The republicans have gone the partisan route in trying to use fast tracking to put together a republican bill that imploded and they did not pass it. Some are suggesting maybe tax reform could be done on a bipartisan basis how confident are you that they can Work Together on tax reform . Rep. Neal there is a distinction that us of the drawn between the president and senate republicans. Senate republicans have collapsed the effort to repeal the fourth care act but the president used talking about repealing the aca. I hope as we proceed to tax reform there could be room for bipartisan cooperation. It strikes me to is wrought agreement about what is wrong with the current tax code. 31 years is a long time to wait before we try another attempt to bring the tax code in conformity with a new globalized Economic Situation across the globe. So i think there is plenty going plenty of room here. The ways and Means Committee, we have had a good relationship. And i hope that if they decide to do this on a oneparty basis that we dont wind up with tax cuts as opposed to tax reform. Rachael can you talk more about priorities that democrats would like to see in tax reform . What areas do you think we overlap with republicans . Highlight areas that you think could be the potential problem areas for you. Rep. Neal there is broad agreement that there is 2. 8 trillion offshore. Some of that is intangible assets so that will not be brought back but there is a lot of money that could be brought back for more productive purposes. Hopefully for infrastructure. Sidenk on the democratic there is a yearning to address the issue of the skills gap that exists across america today. 6 Million Technology jobs to go unanswered in new england. You have between 16,000 and 20,000 manufacturing jobs that go unanswered. Worker participation is at 63 . We need to acknowledge how we can align Economic Growth with opportunities because, certainly, there are opportunities that exist for the american family. I also think the difficulty here is going to be kevin brady met with democrats on the committee. It was a constructive meeting. It was anything but harsh. He did point out they would adhere to revenue neutrality, they would use of prescribed number of dollars around the current system. Where i think there will be brought disagreement with democrats is the suggestion that he will not appear to distributional neutrality. And i think that is where the nub of the resistance will come in. People at the top of the American Economic ladder are not pining for tax cuts. They were not pining for them only cut taxes by 2. 3 trillion and i think many them are suggesting it are going to transform the tax system, lets do it in an equitable way where improves quality of life for all members of the american family. Richard you had a meeting with your counterpart on the ways and Means Committee. What was your take on the statement that was released late last month on the big six republicans leading this effort . Rep. Neal i think they couldve included ron white in myself and it wouldve been a more constructive conversation. Similar to what took place in the white house back in may, it was a white page onepage statement, there were few specifics here at anytime you go near the tax system its specificity. Agree as long as the argument remains general, the argument becomes more polarizing. Richard your colleagues in the senate on the democratic side, almost all of them sent a letter to the white house urging bipartisanship in setting up conditions. No deficit financed tax cuts, no tax cuts for the top 1 and no use of reconciliation to avoid a filibuster. What did you think of those principles . Are those your conditions for cooperating with republicans here . Rep. Neal anytime one sees an architectural rendering, and thats what they offer you do , understand that the most pleasant picture could be altered as you go along and you try to find a common purpose. So i think what the Senate Democrats did, including Charles Schumer and ron white was to offer a prescription of generalities. And i think that offers an opening segment of the conversation. My suggestion will be, again, lets try to figure out where we agree, bill this tax reform proposal from the middle out, understanding that concentration of wealth in america is a knowledge by everybody and understand as well our Community Colleges could use an infusion of incentives, apprenticeship programs and our occasional schools to address the worker skill gap across america as well. And i hope that is what the tax code debate and discussion will be used for, to inform the American People. But if we proceed to the idea that we are only going to cut taxes for people at the very top or have some corporate relief you only further enhance the , notion of wealth concentration in fewer hands every year. Richard in the past, democrats have stepped the line for tax increases for individuals at 200,000, married couples at 250,000. Above that is a fair game for higher taxes. Is that still where you draw the distinction . How are you doing that in terms of the questions about this tension . Distinction . Rep. Neal one of the challenges you have today, a joint filing of 200,000 with three kids in college, you dont feel wealthy. I am amenable to the idea of moving the ceiling to make adjustments based on what the other side might be willing to give as well to the middle class in terms of more incentives. Recall the model that david can fused. David is a good friend of mine. He included democrats until probably the last month. And then in the last month i think even moved republicans out of the picture. That is the model we ought to use to promote the conversation. Was lasttax code