were going to move forward with tax reform, and one of the things i was concerned about is making sure that concerned abou making sure the people we represent in our district were going to have access to the benefits of tax reform, that $1600 of their money that they are going to be able to keep. and that is why the compromise position on the property tax levee was something that was intriguing to me. because if you look at the property tax bills across the state of new york -- and i know my good friend mr. crowley who lives closer to the city will recognize -- the costs and the values and the income tax burden on the folks living closer to new york city is much, much different than my average salary of $30,000, with a median salary of $42,000 in western new york. but when we started to look at this, the property tax bill, as i've articulated before, is something that's very regressive. i have single seniors, single parents, senior citizens. they pay

mr. barthold, we're going to be interested in whether your distributional analysis is going to be updated to include the individual mandate. so there are a host of questions, which is the point senator mccaskill has mentioned. and mr. chairman, i know you want to move on and some colleagues want to, and if we can vote on my motion. >> let's see if there are any other comments. >> mr. chairman? >> yes, senator stabenow. >> thank you. i support the ranking member's motion. i just want to indicate this is a very unfortunate turn. instead of having something to be in this tax bill that will raise premiums, health care premiums, what we should be doing is focusing on a bipartisan effort that senator alexander and senator murray have put together to stabilize the markets that would actually begin to lower premiums. and so this is a very unfortunate turn of events. and also makes me very skeptical about what is coming next when there's a $1.5 trillion debt increase in -- in this bill. and the next thing we see is a budget resolution with about $1.5 trillion in cuts to medicaid and medicare. so i

mr. barthold basically gave this a value of $4 billion of revenue as part of your score. a $4 billion. >> under present law as noted the income is currently taxed and is currently taxable and the repeal of that reflects the revenue for the current revenues rehm. >> in your report is $4 billion so my friends from iowa it's a new loophole gift whatever some $4 billion to oil companies. and i would just argue that first of all oil companies have been getting tax breaks for 100 years in the code. i often think that as a senator and i are talking about when solar and other in clean energy and we heard the argument we shouldn't pick winners and losers but frankly oil companies have been a winner for 100 years. they are not part of the a tax extenders. they have enjoyed for $70 billion as a result of their current tax treatment. this provides, i call it offshore doesn't have to be in the cayman island said the offshore for tax loophole of $4 billion in additional support funding money in their pockets. >> mr. chairman? is my understanding and i think you mentioned tom the this f

mr. barthold? >> well, i wouldn't hazard a guess. it's in -- what you have before you, most of the books, are

mr. barthold: it declines from 8.2% to 8.1%. port port -- mr. portman: i think it's important to have that reset now and again just to reprind us where we are here. people in these brackets are seeing a tax cut. these are the data points. this is the statistics. then this notion of medicaid and medicare, let's talk about that for a second. again, people saying this bill somehow slashes medicaid and medicare. is anywhere in the text of this bill, are there any cuts to medicaid? mr. batterhold: this is tax legislation, it does not address the medicaid program. mr. portman: so no cuts to medicaid. are there any cuts to the medicare program? mr. bart: hold: no changes to thed me care program. -- to the medicare program. mr. portman: i understand my colleague from pennsylvania has an amendment, but when he proceeds it by saying this is all about being sure that we're not continuing to provide these larger tax cuts for the wealthy, people making over d 1 million a year, just to know what we're doing in this bill, which is providing middle class tax re

mr. barthold do we have the latest j.t.c. scoring on this? a couple of tais ago i had the estimate that it was 20% of this middle income group which ended up being about 300,000 people in the state of washington. so i've asked for the latest table, do we have the latest table? >> you have the latest revenue table for the chairman's bill as modified. ms. cantwell: do we have a distribution table? >> that was distributed this morning, j.c.x.-17. ms. cantwell: that shows the percentage of people affected. the number of people in each income area that will be affected. the last page of the table, of jcx-58 page 7, provides the estimate of the number of tax filing units in each income category. ms. cantwell: the number of people whose taxes go up and the number whose taxes go down? >> we have not completed an analysis of that. ms. cantwell: that's what i thought, i was just verifying that. that's my point, mr. chairman. this is a very important issue for my state. and it's a very important issue about the overall debate of this tax bill. why shoul

mr. barthold, the chief of staff for the joint committee on taxation, about this tax and what its ramifications are. i asked him, will this fall unevenly as we've seen across the northeast and as we've seen across the west coast? the response was, it is not possible to say that in all cases, meaning all 50 states, that these taxpayers will have lower total income tax liability under h.r. 1 than under the present law. why? because they're not going to be allowed to take the deductions they normally get. in the state of connecticut, 41% of our citizens utilize and itemize their deductions. under the code that they've been able to do since 1913. and its inception. why is this important? we heard mr. brady say after everyone gets up and speak he is talks about what's going on in their district in an over-generalized manner. i asked joint tax, what would it be for a cup until west hartford with a child in college they own a home, have a combined income of $125,000. under the republican plan, they would see a $767 tax increase in 2018, and they would see more tax increase in 2023 when the family cred

