Watch. And how does that make you feel, really, since it was so important to you . I would do it again. I mean, i think it is so important to try to push this issue forward. Somebody had to start. And people said to me, its too complicated. It cant be done. And i showed them it can be done. Thats really the most important thing. The second most important thing that came out of this is we got dynamic scoring of a tax bill for the first time. Dynamic scoring is a much more real world evaluation of what were trying to do. Typically, tax bills had been scored by what they call static scoring, which is just they assumed that the economy would never grow, even no matter the tax policy changed, and they assumed that people wouldnt change their behavior as a result of tax policy. We know that isnt true. I liken it to physics where they tell you assume there is no gravity. And you go outside and there is gravity. This dynamic scoring will be absolutely critical moving forward on any debate involving economic or tax policies, because were actually know, does it create jobs . Can labor and employment and investment grow at the same time . And so not only did the joint committee on taxation evaluate this and said the economy, under my bill, which is now h. R. 1, would grow by 20 , other outside entities were able to score this detailed draft and now h. R. 1 and say, yes, it would grow. So the outside groups and think tanks and we had a university study, they confirmed what the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation did. Some very good things were accomplished by this, even though it didnt get all the way over to the goal line. Id liken this to a car analogy. This is the chassis. You might change the taillights and grill, but the car is going to have a chassis and this chassis is really what i think will be used going ahead. Will you explain a little bit of the symbolism of h. R. 1 and also the fact that you formally introduced it just as congress is about to go away. I always said it was a discussion draft. We wanted to get input and thats what we did. I also thought it was important to use that h. R. 1 designation which the speaker gave me at the beginning of this congress, which really says this is a priority bill. And i thought it was very important moving forward that it wasnt just a discussion draft, that in future congresses and in future years, its actually referred to as h. R. 1. It actually is a bill, not just a draft. Too much work went into it, i think, to get let it just sort of fade as a draft. It needed really to get that introduction. Now that were getting to the end of this congress, i thought the timing was right to do that. You didnt have much time left so gotta make the most of what you have even though you knew it was a symbolic measure, what was it like standing there and introducing it today . It was very exciting. I actually did it yesterday. It really was sort of the culmination of the evident of not just me but the entire committee was involved. Many members on the committee from both sides said they very much really found the process. And thats what we came here to do. We came here to legislate. We came here to do things. And i think, particularly my party needed to be the party of opportunity. We were in the majority in the house. We needed to be the party of ideas. And im not afraid of a debate on ideas. I think those are what we were sent here to do, not just sort of sit there and hope you win. The process that you just described to me, that you worked through with your own members on both sides of the aisle and also with senator baucus, a democrat, runs counter to the popular image in washington today. Right. Were you an anomaly in this effort, or is in more of this bipartisan effort that the public needs to know about . I think it was a bit of an anomaly. Senator baucus, then chairman of the Senate Finance committee, my counterpart in the senate, he and i had the first joint hearing with house and senate ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance members together since just after world war ii. So its been a long time since wed gotten together on issues. And that, i thought, was an important move to make, an important symbolic move as well as an important legislative move. I knew that whatever i did wouldnt pass unless the senate was involved too. So that was why i thought it was very important to do that. So in the larger rank and file or even within your own conference, did you find people that really werent happy that you were working with the other side . Well, some people were afraid that it was too controversial, that youd make some people mad. And clearly there are tradeoffs. I mean, what we did was simplify the tax code. 95 of americans would not have to itemize. They would file the twopage 1040. They would not have to keep records, because theyre getting the standard deduction. On the business side, we modernized International Tax laws, allowed the 2 trillion that was overseas to come back without the double penalty that they pay now, took the dollars raised from the repateation and used that to fund infrastructure. There had to be tradeoffs. There had to be certain provisions that werent there anymore. Some that would be too controversial. I dont think thats really something that should have driven the whole debate. So they were afraid to really get involved. What i found is people were just so grateful that we were trying to make things better. They know the code is complicated. And they know were out of date in terms of our competitors. They know we need to make changes there. And so what was important, and the discussion really actually did sort of evolve there, is not just what the provision is that might not be there anymore, might be changed or altered, but what does it mean in the context of a 25 rate with a growing economy . Thats why it was so important to get that dynamic score. It was about the narrow provision in the context of the entire bill and our economy. That was a very different prospect. For example, to an employer or businessman that came in that said we dont like what