Committee will come to order. Yesterday evening we left after adoption of the brady amendment. Like to remind all members that its my intention to roll amendment votes today pursuant to Committee Rule 19. Well plan to vote on any postponed votes immediately following two floor vote series today with additional vote series announced as necessary. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of the substitute . Mr. Chairman. What purpose does the gentleman seek recognition . Before beginning, i have a point of personal privilege that i would put to the chair. Yes, sir. You are recognized. Yesterday we had an Interesting Exchange with mr. Barthold about the impact of the passthrough provisions and whether or not some of the owners who use this could take advantage of deductions that would not be available to others. I use the famous basketball coach example. Mr. Barthold gave an answer. I have before me here provisions and i have shared this with mr. Barthold. I dont want to trap him or anybody else, but the information i gave him was from professor caiman who talked about the inconsistency with what mr. Barthold concedes is kind of a convoluted answer with a statement put out by the committee yesterday that that loophole exists. It is important because if the committees statement in the material that i gave to mr. Barthold and i would ask to enter into the record, mr. Chairman, is accurate, there is a lot more revenue thats going to be lost. I put the question to him, and i would put the question to you not now i dont want to trap anybody but find out whether or not the committees statement of yesterday about whether the loophole exists, and joint tax understanding, are harmonized. Because it could have a big impact. So i dont want to debate it now. I wanted to serve notice. I give you a copy. Thank you. I gave it to mr. Barthold, and i would hope that we could clarify at some point in the course of the day or certainly by tomorrow. Thank you, mr. Blumenauer. So you have an amendment . Point of order has been reserved. The clerk will distribute the amendment. I ask the gentleman to suspend while the clerk distributes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. While she is a passing that out may i ask unanimous consent to put this letter from county supervisor susan goran into the record . Without objection. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i was seeking unanimous consent to have what i give to you done. Without objection. Appreciate it. But you are seeking recognition to offer your amendment which is being distributed . I am, sir. I am suspending while it is being distributed. Youre doing that beautifully. Does anyone continue to reserve a point of order . I like to withdraw. The gentleman withdraws his reservation. The gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Appreciate this. I referenced yesterday that i saw this as sort of an opening bid, that weve got lots of ideas floating around. I have sympathy for you, mr. Chairman. I feel, as were watching the changes take place hour by hour or maybe more frequently i feel like you are in the process of building an airplane while youre figuring out where to land it. Its not easy, and i know there is a lot going on. But one thing that we ought to be able to come together on, one thing we ought to be able to focus, is i think we all are concerned about the increase in the National Debt. We just increased the baseline adding the numbers that everything is going to be compared against, 1. 5 trillion. Head room. We are moving towards the highest debt to gdp ratio since america recovered from world war ii and the depression. With no end in sight. We are, with the approval of your budget resolution, were on a path where we have added 2. 3 trillion, because the interest has to be paid on that 1. 5 trillion in increased baseline. And, if there is just 1 increase of the historic low Interest Rates, we could see another 1. 5 trillion that we have to deal with over the course of the next ten years. I dont think any of us embrace that. I have heard some pretty strong statements from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, back when president obama and the recovery act were attempting to save the country from economic collapse, talking about the dire impact of debt. And i sympa thize to that. I sympathize to it now. What i would propose is that we have a failsafe mechanism. If this what propose some people think are unicorn dust and magic beans. If it all works and the economy explodes and grows rapidly beyond the expectation of independent economists, so much the better. And we wont have an increase in the deficit and we will be moving forward. And i think all of us will feel good about it. If some of the concerns we have in terms of misplaced priorities, in terms of other demands, and more realistic economic assumptions, we really arent in a position to reward some of the wealthiest in the country, some of the largest corporations, with additional tax benefits if we have to borrow for it. My amendment simply says that, if after two years the baseline that you have increased 1. 5 trillion continues to increase now, one would think with the shot in the arm you can structure some of this to have what some economists have talked about is sugar high. You can artificially pump this up, and there will be a certain amount of exuberance. I cant even imagine the tweet storm that we would have for weeks afterward. This in and of itself ought to propel the economy. So there is no excuse for us going down that path of escalating debt. Now, we saw in 81 with the reagan cuts that it was a little optimistic and in fact, Ronald Reagan had to follow up with eight tax increases. We have seen with the 2001 and 2002 increases with the bush cuts, didnt quite work out so well. All i am suggesting is that we put in a failsafe mechanism. If the deficit continues to increase beyond what you said, if the economy is not supercharged, then we shouldnt borrow the money to give tax benefits to the most favored in our society and end up putting us in a more difficult situation over time. I had my little grandson here yesterday, some of you