reformed, the internet had not been invented. There is a whole new economy out there. And i think addressing the notion that i raised earlier about skill sets is terribly important and using the tax code to incense behaviors is where democrats are going to be. John congressman i want to get , your thoughts on the timeline for this getting done. Mark meadow, republican, Freedom Caucus chairman, said that thanksgiving would likely be the deadline. This would need to be done or likely it is not going to get done. What are your thoughts on this process and how long it should take . Rep. Neal well, it didnt get done by may 1, we can agree with acknowledge that. The quicksand of Health Care Reform drew people in and it was difficult for them to get out of it. There were a series of procedural steps that need to occur as we go forward. First of all, they need a budget ceiling. That has to be established. And based on what ive seen so far, it will difficult to prescribe. In addition the next round with envy an invitation to have democrats participate without reconciliation. And i have been at this for a long period of time. And i think reconciliation should only be applied after all other avenues have been exhausted. Despite but the other side says, that the model that took place in the aca debate. That went on for more than a year and a plenty of hearings half. And opportunities for the parties to engage and as we came down the home stretch, it was only the inability of the chair of the finance committee as he saw the votes that was the last effort that was made and then a decision was made with the election of scott brown to go it alone. I hope that doesnt ensue because tax reform is even more collocated than the aca. Rachael i want to come back quickly to the notion of republicans during republicannly tax reform. Im curious to see if you have noticed a difference between the way the white house and the treasury reaches out . From my understanding, there has been contact from folks within the administration with some of the democrats on tax reform . Have you noticed a difference in terms of the way the approach you and leadership in the house approaches you, like ryan . Has it been more contact with the administration . Rep. Neal i had breakfast two ago was secretary of the treasury steven mnuchin. I thought it went very well. We certainly disagreed about dynamic scoring but we agreed there should be some middle class incentives. Gary cohen came in early on and we had a very thoughtful conversation that was helpful. I did have some fun with them as they announced they would pull the tax code of i through to transform the modern tax code. Zeey were going to revolutioni the tax code. There have been only six secretaries who told me the same thing. Like sisyphus, we are back at it given my conversations with the administration have been different than my conversations with House Republicans. That is for sure. And surely senator mcconnell and has taken a different step this week. The Administration Strikes me as not being interested in engaging democrats in the congress on tax reform largely based upon the , Campaign Pledge to provide tax relief. House members have taken the position similar to the bush tax cuts which overwhelmingly placed the distributional side of it in the hands of the very wealthy. John about halfway through our discussion with congressman richard neal of massachusetts, the top democrat on the taxwriting committee in congress. The ways and Means Committee. Richard one piece they are looking at as part of the republican plan is appealing the deduction for state and local taxes. Is there any way to accommodate democrats on that given how it is such an important issue in your state and new york, new jersey, california, other states we have a lot of Democratic House members . Rep. Neal one thing that is interesting is in the last month i was asked to speak at a luncheon and there was a republican in the senate who spoke just before me. That individual concluded that they were interested in eliminating the state and local Tax Deductions because it was only applied to blue states. If that is the way that tax reform is to proceed, with the we will be right back in the polarized atmosphere that has existed for a long period of time. The idea that it only applies to the blue states is a huge miscalculation. I have heard some of the best arguments on that from members of the congressional delegations from tennessee for example. , so that will be a very difficult but it does highlight one the fact that we did find in the border adjustment tax debate. The border adjustment tax, whatever faulted had and there were many, understand what the border adjustment tax the problem i had was the border adjustment tax did provide up to 1 trillion worth of revenue. I was not moved by the argument that the dollar would appreciate by after 25 over the course of the next five years in an effort to use dynamic scoring on their part. But i do think that this notion that it only applies to california, massachusetts, new york and connecticut is not met by fax there in john during the Health Care Debate, democrats relied a lot on the energy of the Democratic Base to make the phone calls to be involved in the process and get their voices heard. If republicans move forward on their own when it comes to tax reform, are democrats going to do the same thing . Is tax of one something that can stir up the same energy that we saw the democratic voters during the Health Debate . Rep. Neal the Health Care Debate is much more convoluted as it relates to economics largely because you are making predictions in terms of actuarial undertakings which are very difficult from time to time to assess. People