mr. bartold, could you answer my question. >> sir, certainly, sir. there are many taxes levied at different levels of government and at the federal level, we have the income tax, we have payroll taxes. we have some selected excise taxes. >> right. >> and many people particularly low income people purchase gasoline, purchase alcoholic beverages tobacco rods. >> thank you. that's federal tax liability. and i guess all i would say is, i enjoyed so much the chance to work with the senator from nevada on our infrastructure subcommittee from this committee. i thank the chairman for putting that together. i really think that what all this reveals this argument that we're having today between senator toomey and senator warner and between me and senator -- all of it suggests to me we should go back to regular order. let's have a bipartisan approach to reforming our tax code to reforming the corporate rate. to bringing it down. let's do it together. and let's do it in plain sight of the american people. i think they'd have a lot more confidence in this process

mr. bartold about this exftraary news of this morning. mr. bartold and colleagues i've been asking for a distribution table -- >> mr. chairman, i'd like to ask a 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. and a apologize to you for having asked a question of mr. bart dld old. >> parliamentary inquiry. in the interest of just fairness, could i now ask one question after my opening statement. >> sure. >> because you asked one question after your opening statement. >> you 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. bartold to describe what the result is of this new plan for middle class people in 2027. that i

mr. bartold for being here. i've been listening today, and i feel a little bit bad for you, i know it's strange, isn't it? a lot of people have raised their voices at you and made political speeches when really your role here today is to answer questions about the legislative text in front of us. and so i appreciate you being here and doing that for us, because we want to make the best decision for families, and the best decision for america. so that we can grow our economy, which basically means when you grow the economy, you raise wages, you get more jobs in the county, you have more people who have options. so when was the last time you had a markup on a bill of this size that was doing tax reform of this size? i mean you have been in your position for how long? >> i've been the chief of staff since 2009. >> have you had a bill of this size doing tax reform since you've been in your position? >> well, actually the american reinvestment recovery act was substantial, but this would be larger. >> this would be l

mr. bartold. >> so each of these will be offered separately? >> no, this is the amendment by mr. brady of texas. this is a separate amendment. >> with all of these pieces? >> yes, with several provisions in them, just as you -- >> why not take them up separately? >> well -- >> so we can ask mr. bartold and each of us have time to discuss -- >> your time has expired. >> this is a total disgrace. >> i know this is it the moment where the outrage is supposed to occur in the process. >> no, it doesn't. i ask that your remarks be taken down. >> oh, for heaven's sake. >> no, i'm serious, i didn't question your -- i did not -- >> i think that would be. >> i ask that your words be repeated. >> order -- >> mr. chairman, i request that mr. levin's remarks be taken down. >> i will be glad to. >> thank you. >> let's do this. >> i ask that your words be taken down. >> mr. levin, did i may, so we can go into all of that if you want, or as you know, as the former chairman, and as has been occurring throughout this session as well, the minority often offers amendments without our being able to s

mr. bartold on that issue, i think that's a fair request as well. l do that as soon as possible and give you ample time. mr. neal, you're recognized. >> just to speak up for mr. blum blumenauer here. he won't give a different issue? >> no, i think it's fair i examine the response. >> this has been a day full of suspension for members on our side. the suspense has been based on aepgsz and alteration in the schedule that is by standards that we agreed to earlier in the week. but have kept us here late tonight. in a good faith effort, members on our side began to curtail their amendments. and they came to the conclusion that they would prioritize what they felt most strongly about. and we started with about -- almost 100 amendments. after working our way through some of them, we came to the conclusion that 60 made a good deal of sense. and right now based on prediction, it looks like we may only get to 22 of those amendments, even though we caucused and said, look, in order to find a common purpose with the majority, anticipating a substantial change in

mr. bartold, anyone on the other side concerned with the tax rate being made permanent. so would you tell us, if the corporate tax rate deduction were not permanent, how would that affect business behavior in the six or so years from now? >> the economic incentives to invest in the analysis that we provide to the members is driven by after tax returns from investment. investment has its returns over a long period of time. so if you are -- you said five or six years from now. so if you were in 2022, you would be thinking if i made an investment -- a new factory, a new facility then, you would be earning your income out over the subsequent years. and you would be looking at higher -- potentially higher tax rates after the sunset date that you proposed, senator grassley. so that would diminish what you would see as the possible returns from your investment. so it should -- it should diminish investment incentives. >> would it -- if it isn't made permanent, then, would it nullify the benefit that comes in the first part of the ten years? >> if -- when we get to undertaking o

mr. bartold. what's your reaction? is it true? based on my understanding, yes, that would be correct. >> i guess senator, i'm not quite clear about what you have the taxpayers setting up. >> well, what the article says is that under the bill a firm could skirt the limitations by creating multiple partnerships with different functions with one providing services and the other handling say licensing or leasing. true? >> which th is a surface partnership? >> yeah. >> we look to park anticipates looking at common control related parties and treating them as one. so if the service income that this owner was trying to attribute was $75,000 worth of service income where as all other income was $200,000 -- and i'm abstracting from taxable income, that individual would not qualify from the exception provided in the chairman's mark. >> so i think you agree with that? >> i guess what's unclear to me is if they partner, for instance, has a different partnership interest and that holds a business would they be able to bail themselves a deducti

mr. bartold and others? >> yes. >> i'm asking to have a copy of the exchange that i have had over the last four days that talks about this being a problem so that i -- i should have done it monday. >> to every committee member to understand what's going on but i would like to have that available to each committee member before we give into a discussion so they know what brought this forward. >> gentleman from oregon is recognized on his amendment. >> for how many minutes, mr. chairman? >> three minutes. >> three minutes? >> you should have taken the first -- >> no. i try to play straight with you. the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. before the time starts mr. chairman may i ask for items to be submitted to the regacord? >> sure. >> they are from the hill magazine titled congress turns its back on american workers, from the american wind energy association, house reneges and puts american jobs at risk. and along with that a map showing the distribution of all of the major wind facilities across the

mr. bartold, is it guaranteed those with the states over 11 million will get a tax break from this bill? >> is it guaranteed? >> gauaranteed if this bill becomes law they will get a tax break? >> the bill retains the top individual rate. it's not guaranteed. there will be benefits as we measured them. >> is it guaranteed with an estate over $11 million. >> i thought you were talking income tax. my apologies. in doubling the exemption amount, any large estate would benefit, sir. >> i think that's the point here. the point that we're trying to make. i will restate again. i think you're all honorable people and all care about. that's why we're asking you not to do this. that's why we're asking that we go back to the status quo so we don't have senior citizens paying for estate tax relief. >> tax is expired. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. lar sen. all those in favor signified by saying aye. those opposed, no. the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. pursuant to committee rule on the amendment will be postponed. any other additional amendments in the nature of

mr. bartold none of us has a clue what i read here. it was certainly not something my moms and dads were lobbying the chairman to get included. this smacks a powerful special interest in washington showing up on your doorstep to talk about simplifying the tax code. this is anything but simplify case. we'll be having more values of rules and regulations stacked in front of you because of complexity that this committee hasn't had an opportunity to vet or to have any idea what the heck this means and who it will benefit and what the budgetary implications will be. without having any hearings and getting any feed back and we are supposed to make a reasoned judgment whether or not to report this or not out of committee and send it to the house floor by next week. i pity our colleagues who haven't lived in this world of taxes and tax policy ramifications. they have to make a reasoned judgment or whether or not it makes sense for the future of our country. i submit there is not one of us that can make that judgment even if we are going to be