mr. blumenauer. wherever mr. pomeroy is right ow he supports this amendment. mr. blumenauer: mr. chairman, i've talked a lot in the course of this proceedings about trying to do these things on a ooperative and thoughtful way. and many of my colleagues know that i have worked with them on things where we could work together and make a difference. i have promoted the work of this committee in an open and thoughtful way, to pro-- promoting hearings, finding where we can come together, get something done. and when we have, i celebrated it. this amendment is trying to help you fix an egregious problem that symbolizes what's wrong with what you've done with this bill. we could have come together with a tax credit for dealing with housing that would have benefited everybody. we could have taken the small business provisions on pass-through and limited it to really small businesses. not hedge funds. not sports bar. not donald trump. we could have done that on a bipartisan basis and there wouldn't be questions about blowing a hole in the revenue estimate. but because the choice is to go

mr. blumenauer. this is a very good amendment, and wherever mr. pomeroy is right now, he supports this amendment. >> no doubt. mr. chairman, i talked a lot in the course of this proceeding about trying to do these thing on a cooperative and thoughtful way. i have looked, as you know, to find ways to work across the aisle. and many my colleagues who have debated this issue today know that i have worked with them on things where we could come together and make a difference. and i have promoted the work of this committee in an open and thoughtful way, to promoting hearings, finding a way to come together. to get something done. and when we have, i've celebrated. this amendment is trying to help you fix an aegregious problem that symbolizes what is wrong with this bill. we could have come together with a tax credit, dealing with housing that would have benefits the rich. we could have taken the small business provisions on passthrough and limited to small business. not hedge funds, not sports bar, not donald trump. we could have done that on a biparti

mr. blumenau blumenauer. >> by the way, mr. pascrell, as you were making your point, i was thinking your town halls -- hold on. you'll get it back. your town halls are probably more interesting than mine. well done. mr. blumenauer, you're recognized. >> i'll tell you about them, they are very interesting. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i really appreciate it, my friend from pennsylvania in terms of areas we agree. i think if he and i were starting out, and we had a trillion and a half dollars to spend on behalf of my consit wants and his constituents, i think we could come up with something. i think it would be like what mr. renacy would find out when he travels in ohio to find out what people in ohio want. i think when we go through that, most people would say if you're going to have a trillion and a half dollars, you wouldn't start with the people at the very top. you probably would extend the earned income tax to the bottom percent. i don't think we'd take away medical deductions for people in extreme situation situations that

mr. blumenauer. it is a good amendment and wherever mr. pomeroy is, he supports this amendment. [laughter] rep. blumenauer: no doubt. mr. chairman, i have talked a lot in the course of this doceedings about trying to these things on a cooperative and thoughtful way. i have looked, as you know, to find ways to work across the aisle, and many of my colleagues who have debated this issue today know i have worked with them on things where we could make a difference. i have promoted the work of this committee in an open and thoughtful way to promoting hearings, finding where we can come together and get something done. where we have, i have celebrated. this amendment is trying to help you fix an egregious problem that symbolizes what is wrong with what you have done with this bill. we could have come together with a tax credit, dealing with housing -- we could have taken the small business provisions on limit it to really small businesses, not hedge funds or sports buyers -- bars or donald trump. we could have done it on a bipartisan basis, and there would not have been a question abo

mr. blumenauer, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate my friend, mr. kelly, talking about opportunity. you know, actually i appreciate mr. reed clearing that up. i thought he had those books stacked up so people couldn't see him based on what's going on here. mr. reed: a face for radio. that's what i do. mr. blumenauer: but now we're moving into the next phase. it's unclear to me what the president is going to regard this. i remember he celebrated your efforts to dismantle the affordable care act at the white house before he denounced it as being a mean bill. and i don't know when the stories start coming out about what's really in this bill and the feedback, i don't know if he's going to stand behind you or not. but i know in terms of what we have now, it's actually a very good bill for donald trump. most of the trump enterprises are pass-through entities. not small business. pass-through entities. and he'll be able to take advantage of that lower tax rate. he'll be able to have hundreds of millions or billions, however man