youre doing to our stuff, you could say, but more jobs are going to be created. More people are going to have higher incomes. Our bill said about 1500 a year in Median Income would increase. Big turnaround on that. More people could buy cars. More people could buy houses. More people could give to charity. Charitable contributions would go up 2 billion, because if people are working, theyre giving money. It was important to put not just the issue which, they are important issues but to put it in context of a bigger picture. Without dynamic scoring, putting things in that bigger context just doesnt happen. Thats what was different about this debate, and that will be different going forward. Speaking of going forward, if i understand the quotes correctly, your successor, paul ryan, has said that your legislation will not be the blueprint but it will be a marker, so youve chosen to leave. And your chairmanship was up for term limits. But how does that make you feel . Do you plan to be the blueprint for first of all, paul ryan is on the ways and Means Committee. Hes the incoming chairman, so hell be succeeding me. He was part of putting that plan together, so he knows it very well. And look, a new committee, a new congress, theyre going to look at things in a different way. We did learn things through that process that you might adjust. And because revenue to the government went up 700 billion under this bill, you could make some different tradeoffs. You could lower rates more, use it to pay down debt, adjust some of the provisions i make. So what hes saying is were going to take a look at this. Were a new committee. Its a new congress. I am convinced that he is going to draw very heavily on the work that had been done, because he did some of it. How did chairmanship term limits look to you now that youre really succumbing to them . I wouldnt change anything. The wrinkle this time was that the time as Ranking Member counted in the sixyear term limit, so i was actually chairman four years, Ranking Member two. And when term limits for chairman went in, in 95, when speaker gingrich came in, it was six years in the majority. I think it should still be six years in the majority. I think counting time as Ranking Member is a very different prospect. But look, it is what it is. I was very glad i had two years as Ranking Member, because it actually helped me develop the staff, the policy positions, to be ready for the majority. I never knew that i was going to get into the majority. So i consider myself fortunate to have the four years i have and really honored to be able to serve in that position. Chairman mckeon suggested hed like to see that role change also. Do you think its possible . I dont see it changing. And why not . First of all, whenever somebody leaves, somebody else moves up. And more people move up than leave. So i think its very unlikely it would change. You might see a change that it counts for the majority. That you could see, because it was kind of an informal change that the speaker made to have it include Ranking Membership. There really hasnt been a debate in the conference on that. But fewer members are chairman than are rank and file members and everybody who is rank and file wants to be a chairman. Sure. So tax issues in the ways and Means Committee was the focus of your entire tenure in congress. I wonder if you would tell a story for our cameras about your lobbying to get the seat on the committee that even involves president ford. Well, it did. I knew i wanted to get on the ways and Means Committee. And obviously worked hard on welfare reform and adoption issues and trade issues. At that time, the Steering Committee was called committee on committees, so you knew you were in a government process. It really is a campaign. Its about the votes on that committee who determines who gets a seat on a Committee Like ways and Means Committee. So youre talking to every member on that committee. Theres a particular member that i that really wasnt for me. And i just didnt know what to do. And just sort of out of the blue, i dialed president fords office in california. Did you know him . I had met him several times. I wasnt sure if he knew me. But i knew him. He got on the phone and said, dave how are you . Then he said, i used to be leader. Somebody owes me a favor, and ill make a call. He did. And that person came to me on the floor and said anybody who can get a former president of the United States to call me, im for. So he changed his vote and was for me, and i did get on ways and Means Committee and i told susan ford that story also once. Im not sure she cared. But it was really a changing moment for me. He was very gracious. The fact that he was in his office and took the call, when i had not scheduled the call. I literally called him out of the blue, as a it was very much a hail mary pass. It probably helps that you were a michigan congressman. That always helps. From the time youve arrived here, youve experienced life in the minority and in the majority. Im wondering if you can contrast and compare the two for people and what the experience is, when youve got the power, lose it, and want to get it back again. Im in the minority, majority. So i grew up in a small town, in a big family. We were always taught the golden rule, which is treat others the way you want to be treated. I always tried to act that way. I know when we took the majority the first time, it had been such a permanent minority. There was a sense wed never get there. Some of the longerserving republicans, it was really payback time and i think that was a huge mistake. Some did that. When we lost it, i dont think there was as much of that, because wed been the majority not nearly as long. But there was still some of that. I was very convinced that when we took the majority this time, that that was not going to be part of my agenda at all. I think you really want to be the same, in the majority as you are in the minority, and treat your colleagues the same way. In the majority, you get a lot more responsibility. You get to help set the agenda. You have a lot more people