remarked about how cute he is. He is cute he is smart. I dont want him to inherit recklessness that we could prevent. If it works as planned, you have no problem with my amendment. If it doesnt, then we ought to put the brakes on and not give billions and billions of dollars of tax relief at the expense of my grandson and your childrens future. Thank you and i yield back. Thank you. Mr. Roth you are recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First of all, to put this in context, if you were offering color commentary from yesterday to today, what youll notice is feigned surprise yesterday at the amendment in the nature of a substitute, shock, awe, so forth. Yet, today doing our friends on the other side of the aisle are doing the very same thing by offering an amendment with no notice. But i digress. Here we are. This isnt a failsafe enterprise, this is a poison pill. Here is why its a poison pill. To assume that all of the growth is going to happen in two years is not something that we are claiming. We have created this. What were proposing is dealing with this within a tenyear budget window. So to go out and say at 24 months there will be a decision thats made is not a failsafe mechanism. Its a poison bill. With all due respect to the sponsor will the gentleman yield . Hold on. Let me make one other point. There was also a false narrative woven into the argument. It was subtle but were going to hear this consistently today and i think we need to speak to it. He said this is giving benefits o to the most favored in our society. Mr. Barthold yesterday, under direct questioning time and time and time again made the point that all everybody under this proposal benefits. So when that claim is made, i think we need to speak to it, distinguish ourselves, say no, this is not benefiting the most favored in our society. The most favored in our society are benefiting under the status quo. Theyve got all kinds of folks theyre able to manipulate. Theyre able to do all kinds of things to game a system that we are trying to jettison. So i dont think this makes sense. I would resist it, and i will yield. I appreciate the gentlemans point that if he thinks that it all wont happen in two years. And i am not trying to do a gotcha. I actually wrote an article that was published on the hill several weeks ago about this circumstances breaker. I had made no secret of it. I assume that you knew about it. I know about it. We have been and its simple. It just says, if it doesnt work, it stops. Would you feel comfortable if we just amended it to say in four years . We have got a design to borrow 1. 5 trillion over ten. Look, thats even within this context of trying to navigate through incredibly complicated waters as it relates to all of these scoring things. So i am not interested in adding another level of complexity onto a system that is already complex. I urge a no vote and i yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Neal. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I think this is a very good amendment. It expedites the reconciliation process thats about to be embraced by our colleagues in the senate and builds in a safety valve. Mr. Roskam has just made the impassioned argument that everybody benefits from the proposed tax cut. I have yet to hear anybody say how the middle class is going to benefit from the estate tax proposal that our republican friends have in front of us. On january 19th of 2001, america was staring at a 5 trillion surplus. Projected over 15 years. In 2001 the Bush Administration proposed 1. 3 trillion worth of tax cuts. On the assumption that it would promote Economic Growth. In 2003 when that growth didnt appear, then they proposed another tax cut of additional 1 trillion. When growth didnt appear, then they said, if we only embrace repatriation on foreign earnings, that will increase Economic Growth. Within days there were massive layoffs across the country from those who were going to enjoy the benefits of a repatriated tax holiday where the money was brought back at 5. 25 with no growth. We had these extraordinary tax cuts during those years all premised upon the rockcertain guarantee that we would be looking at substantial Economic Growth. And it didnt happen. So what mr. Blumenauer is proposing in this instance is the idea that we will revisit, in short order, and i think it was pretty good that he said, if we cant do it in two, how about four, demonstrating some reason on our side, to ratchet back a decision that is made with the advertised goal of the necessity of a political victory rather than a policy achievement. So, in this case, i think there is a chance for some good sense to prevail here. And i would be happy to debate where we were during those years with members of the committee. When bill clinton said goodbye there were four balanced budgets, Allen Greenspan said the debt is being paid down too fast and the clock in new york city which chronicled the debt for all of those years had been turned off. Instead, the decision was to guarantee Economic Growth, not taking into consideration what might happen in terms of ni9 11 in afghanistan, which is now 16 years old and a million new veterans who deserve our care and guarantees that we made when they signed up. These are all sorts of costs out there. And if there is another economic downturn those costs will be reflected in, i think, the pain that the American People will feel because of the hayes with which this tax plan has been drafted and drawn and put in front of us. Again, based upon what no economist is willing to say is that is, i guarantee you that these tax cuts will provide substantial Economic Growth. So we have the Wharton School that says that doesnt seem likely. We have demographic trends, we have globalization. An opioid addiction crisis in america and a technological revolution taking place. But they guarantee 3 growth. They guarantee, with a wave of the arm that the white house recently where the president said, i dont understand why it cant be 6 . Now, that doesnt really stand up under the magnifying glass of critical analysis, but yet we are being told today that just go forward based upon