, i want to say a few words about some of what has been said thus far. My democratic colleagues always professed to be the champions of middleclass families. We see that rhetoric in full bloom, on full display today. That is why it is astonishing to atthat they are so opposed the repeal of the individual mandate tax. They talk as though everything is fine with our health care system. And that the repeal of this taxable said it all tumbling down. Obamacare is already failing. Largely because the mandate has failed to do what it was designed to do. It has not improved markets. It has not brought down premiums. Markets are in decline. Premiums continually rise, despite the presence of this tax. The great irony of obamacare is that on one hand it makes Health Insurance too expensive for many to afford, while on the other hand it imposes a tax on those who do not buy it. The mandate has not improved the health care system. It has imposed significant burdens on middleclass and low income families. This tax is one of the most regressive taxes in the entire Internal Revenue code. 80 ofng to the irs, american households who paid the makeidual mandate penalty less than 50,000 per year. Tax for nothe 2. 5 ofng insurance is household income, or 695 per adult. Whichever is greater. Up to 2085. Highcare premiums are so that millions of americans had to pay thousands of dollars more for coverage that does not fit their needs. Contrary to what many of my democratic colleagues have claimed, the most recent analysis from cbo on repeal of the individual mandate does not herald the collapse of our health care system. , and i am going from the most recent analysis, if the mandate tax work to be repealed, quote nongroup Insurance Markets would continue to be stable in almost all areas of the country throughout the coming decade. Lets not distort figures. Lets tone down the rhetoric a little bit. Let us be clear. Repealing the tax is not take anyones Health Insurance away. No one would lose access to care it to coverage. Enrollthey chose not to in Health Coverage once the penalty for doing so is no longer in effect. No one would be kicked off of medicaid. Theye would lose insurance are currently getting from insurance carriers. Nothing. Market in the modified impacts obamacare policies like coverage or preexisting conditions, or restrictions against lifetime limits on coverage. I hope people will stop with the tacticsactics scared that we have heard so far. The martin repeals an extremely regressive tax. Why do we do this . It seems logical to me. To cut taxes for those families is a good idea. That is what we have done here. We are doubling the Child Tax Credit from the current 1000 to 2000. We allowing more middleclass parents to claim the credit. We allowing tax rates for middle income americans. We are making changes to the business tax system that have long been supported by democrats , including most members of this committee. What are we doing . Hasember of this committee supported significant reductions in the Corporate Tax rate, or the corporate rate, or cosponsored bills to that effect , should now sit here castigating republicans for supporting a giveaway to corporate america. If lowering the corporate rate is a giveaway to multinational corporations, then it is curious that the minority leader has written in support of lowering the rate, and and in a committee report, democrats on this committee seem to agree. All of us know that our corporate rates are too high. Our tech system does not work for Small Business owners. Our plan is sensible. It is not supplyside or trickle down. All of you heard a little while ago from the chief of staff of middle earners get a larger tax cut than those that top of the scale. I have some quick questions i would like to ask. Does the modified mark reduce rates for middle income households . Yes, it does. Should i make an Opening Statement before questions . I thought we were making Opening Statements. It thisust going to do way, then i will turn to you. My second question i have to get out of the way. Mark lower rates for Single Parents in income brackets . Yes, it lowers the rates for its Single Parents in the lower brackets. Does the mark increase the Child Tax Credit . Yes, it doubles the tax credit from 1000 to 2000. Does it increase the Child Tax Credit . Inflation,es it to and increases it from 1000 under current law to 1100. Makees the modified mark the Child Tax Credit available to more families, and if it does how so . It does in two ways. It increases the age of the child that qualifies to receive the Child Tax Credit, from under 17 to under 18. And next, it increases the income limitation so that more middleclass families can get the benefit of the Child Tax Credit. Does the modified mark make the refundable part of the Child Tax Credit available to more families, and if it does so, how . Current law requires a wage threshold. You have to make more than 3000 to claim the refundable portion of the credit. The modified mark reduces that to 2500. Sen. Hatch thank you. I want to get those questions out of the way so we know where we are coming from. I apologize to my Ranking Member for having done so. I felt that was essential. I turned to the Ranking Member. Den i have an Opening Statement and questions of my own. We dont have distribution analysis that supports what the chairman just got into. As such a distribution analysis exists from jcp . We prepared a distribution analysis. We are working on preparing an updated analysis to reflect the changes. En there is no distribution analysis for the bill that is the bill before us. I appreciate you clarifying it. Sen. Hatch that isnt what he said. Sen. Wyden it is what he said. He said he is going to have to do another version, what he calls an updated version for the modified mark. I am glad we got into that. You are surprised that we oppose your backdoor