cant say, ok , i will get sick on january 15 which is why need to buy Health Insurance now. But if you relate that argument to distribution tables, people quickly understand who is about to get what. If you remember with regard to the bush tax cut i go back to us because the argument was that provide longterm Economic Security for the American People. Even the wall street journal editorial page suggested the distributional side of the tax cuts did not provide the Economic Growth spurt the Bush Administration promised. They described this as middleclass tax relief but the middle class got very little and the people at the top did very well. And i think that what we are looking for in this discussion is not necessarily to energize the base but to come up with a tax system that is equitable and create better productivity and greater efficiencies in markets. Harlequins have talked about since the Health Care Bill has not passed, this effort is a politically urgent for them to have an incompetent to bring the voters in 2018. As you look ahead to 2018 and get yourself the chairmanship, how do you use the tax reform effort if it passes and how you use it if it does not in your House DemocratsCampaign Next year . Rep. Neal i will let you in on secret if you can keep it amongst us. The chairmanship has occurred to me. As we go into this debate, it ought to be full throttle. And i think the American People ought to be acquainted with the idea that dynamic scoring might be good to get you through a tight moment but it also has implications for longterm deficits. When you look at supplyside economics, one could say accurately having a chance to examine it since the reagan years that its more about the elegy than factbased decisionmaking. Theology about factbased decisionmaking. And i think with supplyside economics, they are rolling the dice on deficits. You cant say that deficits came when count when bill clinton is president or when obama is president and not worry about it. You have a republican president and that is what this conversation has been about. So i understand the idea of tax relief. I understand how certain incentives could be applied. I think is he going to next year, unlike the health care manye which has moving parts in his complicated, texas to be she gives an idea of when, where and how. Rachael the debt ceiling will need to be raised in the next couple of months. By the end of september. Democrats have talked about why a commitment from republicans that this will remain revenue neutral, will not add to the deficit and debt in the long, do you see these two issues connecting in any way . Do you think democrats seek any assurance from republicans before they raise the debt ceiling that any increase in the debt ceiling will go to tax cuts for wealthy individuals . Do you see them overlapping much . Rep. Neal i think based upon the examination you have about the institution, the congress i signed up or 1998 would have come to the same conclusion you described. It is much more difficult now. Let me say this flatly and lonely without qualification. We need to raise the debt ceiling. That is a responsible position consistent with the argument made by the secretary petrosian secretary of the treasury mnuchin. And we need clearly to understand the locations of not raising the debt ceiling. Raising the debt ceiling isnt an argument about new spending. Raising the debt ceiling is an argument about the fact the credit card has come due. Those who attempt to politicize and use the debt ceiling as leverage in gaining an upper hand on the other side they make , a huge miscalculation. And i can see a path, as you have described it, for democrats to buy into raising the debt ceiling in a responsible manner and have republicans move away. So i think you have described just the way i would. Lets get into a room. Lets negotiate and lets do what we used to do in congress, and that is fine accommodations find accommodations that people might not fall in love with but they can quickly come to like. Aboutrachael bade talked linking two big issues before congress. And if you see the possibility of linking tax reform to some sort of Infrastructure Spending legislation . Is that something you see in the works . Rep. Neal glad you raised the question. Infrastructure spending used to be the easiest initiative when i was in congress. It was a broadbased technology it that investment creating greater efficiencies, greater whichtivity, the ease at people got from one point to another was something the all fundamentally agreedupon. Whether it was water, sewer, highways, roadways, bridges or roadways. We all understood this was a longterm investment in americas future. Anybody who is been to an airport in america over the last 10 years you compare that to its happening in europe and you understand the investment has lagged. One of the great achievements in American History began in the 1950s with president eisenhower, a republican. Lyndon johnson was the leader in the senate. Sam rayburn was the speaker of the house. They offered up the federal highway act. The eisenhower federal highway act. I think that, again, investments like this certainly across new england and the northeast, in penn central station, if we are not embarrassed by that, as members of the american family, there is something wrong. We need to go back to the idea that there is a regular investment, a regular appropriation in terms of Infrastructure Spending. And i could map out easily how that might come about based on repatriating 2. 