mrs. mccaskill: one more question. are the people who are giving to the endowment, are they still allowed to take the tax deduction? mr. toomey: i think people who give to the endowments are treated the same as people who give to any other endowment. mrs. mccaskill: so it doesn't matter in terms of the people giving to the endowments whether or not they get a tax deduction, just whether or not the school takes money from the federal government? mr. toomey: if the school chooses to save federal taxpayers very substantial amounts of money by foregoing the title 4 funds, then the school would not have to pay the tax. mrs. mccaskill: my point, senator, is that the people who are giving to the endowment get the exact same tax benefit as people who give to any endowment in the country. mr. toomey: and it's a completely irrelevant point. the fact is the school is choosing to save the taxpayers a lot of money by foregoing money that would be available to its students. so it's very reasonable to have this modest savings that is

mrs. mccaskill: one more question. are the people who are giving to the endowment, are they still allowed to take the tax deduction? mr. toomey: i think people who give to the endowments are treated the same as people who give to any other endowment. mrs. mccaskill: so it doesn't matter in terms of the people giving to the endowments whether or not they get a tax deduction, just whether or not the school takes money from the federal government? mr. toomey: if the school chooses to save federal taxpayers very substantial amounts of money by foregoing the title 4 funds, then the school would not have to pay the tax. mrs. mccaskill: my point, senator, is that the people who are giving to the endowment get the exact same tax benefit as people who give to any endowment in the country. mr. toomey: and it's a completely irrelevant point. the fact is the school is choosing to save the taxpayers a lot of money by foregoing money that would be available to its students. so it's very reasonable to have this modest savings that is

mr. president. 17 democrats led by senator kane, mccain, mccaskill, tremendous outpouring of good faith said would like to have a bipartisan bill and asked me to come because i had written a bipartisan bill and i want to show the contrast between what ronald reagan did in 1986 with the democrats and what's happened, unfortunately, here. in 1986 bill bradley, someone i talked about bit on the floor as democrats that served on the finance committee with good government and growth and innovation. he flew all over the united states, mr. president, all of the united states to work out with republicans the various provisions of tax laws to make the bill bipartisan, so in 1986 democrats who around the country to meet with republicans to get bipartisan reform. this year republicans have not been willing to walk down the hall to discuss specific provisions about how we can move forward on a bipartisan tax reform bill. that's why our moderates are so concerned that we are nixing a great opportunity. multinationals-- by the way look at the first letter from the joint committee on taxation. we could be

mr. chairman i was dispriced how everyone was running from the bill the moment negative news reports came out from senator mccaskill, to senator manchin, to attorney general sessions seems like everyone tried to wash their hands of it, but no one ever told me they were dubious about this bill when it was going through. no one enter ad statement of opposition into the record or offered an amendment to change the bill. to the contrary the bill passed this committee by voice vote and passed the full senate by unanimous consent. so these last two months have been deeply frustrating to me, mr. chairman. i wish some of my colleagues would stop trying to rewrite history or pretend this was some sort of shell game. that's why i'm glad we're holding this hearing today. i want to talk about the facts, the facts of this law, the facts of my involvement and this committee's involvement and the facts of the law's impact. let's start with the i impetus r this law. this law came about not because i or anyone else got some giant check b because of very real ncerns that the way dea was operating was threatening patient access. repr