effort to get rid of the Affordable Care act. I have to tell you, i am surprised that you and your colleagues do not care about the 13 Million People who are going to lose coverage, and the 10 million more who are going to see their premiums go up because you are not going to have as many Healthy People in the risk tool. As we learned today, my colleague from an ohio went through how some middle last people that he represents would get a few hundred bucks in terms of it tax, and lose it all and more in terms of the increase and her Health Insurance premiums. What this all caps two, and im going to ask my questions about has ais that your bill double standard in terms of taxes in america. Folks in the multinational corporations, their brakes are permanent. A lot of them are more a check. F to dupe is this overseas the folks that are middleclass, their brakes are temporary. Used, as the majority leader said in the last day, the temporary middleclass tax cuts are what makes this possible for the multinational corporations to get permanent tax cuts. That is not my analysis. Those of the comments made by the republican leaders. Now im going to begin my questions. I want to talk about what happened yesterday. Yesterday, secretary mnuchin made a visit to ohio, and in effect he said that the administration was drawing a line in the sand with respect to the tax proposal and the massive handout to multinational corporations permanent. That is what the secretary said yesterday. You are here from the administration, and i have heard , i assume since you are at the Treasury Department would know the answer to this. Has the administration drawn any lines in the sand to say that tax cuts for families would be permanent as well . That is a yes or no answer. Sen. Hatch you know they cant do that. That is a funny question. Sen. Wyden mr. Chairman, i do not think it is funny at all. I will ask my questions. I cannot answer the question as the position of the Treasury Department on these provisions. Sen. Wyden why are you here . It here to assist the if you have questions i would be happy to assist. Sen. Wyden it is hard to get into administrative feasibility if you do not know where the administration is headed. In other words, we now know where they are headed with respect to permanent breaks for multinationals. We do not know where they are headed with respect to families. Other than the majority leader has said that we are going to make the families tax breaks temporary in order to make permanent the brakes for the folks at the top. Us some sense and respect to joint taxes the new bill, and we do have that, that the expiration of the tax cuts for the middle class pay for the permanent rate. Eductions for corporations it looks to me like the individual tax title raises money overall, while the corporate title loses. Is that correct . Sen. Wyden i assume youre referring to the revenue table. Total of the individual three. On page are you looking at the last year, or the line total . Sen. Wyden the total. The way we see it, the expiration of tax cuts for the middle class pays for the permanent rate reduction of the multinational corporations. You are looking at the last year, 2027 . Yes. Sen. Wyden we have established that, colleagues. Now we know with the majority leaders agenda is, but it is confirmed by joint taxes analysis. I think this sounds worse than the bush tax cuts. Families and Small Businesses could end up worse. They could end up falling further behind. I think the remaining question a big part of, what we wanted to do is real tax reform. That was a part of the 2015 tax focus. It had permanent changes. We combined and came up with a good bill. With thextent chairmans tax plan bring back and need for tax extender bills . And going back to the old days, and the fact we did not have reform, we kind of lurched from one change to another without providing the certainty and predictability for our middleclass or businesses. The chairmans mark is modified, when sunset all of the individual title items as i noted in the walkthrough, except for the inflation indexing. The underlying mark provides for 100 bonus depreciation for five years. A twoyearation adds temporary provision related to alcohol excise taxes, and has a twoyear temporary provision forted to employer credits paid family and medical leave. Sen. Wyden my time is about to expire. It seems to me we have the opposite of tax reform. We had a crazy quilt of provisions, some are permanent, some are temporary. , and i thinkl us it would be important to furnish this before we start voting at some point. Can you tell us how this affects businesses and small and corporations are you able to do that at this point . We discussed a number of those issues. Im not quite sure of the specifics of your question. Sen. Wyden the senators have to vote on this. Weve got this crazy quilt. How does this affect individuals, particularly pass through Small Businesses and corporations. We would like to see that on a piece of paper. How does it affect those key constituents that we represent . Said when we do our updated distribution analysis, we had the presenting a breakout between individual tax provisions which counts the , and Business Base provisions. Sen. Wyden when would we be able to get that . Before we start voting . When are you starting voting . Sen. Wyden we are to ask more questions. I am over my time. Ere we are looking at voting i described how we are going back to yesteryear, instead of having permanent tax reform, we will have some stuff temporary, and some stuff imminent. We have already explained the inequity for families versus multinational corporations. Now we do not even have the specifics how this would affect individuals and passthroughs and multinational corporations. We are not angry at you mr. Barthold. You have a challenging job to be make tax changes that are being made on the