8 trillion offshore. Richard there has been brought agreement on repatriating foreign profits at a lower rate. You on what the future tax system would look like on foreign profits . Republicans want to go to a territorial system where you pay the foreign tax but not the second later u. S. Tax. Democrats have been in a couple of different places on that. Where are you right now as republicans look towards a territorial system is part of tax reform . Rep. Neal i could see us moving towards a hybrid system. I think examining all of this often be part of the tax reform discussion. I think there is ample opportunity here. Lets talk about all of these systems and figure out what might be the best one for america. But heres the problem. In 2004, they argued that the money that was brought back should be taxed at 5. 25 , because that would lead to job creation. The next day, large drug manufacturers in america laid off thousands of people so the reward went to the shareholders. And, look. If you want to call that Good Management, call it Good Management but dont tell people you are bringing the money back for job growth and investment and then turn the money over to shareholders. I have had an argument with many of those in Silicon Valley in a very helpful manner. They agree that what happened in 2004 should not be the model for where we go in terms of job creation. The money sits there. Lets figure out how to get that back. We ought to be discussing stateless income. We ought to be discussing that the money already plays a role in the american system. Where it is parked every single day. It isnt as simple as saying that all of a sudden there is 2. 8 trillion parked in berlin or dublin or london. That money is currently utilized, and i think getting it back for Investment Purposes and job creation and infrastructure makes a good deal of sense. And we need to talk about, again, how the modern tax system should work. Lets hear what everybody has to say, fully, in public, about the various systems that might enhance more productivity and more investment in united states. John five minutes left. Lets turn to the roundtable discussion. Rachael health care. The ways and means has health care jurisdiction right now. A lot of headlines about how the president wants to hasten the downward spiral of obamacare by stopping these costsharing subsidies. Basically stopping any federal money from going to insurance companies. To subsidize health plans for lower income individuals. There are a lot of republicans on capitol hill who push back against that. They think that republicans could ultimately be blamed if we people start losing their health care in the next few. I want to know have any republicans in Congress Seriously approach to about what they might do if trump or to do were to do Something Like this . Have you talked to brady or House Republican leadership . Do you actually think that democrats and republicans could come together so the government can continue making these payments if trump tries to stop them . Rep. Neal kevin brady said they should already continue. There will be hearings in the september. Costsharing subsidies were agreed to and they should be paid. One reason we are hearing the objections from the Insurance Industry about premium increases is largely because of the uncertainty that now plagues the discussion across america. There were two things i think the Trump Administration canoe immediately. One, tell them that we fully intend to pay our obligations on the cost sharing. And secondly, that he intends to enforce the mandate. The mandate is the glue that holds the aca together. This notion that people shouldnt have to buy Health Insurance is what spikes the market. We need to get younger and healthier people into the system for the signup. So you will have a pretty good idea in september as to what that means. But right now, the Insurance Industry, which was embraced for the purpose of offering price discipline, the Insurance Industry is coming of with projections that are not based on any sense of reality other than what they think might happen without cost sharing proposals. John rachael bade, a followup . Rachael the contingency plan for this. Can congress for a legislation forcing him to do that . If he vetoes, do you think congress would override a veto on that . Rep. Neal i think with the chairman of the ways and Means Committee saying the cost subsidies should continue, that would be the position of 195 democrats we could find a remedy , pretty quickly. Richard you have talked about what the administration is doing and you have now served under a whole bunch of president s. How do you compare the relationship that congress has with his new administration with others . Obama, clinton, and going back . Rep. Neal i was listening yesterday to a newscast that says tv change the relationship of the presidency to congress. I think there is a lot of truth to that. Instant opinion has not been helpful. I also think the advance of technology and the use of a twitter account has not been helpful. These decisions require a lot of thought. Theyre pretty complex. When the president put his arm up and waved and said, who knew Health Insurance could be this, this complicated i put my , hand in the air. I have been at this for a long time. Certainly through the clinton years, i tried right up to the last minute. Ways and Means Committee got out a Health Care Bill by the narrowest of margins. The idea that the way back to truman weve talked about a Health Care Plan for all the american amalie, johnson embraces medicare, medicaid. Obama increases medicaid expenditure and cost subsidies for the middle class. We have been discussing this for more than 70 years in america and i think the relationship with the president , not just to his party but our party as well could be helpful. The end of the Clinton Administration is exhibit a. What