mr. bart ho barthold can answer that question based upon the tables. americans at the lower end who will not be paying -- >> let me just say. >> i'm just refuting a statement that you made, mr. levin. i'm not going to argue with you. i am going to argue with you on the low income and middle class americans -- >> okay. >> they will be paying less taxes under this bill. >> all middle class people will not be paying less taxes. that is become very clear. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kind you're recognized to speak on the amendment. >> i do want to speak in favor of the amendment. this amendment gets to the juice that makes a lot of the projects go back home. it's an important incentive that creates these public/private partnerships that make things happen in each of our states. what's more it's not the a huge hit in the tax code as far as the revenue implications. we're talking about a bill that's delivering a 44% marginal tax rate reduction for corporations in this country and we're taking away private activity bond incentives in the code tha

mr. barthold, a question. i would like to know specifically what is in the bill, we're talking about offshoring now, what is in the bill that you would consider incentivizes american corporations to bring jobs back to the united states? that's my first question. what actually incentivizes these corporation corporations -- we all have a list of these corporations -- what incentivizes them to bring the jobs back to colorado, new jersey, new york, florida? alabama? tell me. >> thank you, mr. pascrell. >> you're welcome. >> we think of the economics of this as that jobs, if you're thinking of manufacturing or research, development, as following as being complementary to investments. so it's in part where is there an incentive to invest, whether it's to build a research lab, a factory headquarters operation. so the incentives can be affected by after-tax returns. you ask what incentives there might be in hr-1 that would encourage investment in the united states relative to abroad, compared to present law. so a coup

mr. chairman, as we close this debate out, i want to say thank you to you and your staff for all of the hard work and for r. bartholt to -- barthold for his work. i've been sitting here all week with this stack of papers. i'm glad to be able to do my part today to say this will be a thing of history when we're done here in the house of representatives as the senate and get this signed to the president's desk. and to be replaced with a simpler, fairer, tax code that is going to deliver 1,606 dollars to the typical family in my district of western new york. mr. chairman, as the youngest of 12, whose father passed away when i was 2, who was raised by a single mother, $1,606 is a heck of a lot of money. and that is money these people have earned. and by doing the work we have done here, and i hope to work with my colleagues across the aisle as we go through this process to the finish line and we can do better for those individuals back home, we're giving direct relief to them. and thank you for the opportunity with it. but, mr. chairman, i also want to note one thing. i have been very passionate about the issue of college costs and co

mr. barthold. >> the result in terms of changes uninsured is a result of decisions made. there's nothing that mandates that people give up insurance. it's an economic decision. >> that's the way that i read it and the way that i hear it from people at home. they say they can't afford insurance. they choose not to buy it. then they turn around and have to pay a penalty, which is a tax, and so by not paying that tax, they will be getting a bigger tax rebate than they would have gotten. they'll still get to keep their house. so we have to come up with other solutions. but this is just the start of one that i think will encourage more. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you'll be the last one this morning. then we'll recess. >> i want to respond to a question that was asked by our colleague from pennsylvania. basically said where does this punishment -- i remind us yesterday, i want to remind us again today some of my colleagues getting tired of this. where it came from was legislation introduced in 1993 by 23 republican senators including the two senior republicans on this committe

mr. barthold. >> the result in terms of changes i'm sure is a result of decisions made. there's nothing that mandates that people give up insurance. it's an economic decision. >> that's the way that i read it and the way that i hear it from people at home they say they choose not to buy it. they pay a penalty which is a tax. they will be getting a bigger tax rebate than they would have gotten. >> we'll recess until 2:30. >> thanks i will respond to a question asked by our colleague from pennsylvania. he said he could describe it as a punished word to come from. i want to remind us that some of my colleagues are getting tired of hearing this. it created the individual mandate. when mitt romney in 2006 decided to extend coverage to as many as he possibly could he listed cosponsored by senator grassly. it became the romney plan. when we did the affordable plan we said it ought to be part of the affordable care act. it's a good approach. republicans have good ideas. that was one of them. they have been trying to kill that idea for seven or eight years. we have to have a chan

mr. barthold's table is recognized. those hard-working people that we all represent, it's indisputable, are going to be able to keep more of their money as a result of this tax reform bill. will 31 years of us living under this broken american tax code, we are watching our economy be decimated from within. we are not competing on the international stage. we are losing americans' businesses and industries because we can't compete because our code is so old. when the code was written in 1986, no one even knew about the internet. no one knew about digital economy. we have to update this code so that we can compete on the world stage. i am looking at the proposed amendments here that the chairman has put forward. we're going to continue to have the debate as we go through this over the next four days. we are going to have debate with the senate bill. we're going to have a debate on the floor. we'll have a debate as we go to the finish line. i am confident we'll improve this bill as we go through it. but at the end of the da