fly. We would like if you can furnish that before the vote. I allow the democrat leader to go over. From here on out, we will stop at five minutes. Everybody wants to participate. Senator grassley. Grassley would you tell us if the Corporate Tax rate reduction were not permanent how would that affect business behavior in the six years from now . The economic incentives to invest in the analysis we have aftertaxs driven by returns from investment. Investment has its returns over a long. Of time. Long period in five or six years from now, if you were at 2022 youll be thinking if i make an investment into a factory or facility, you would be earning your income over the subsequent years. You would be looking at higher tax rates after the sunset that you proposed. That would diminish what you would see as a possible return from your investment. It should diminish investment incentives. If it is not made permanent, would it nullify the benefit that comes in the first part of the 10 years . To undertaking our macroeconomic analysis of having the loss of some of the investment incentives because they are temporary would diminish potential investment, potential growth you might get in this decade. Sen. Grassley mr. Chairman, im going to reserve my three minutes. That takes care of it for now. Stabenow. senator stabenow rather than this chaotic process were things change all the time, not getting numbers before we vote, not getting the analysis and 1 6 of the economy, on health care alone, we could be doing this in a bipartisan way. That is what this committee is known for, and it is extremely concerning that that is not what is happening. We talked a lot about the 13 Million People that will lose Health Insurance coverage. In fact, it is 13 Million People. The idea that nobody will, if nobody would lose insurance, and there would not be 400 billion available to spend on making the multinational Corporate Tax cuts permanent. The whole idea of the fact that now changes can be made is because somebody loses something. That is called health care. 13 Million People. Spending about 400 billion less , that is how they get the money. On the other hand, not having enough money to extend anything for middleclass families beyond 2025. But when we look at the health care piece, one of my constituents was born with type one diabetes as a child. Insurance companies refuse to cover her. She was stretching out three days worth of medication to five days to save money. I have heard this over and over again. Care act affordable she got coverage and the medications that she needs. Ask, under this bill, there could be an increase of 10 , is that right . Is theink that understanding from what the cbo has analyzed. There would be people all across the country forced to pay more for their medicine, more for their insurance . Yes, according to what the cbo has reported. Sen. Stabenow that is going to happen to people all over this country. When you are faced with that you have a couple options. You pay more for your insurance, or lose your insurance altogether. Is there anything in this bill that brings down the cost of premiums . I may have my colleague said that in. I may have my colleague sub in. Is there anything to bring down premiums . No, the repeal of the individual mandate will raise the cost of premiums. Sen. Stabenow is there anything to reduce outofpocket costs . No. Sen. Stabenow is there anything to bring down drug costs . No. Sen. Stabenow is there anything that would help people with preexisting conditions western mark with preexisting conditions . No. Sen. Stabenow i think it is clear they want to pay for tax cuts for multinational corporations. Now i want to talk about the mortgage deduction and homes. Michigan is a state where we have a lot of people that have their primary residence. They have a cottage on the lake. Hunting season is opening and a lot of people in michigan are going up to the hunting cabin. About, would this bill allow families to detect their mortgage on second homes . Yes, it does. The only modification that the chairmans mark has modified makes to the Home Mortgage interest induction is to eliminate the home equity loans. But not a mortgage related to a second residence. Sen. Stabenow does the house bill . The house bill would eliminate the Mortgage Rate deduction with respect to second homes and home equity loans, and also with low lower the present lot 1 million acquisition mortgage limitation to a 500,000. Sen. Stabenow it significantly limits that. That is the house bill. Sen. Stabenow correct. We have to see where that ends up. Any idea where the administration would be on the markers mortgage and equity loans . A lot of people are using those to send the kids to college. Im sorry, senator. Thank you mr. Chairman. I am tried to understand this bill. I got it thursday night. I had concerns about middle income families not being treated fairly with tax relief going to high income, and increasing the deficit by 1. 5 trillion and probably much more. And i take a look at the modified market we got late last night, and these circumstances seem to be even worse. I have commented on this, but by making the individual tax issues temporary, but making the business tax issues permanent, we have made it worse for middle income families. And we made it worse for the deficit, because we now have extenders, big extenders that are going to be in the trillions of dollars. I do not think anybody in this committee expects that we are not going to extend these provisions. But in reality, we do not build to the to the ekimov economic model. It is the worst of all possible worlds. I listened to some of my colleagues give a sympathetic reason for this, saying we are going to provide additional 43 billion tax relief to middle income families. I find it strange because as i understand it, 13 million more americans will be uninsured, and the indivi