mr. blumenauer. >> mr. blumenauer you are recognized.by the way, as you are making your point i was thinking, your town halls are called on, you'll get it back to your town halls are probably more interesting than mine. well done. mr. blumenauer you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i really appreciate my friend from pennsylvania. in terms of areas that we as ray and i think if he and i were starting out and we had 1,000,000,000,000 and a half dollars to spend, on behalf of my constituents in his constituents i think we could come up with something. infected think it will be much like what you would find out traveling all have to find out what people in ohio want. i suggest we go through that and we find that most people would say if you're going to have 1,000,000,000,000 and a half dollars you would not start with people at the very top. you will probably extend the earned income tax credit to the bottom 35 percent. i think they would want that. i do not think they want to take away the medical deductions for people in extreme

mr. blumenauer? >> while the clerk is distributing, i would like to acknowledge you gave me a letter this morning in reference to the issue that i raised on monday, and you indicated that there would be an opportunity before we adjourn to be able to explore this with mr. bartel and others. >> absolutely. >> i'm asking to have distributed to the committee a copy of the exchange that i have had over the last four days that talks about this being a problem -- i should have done it monday. every committee member should understand what is going on. i would like that to be available to each community member before we get into a discussion. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i withdraw my point of order. >> the gentleman withdraws his point of order. the general men from oregon is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. >> how many minutes, mr. chairman? >> three minutes. you should've taken the first offer. >> i try to play straight with you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized for three

mr. blumenauer, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate my friend, mr. kelly, talking about opportunity. you know, actually i proosht mr. reed clearing that up -- i appreciate mr. reed clearing that up. i thought he had those books stacked up so people couldn't see him based on what's going on here. mr. reed: a face for radio. that's what i do. mr. blumenauer: but now we're moving into the next phase. it's unclear to me what the president is going to regard this. i remember he celebrated your efforts to dismantle the affordable care act at the white house before he denounced it as being a mean bill. and i don't know when the stories start coming out about what's really in this bill and the feedback, i don't know if he's going to stand behind you or not. i know in terms of what we have now, it's actually a very good bill for donald trump. most of the trump enterprises are pass-through entities. not small business. pass-through entities. and he'll be able to take advantage of that lower tax rate. he'll be able to have hundreds o

mr. blumenauer. this is a very good amendment. wherever mr. pomeroy is right now, he supports this amendment. [ laughter ] >> no doubt. >> mr. chairman, i have talked a lot in the course of this proceedings about trying to do these things on a cooperative and thoughtful way. i have looked, as you know, to find ways to work across the aisle and many of my colleagues who have debated this issue today know i have worked with them on things where we could come together and make a difference. and i have promoted the work of this committee in an open and thoughtful way, to -- promoting hearings, finding where we can come together, get something done. and when we have, i have celebrated it. this amendment is trying to help you fix an egregious problem that symbolizes what's wrong with what you have done with this bill. we could have come together with a tax credit dealing with housing that would have benefited everybody. we could have taken the small business provisions on pass-through and limit it to really small businesses. not hedge funds, not spo

mr. blumenauer for the comment he is just made. now the two of us have not worked together on a lot of issues but this is one we saw eye-to-eye in. through flood, i think we've een a lot of common ground and worked together, i actually promised i'd wear a bike today and i forgot, i'll wear it late . this has been an effort on bipartisanship. i've worked with graves and scalise and king and lobiondo and macarthur. on the democrat side i worked with mr. scott, mrs. maloney, ms. velazquez, all concerned about the northeast and the sandy reforms necessary to learn the lessons. we've included those reforms in this bill. i sat down countless hours with the ranking member, she shared her phone number with me, left me at the dance though because before this thing was done she walked away. we tried to get a bipartisan bill. we worked on this thing together. so to say something other than that is not fair, it's not right. we have tried you might not like the end product but we have gone a great distance to get a bill that everybody can agree