come see you when youre in the majority than when youre in the minority. So its a different prospect. Im just very grateful to have had the opportunity to serve in a majority, because there were some people, including our leader, bob michael, who never had an opportunity to serve in the majority. I remember. As he was leaving, the symbolic handing of the gavel, which is the first time he held it after all those years. Yeah. Youve also had the opportunity to serve under and work with a number of speakers since you arrived here. What makes a successful speaker . I served for five speakers. Obviously three majority speakers, for republicans. You know, everyone has their own style. And the institution changes. And i think it doesnt stay the same. And i think particularly speaker gingrich was very interested in how everything was operating and running. And i think his i mean, i remember sitting in his Conference Room with big stacks of papers, you know, debating the words in a bill. I mean, that was just very much his style. To some extent, speaker hastert did that as well. Our majority was so narrow in the time with speaker hastert, much more narrow than it is now, that it really affected the way he was able to lead. Speaker hastert was often seeing members all the time. I would say because Speaker Boehner has been a Committee Chairman, he really has let the committees do their work. In drafting tax reform, he was not looking over my shoulder and intervening on this paragraph and that paragraph. He really did let the committee do its work, and that process had integrity. So that really has changed a lot. Obviously, Committee Chairman term limits came in 95. So when i came in, speaker foley, the chairman were much more powerful. You had dan, no term limits. He had been chairman of the ways and Means Committee for a long time. Jack brooks. So it was a different role for the speaker than as it is now. I think Speaker Pelosi was a very powerful speaker as well and is a very powerful leader. So that has sort of changed over time, sort of power from the committee has moved to some extent to leadership. I think Speaker Boehner has certainly let us do our work. You obviously try to work with leadership because you need their help passing bills. Im not the whip. I dont schedule bills. So clearly in todays environment, you want to make sure youre in close touch with your leadership. But i feel very fortunate that they have not really sort of directed me in great detail what to do. If you were ill use the phrase king of the hill, for a short period of time and could change anything about the way this place functions to make it work better than it has, what would it be . Boy, thats a tall order. I think we really do need to make sure that the members are involved in issues, you know. I think thats one thing that i really took out of the experience i had on tax reform, is theres this thirst for members, and its in both bodies, because i met with a number of senators, senator baucus. We did these informal lunches, senators and house members, just sort of talking about issues. Theres just not enough of that. I do think the Committee Process works if its done the right way, where theres actually real debate and you try to move a bill through it. I just think more of that. I think the other thing id change is lets not be afraid of issues. We got sent here to do things. Lets have the public debates and lets try to move them forward. Whats changed that . The money . The polling . Cable television . What has changed the fear of debating issues . I think sort of the way media has changed. One misstatement now can be so dispositive of an election or an issue. There was less of that when i first got started 24 years ago. It didnt mean if you didnt make a mistake it wasnt awful, but now, i think sort of the short video piece that can be all over the world in a few seconds, i think that does inhibit the ability to sort of engage in public debate sometimes. I think town meetings have changed dramatically. Theyre not as sort of open and generally sort of activists that that come to those now. I think thats why a lot of members, like the telephone town hall meetings, those truly are people that happen to get on the phone, its very much more a real crosssection of what people are thinking. So theres been a lot of changes. I think probably, you know, make sure that the other change is really not about the committees, but i think Congress Needs to assert its role more. I think sometimes, particularly in later years, we tend to see ourselves as advocate for the party thats in the administration, much less so of, you know, where are the congressional prerogatives and whats correct . I think that has evolved really in sort of the last couple of president s much more than it was before. You had much more this was sort of the right thing to do, and you had a group of people in the congress that would come together on that. That has changed. If i could change one thing, it would be that. Some of the older, longer tenured members weve talked to lament the schedule which has sent people home most weekends, missing the days of really being here with families and doing things outside. Is that a factor, do you think . Youve not really experienced the other. Ive always lived in michigan. I always went home every weekend. It does. I mean, the schedule i dont know that it was as much togetherness as people sort of reflect back on it. A little sentimentality . Yes. We were in such a deep minority, that we didnt really count in those years. I was on staff in the 80s and i think it seemed like it was much friendier than it was. Because the house has changed, it really is a contentious you know, there is a vying for an agenda. And there are different views of how america should move forward and the parties have very different perspectives on that. And so it is you know, it is a competitive and tense environment. Its not all bad. But i do think that voters do expect you to be around and be home. And many members do what i have done for 24 years, which is fly back and forth. And what will you be doing whe