the lack of evidence that this tax proposal will encourage substantial Economic Growth. With that i yield back my time. Thank you. Mr. Nunes you are recognized. I want to speak in opposition to this amendment because it does kill the legislation. I think the crux of the argument that you are going to hear today will be mostly about whether or not you believe that this tax bill will create Economic Growth. We believe that it does, us on the right, and i think it is fair that those on the left do not believe that. However, i think we all can say that the current tax code just doesnt work. So, if the left wants to put up a tax bill thats going to increase taxes, for example, if they believe that that is going to allow companies here in the United States to stay that are competing against the average rate around the globe of around 20 to 25 , thats fine, they can make that argument. But i feel that, as we continue to debate this bill over the coming days, it will be up to the American People to decide, do they want to move our tax system into the 21st century or do we want to stay on the tax system of old that clearly is not working by evidence of the jobs that are leaving this country and the Major Companies that are leaving the United States of america. So thats really what were going to be faced with over the coming days, and i welcome this debate. And i appreciate the our friends on the other side of the aisle who dont have a plan, and it seems as if their plan is to go back to the rates of 2001 which would be a massive increase in taxes. The gentleman from illinois, i am going to yield to mr. Roskam. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Nunes. I want to point out, i think, a flaw in mr. Neals argument. That is this. The argument of over characterization. I appealed to mr. Bartholds testimony that talked about all aspects of the taxpayers being the beneficiaries, then it was over characterized by mr. Neal in his criticism. He said, well, the estate tax doesnt benefit everybody. We are not saying everything everyone benefits from everything. What i said yesterday, go back to the image of the painting. You look at something in its totality. And my sense is this is going to be a consistent theme today. One other point. Mr. Neal made an argument, and he said, no Economist Says that this is going to yield growth. I disagree. There are economists. He may not like the economists. He may have economists that disagree with that. Thats fine. But its the over characterization. Its the superlative language that we have to be careful in today. I will be happy to yield back. Thank you very much. Its mr. Nunes time. I will yield to you, mr. Neal. Thank you very much. You didnt mr. Roskam took on my argument but didnt say any of the facts that i offered were inaccurate. Let me just go back mr. Nunes will you yield to me . May i finish and then ill let him do it . Please finish. Nobody in the house or the senate in the congress of the United States fought harder than i did to get rid of the a. M. T. For middle class americans. 27 million americans no longer pay alternative minimum tax because of my efforts. Members of the committee who have served with me for that period of time know of precisely what i speak. I am saying that the estate tax is not middle class tax relief. And in addition to that i am saying your proposal on the alternative minimum tax is not middle class tax relief and you shouldnt characterize them as such because theyre not. There is nothing i offered in terms of the facts about where we were with budget surpluses and deficits that you would find inaccurate. Mr. Nunes controls the time. The a. M. T. Is a terrible tax. I am glad we got rid of it for 26 million americans but we need to get rid of it for all americans because it reduces our ability for those businesses to create jobs. And thats a lot thats mainly where the a. M. T. Hits is on Small Business people in this country. And i will yield the remaining time to mr. Roskam. One point. That is, mr. Schweikert brought to my attention the notion of the mistakes in the past of repatriation, for example, repatriation policy in the past was episodic. No level of predictability. Companies did not know the ground rules. It was a holiday. It was highly limited and underperformed. Were saying, lets learn the hard lesson. Make it permanent and well yield good results. I thank mr. Nunes and i yield back. Balance of the time has been yielded back. You are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Republicans propose to cut the Corporate Tax rate almost in half. They propose to reward those who have dodged their taxes and hidden them in offshore eiland havens as reflected in the paradise papers. They propose a tax break for those at the top of the income scale, where about 80 of the benefits go to the top 1 . And, as a result of that, as mr. Roskam said, quote, we are going to borrow 1. 5 trillion over ten. Think a little bit about what that means. 1,000,000,000,005 plus 500 million. The loan, the i. O. U. That these republicans are telling america we should take out. You might remember that only a few months ago they were telling us the only kind of tax cut they would support is one that is fully paid for. They wanted it all paid for. But now we have moved one 1 trillion and 500000000000 down the road. Where are we going to find people who want to accept our i. O. U. . The saudis and the gulf states, theyve they have been willing to take our i. O. U. S. The chinese have accepted our i. O. U. S. A substantial amount of the 1. 5 trillion that they proposed to borrow is going to be held by foreign interests, that compromise our security by becoming so reliant on them. Lets look a little at the 1. 5 trillion. It is a very optimistic figure. It is their figure. It is the bestcase scenario that we will have. It does not, for example, consider the interest cost, the carrying charges that go along with the immense debt that they propose to place on the middle class of america. The actual cost, assuming that Interest Rates dont really spike even higher than most economists estimate, are over 2 trillion. In fact, theyre about 2. 3 trillion is th