mr. blumenauer yes. mr. kind. farmers,e sake of the aye. >> mr. pas grell yes. mr. davis yes. ms. sanchez yes. mr. higgins yes. mrs. sewall yes. -- mr. to burya no. >> brady no. >> 16 yes, 24 no. not agreed to. >> thank you. theuld have voted yes on first one. i was on an emergency call. >> i also was not present for the first vote. i support the amendment. the question is on the amendment and the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. johnson no. mr. nunez no. eight now. mr. reichert no. mr. buchanan know. mr. smith of nebraska no. miss jenkins no. mr. paulson no. mr. marchant. miss black. mr. read no. mr. kelly know. -- mr. holding no. mr. smith of missouri. mr. smith no. mr. rice no. mr. schweikert no. miss lore ski no. mr. korbel oh no. mr. bishop no. mr. neil yes. mr. levens yes. mr. lewis yes. mr. doggett yes. mr. thompson yes. mr. larson yes. mr. blumenauer yes. mr. kind yes. mr. pas grell yes. mr. davis yes. ms. sanchez yes. mr. higgins. mr. hagans yes. ms. sewall yes. -- mr. merchant no. chairman brady no. >> the clock will call the roll. -- will report the vote. >> 16 yes, 24

mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy. i was listening to our friend from louisiana and i sympathesize with much of what he has been saying. i have been working on flood insurance reform for 20 years. and we are caught in a dynamic here where it's never really good enough and there are challenges for people who play by the rules at the time, the problem is that we are not doing a good job of moving forward of making the changes. it is true that some of this has eastern impact on louisiana. i'm sensitive to that. but at the same time, there are policies that have been resisted by some of those same people. we've got to swallow hard and understand that we are on a path here that impacts people all across the country. we do not have accurate flood maps and people resist updating them. . we have many people paying far ess than the actuarial cost of flood insurance. they are paying unfair premiums. we do not invest in predisaster mitigation. we will save $4 in disaster relief f

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 to anybody who wants to explain that. mr. nunes i will yield to you. explain why individuals cannot that corporations can. >> if the gentleman will yield you will have a chance to vote on th

mr. blumenauer, no here is the kind, no. is the past about, no. no.coley, mr. davis, no. ms. sanchez, hell no. mr. higgins, no. if 20, no. chu, no. chairman brady, aye. >> clerk will call the roll. . 16nos. hr one will be reported to the house of representatives. i asked the staff authorized to make technical informant changes to the bill. members have two days to file with the supplemental edition. to take a moment to thank the members of this committee for their tireless hours of work on the tax cuts and jobs act. i would like to thank the brilliant drafters, the house office who have been working on this bill for months. thanks to the hard-working team and joint committee on taxation, the attorneys, accountants, support staff would advise us and our staff, without whom, none of this would be possible. the bill is passed, the committee is adjourned. host: good morning on this friday, november 10 and welcome to the washington journal. we feature a newspaper or other publication in our area, today we are talking with people at the washington examiner. that's where our cameras

mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you very much, mr. speaker. after spending a bizarre week in ways and means with a moving target from the republican tax plan, we find out amazingly that it's actually getting worse and worse. we've just discovered that the senate is going to repeal the individual health care mandate to try and provide funding for more tax cuts for america's wealthy. and the cost of that, there will be 13 million additional uninsured americans, and everybody in the individual market will see their premiums increase another 10% next year. well, tomorrow trump is going to come to capitol hill to hold a rally with republican members to try and make some of these nervous people feel a little more comfortable. and no wonder donald trump is eager to see this bill pass. it is designed for donald trump. first, he's the self-proclaimed king of debt. well, you got it in spades with this bill because the republicans have raised the debt ceiling $1.5 trillion to finance these tax cuts for people who frankly don't need them. and because you

mr. blumenauer, you're recognized to speak on the amendment. >> i will just take one moment. i want to pick up where my friend mr. kelly left off. we have an infrastructure funding crisis in this country. we have not kept pace. we have a highway trust fund we cannot meet its ongoing obligations, and we fill that with all sorts of gimmicks. and it means that state and local don't have the partnerships, the private sector is really paying a heavy price for our inaction. this is the jurisdiction of our committee. and i hope that we get to the point where we're going to embrace our responsibility, and we will find that there is broad bipartisan support for increasing revenues, not the deficit. but i take exception to zeroing out the private activity bonds. i worked with mr. kelly on this. we have seen the impact. it's grown increasingly important because congress has not kept up its responsibilities as a partner with the state and local governments. so i strongly support this amendment. and i hope that we will reach the point -- this is an area if we actually had hearings, brought

mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. donald trump is going to be on capitol hill rallying republicans to vote for his tax bill. perfectly designed for his benefit. eliminating the alternative minimum tax, one of the few ways he pays any tax at all. abolishing the inheritance tax, allowing him to pass on tax-free hundreds of millions of dollars to his family. expanding access to the lower pass-through tax rates for many large and profitable businesses. donald trump lists hundreds of pass-through entities on his financial forms. donald trump is the king of debt, and this monstrosity of a tax bill is fueled by increasing the national debt $2.3 trillion. cutting taxes for the wealthy, financed by increased debt burden on our children and grandchildren and, of course, details are starting to leak out, special deals for baseball teams, breaking a bipartisan commitment to the wind energy industry is already causing their stock prices to fall, jeopardizing billions of dollars of projects and putting tens of thousands of jobs at

mr. blumenauer, no. no.kind, mr. pas grau -- past grell, no. .r. davis, no ms. sanchez, no. mr.iggins, no. no.sewall, ms. delbene, no. .r. nunez, aye buchanan.in -- mr. rice. , aye.rvalho chairman brady, aye. >> did you want to do the amt? sandy, what do you want to do? >> you can go first. >> he can come in if he wants to. yay,ss, 16 nos. >> the motion to table is agreed to. amendment?ditional >> yes, i will go. >> mr. doggett? >> it is being distributed. mr. reiger? >> i will suspend, but i want to make it clear, as i have informally, i saw mr. brady come in. i'm discussing an abridgment -- and amendment, mr. brady, i wanted to have full notice, as i believe he does, that i will be discussing his amendment, number one in this amendment. i do not want to be unfair in any way and i wanted to have an opportunity to respond. >> i have recognize you for the purpose of stating an amendment. are you going to suspend while it is being distributed? mr. reiger is observing a point of order and is on pause until it is a street it. -- distributed. >> i withdraw my point of order. withdraw

mr. blumenauer. mr. blumenauer, aye. mr. kind, mr. kind, aye. mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell, yes. mr. crowelly. mr. crowley, aye. mr. davis, mr. davis, aye. ms. sanchez. ms. sanchez, aye. mr. higgins. mr. higgins, yes. mr. sewell. ms. sewell, yes. ms. delbene. ms. delbene, aye. ms. chu, ms. chu, aye. chairman brady. chairman brady, no. mr. chairman. >> record the vote. >> 16 ayes. 24 nays. >> the motion to postpone is not agreed to. you're recognized for a technical description of the amendment. again, i asked our members hold their questions until after his presentation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and members of the committee. you have before you several documents prepared by the staff of the joint committee on taxation, jcx-50 which describes the underlying legislation, and jcx-48 describing the modifications made in the amendment. you also have supplemental information. our revenue analysis and distribution analysis. there are many changes in this legislation, and i will try to give an overview of a number of the important points. on the individual income tax, hr-1 would change ou

mr. blumenauer that the family portion for the taxpayer and the taxpayer spouse expires after five years.the child credit is permanent. >> and one reason for doing that, you don't have to answer this, clearly is at the size of the shortfall in revenue under this plan by expiring that, but you have been around here long enough to realize, as many of us doing committee that when these popular tax provisions suddenly expire or are on the verge of phasing out, congress typically doesn't have the stomach to actually let that happen and figures out a way of extending that. if that's true, then that 1.5 trillion is really asi lowball when it comes to the public that that will be added under this plan if congress does not let those provisions expire. is that not true? >> that has been the history in this place for quite some time. >> and i set a couple times, those are decisions for the members of congress to make. >> we just turned ourselves into pretzels trying to get rid of so-called tax extenders. the yearly exercise that congress makes to extend certain tax provisions on the verge of sun set

mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. as time goes on, people are going to have a chance to look at the details of the republican tax plan. it's clear the benefits are concentrated to those who need help the least, ignoring those who need help the most and producing an unaffordable deficit in the future. but one of the most disturbing elements of this is that the republican plan would gut the agreement that we negotiated in good faith with the wind energy industry to be able to wean them off tax subsidy. it was phased down in exchange for that certainty, the industry has up to $50 billion that is at risk by having the federal government pull the rug out from underneath them. we were well on the path towards sustainability with clean, american built, low carbon energy. puts at risk 50,000 jobs as a result of the reversal in course, and it raises questions for american business whether or not they can trust the american congress to keep a deal. this is an element that must be changed. we must respect the agreement that we m

mr. blumenauer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a useful conversation. i happen to be from a community where there is a high reliance on deductions for interest, for property tax, for state income tax. my community is one that actually has benefitted. we have a low unemployment rate. we have 111 young people who moved to portland every day. our housing prices have increased far above the national average. we have been sort of in a competition between seattle and portland, having the dubious distinction of the most rapid increase in rent, in housing prices, although mercifully, the housing prices are still lower, but the rate of increase is high. i have watched young people struggle trying to enter that market. this is something that has a huge effect on my community. and it has a very significant impact on people around the country who pay property taxes. everybody does. people who are concerned about the 45 states that have state income tax. and it's an example of where we would have benefitted from actually bringing people in from new york, from mr. re

mr. blumenauer's point, there are ways of masking the sides of the deficit. one of which is expiring or phased out provisions. you have indicated one, but are there certain provisions under the republican tax plan that phases out or expires over the next 10 years? 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

mr. blumenauer. >> i heard my colleagues say it's kind of following the path of democrats because the limitation was restricted when we approved the care act. the affordable care act, which we paid for, was the largest expansion and that was a huge benefit for a wide range of americans including the orderly. contrast that with wiping it out altogether not to give more health care to people, but to make active cuts for the most well-off. the inheritance tax is the the difference is telling. millions of health care which you are trying to take away versus wiping out deductio the n and tiger lee for senior citizen. >> i would like to reclaim the remainder of my time. >> i think the gentle lady and i am prepared to close. i would like to close by asking is it guaranteed that those in the states with 11 million will get a tax break from this bill? is it guaranteed if the bill becomes law that they will get a tax break? the >> the bill retains the top individual rate. it's not guarantee that there will be benefits. >> those at the state over 11 million -- >> i'm sorry, my apologies. in the bowling the

mr. blumenauer, you are more than a fair person and appreciate your patience. >> i would like to as chairman look at the issue, get you a response and then to be able 10 to gauge myself and other members with mr. bartal on that issue. i think that's a fair request as well. and so we'll do that as soon as possible and give you ample time. >>> the house ways and means committee continues on a fourth day going through the house republican tax reform bill thursday. live coverage resumes at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. >>> saturday marks the 64th year of national observance of veterans day. vice president mike pence takes part in the ceremony at the tomb of the unknown soldier and speaks at the memorial amphitheater. live coverage from arlington national cemetery begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. online c-span.org, or on the free c-span radio app. >>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >>> next, former u.s. and israeli ambassadors

mr. blumenauer and mr. nolan and representatives on the republican side, mr. davis, mr. yoder and mr. knight, to come together on a bipartisan basis to address this trouble. i ask for co-sponsors and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. thank you, mr. speaker. well, not surprisingly republicans have had to delay the release of their tax plan. so deeply unpopular. we haven't seen all the details yet but what we know about it is this is really bad for working families. the nonpartisan tax policy center says that the republican plan raises taxes on middle-class families to pay for a massive tax cut for the people at the very top, the wealthiest americans. the details matter. a family of four earning $50,000 could see their taxes go up 380%. 80% of the benefits of this billionaires-first tax plan go to the richest 1%. 80% of the benefits to the richest 1%. that's not middle-cla

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 a manager's amendment. we wanted to get right to the crux of these tax issues that separate the two sides. we came here beginning on monday with the walk-through, with o