you could do with the two parties, even if we dont agree everything, can find common enough agreements to get through. John congressman richard neal, thank you for being on newsmakers this week. Rep. Neal delighted to be with you and thank you. John we turn to the roundtable discussion with Richard Rubin of the wall street journey, rachael bade of politico. We were ending talking about health care. I want to get your thoughts on how the Health Care Debate that we saw for the first half of this year would impact the tax reform debate especially from , the congressmans perspective and from democrats perspective. Richard two big things. One is that for republicans, the failure on health care, we will see it will be resurrected, but they want to deliver something to their voters go to midterm to , say that they did something and they know that time is short because congress has a hard time doing much when you get around to election years. That pressure will weigh on democrats and democrats will be pumping the brakes as much as they possibly can to try and prevent republicans from getting a win. The second big take away from health care, and we saw this in the senate, is that the Health Care Bill repealed some taxes and had cuts in future medicaid spending. And for republicans you look at what the congressman calls the distribution table that is washington speak for who wins and who loses and who pays more and who pays less. Who gets more and who gets less. Mattertribution tables in the senate. Senator say i dont like the idea republican senators i dont like the idea of tax cuts of thehe se position where they can only lose two senators and then a handful of house members and can they really strike that balance that they can get moderates and conservatives on board with an idea to push it through . The white house clearly is not ruling out bipartisan tax reform. The congressman talked about the difference that he has sensed between the white houses outreach with hill democrats and what is he hearing from leadership and ive had sources mention the same thing to me so it seems like the white house is not yet sold on doing a partisan tax reform we heard his comments there. How optimistic in your reporting are other democrats that they will be involved in this process . I think theyre more optimistic but i wouldnt call it optimistic. When it comes to the tax code republicans think that the things that generate growth are lower business taxes and they note that a lot of businesses are conducted where the taxes are paid on owners individual returns. So they think lower incomes on high income households, it are going to drive Economic Growth. And democrats think the exact opposites. Tax cuts will remove the got from the economy and you heard the congressman thats not his recipe for growth. So we can talk about bipartisan tax reform but the parties have fundamentally different views about what it is that you can do with the tax code to encourage growth. And growth is the goal they dont agree on the path. Your thoughts on the time frame here. We talked about mark meadows saying something needs to get done by thanksgiving or its not going to get done. What do you think happens in the next three to four months . I think theyre going to make a really aggressive push for it. But were here in august and congress is done until labor day. And as we talked about theres this debt ceiling and other things that have to happen in september. So its going to be an intense period. So to hit those targets everything has to go right. Weve seen how yeah when does everything go right. Always a catastrophe around the corner. I would say on that question not only debt ceiling but theyve got to keep the government open. Theyve got to overt a shutdown. They still have to pass a budget which the house has been trying to do for twoandahalf months. They cant get the moderate and conservative republicans to agree on a republican budget. And this is just the house. In order for them to unlock that fasttracking tool that enables them to do partisan tax reform they have to pass a budget. And that in and of itself will take a couple of months. Well have to end it there. Thanks so much for joining us. Thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National able satellite corp. 2017] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption contents and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspans q a. We have been on the road meeting winners. At east lime high school in east lime connecticut. Second Prize Winners were handed 1500 for their documentary on environmental justice. Hen at east lime middle School Honorable mention winners received 250 for their documentary on health care. And then to concord, meas to hand out a second award. In north hampton, massachusetts, students won an Honorable Mention prize for their documentary on sanctuary cities and immigration reform. Nd in lud lo, massachusetts, received an Honorable Mention prize of 250 for their documentary on the opioid epidemic. Thank you to all the students who took part in our 2017 student cam documentary competition. To watch any of the videos go to student cam. Org and student cam 2018 starts in september with the theme the constitution and you. Were asking students to choose any provision of the u. S. Constitution and create a video illustrating why the provision is important. Plans to build a new f. B. I. Headquarters were canceled last month. This past week officials from the f. B. I. And the General Services administration spoke to lawmakers about that decision. This hearing is just under an hourandahalf. Blic works comm chaired by senator john barrasso. Good morning. I want to thank everyone coming to be with us today