tv Senate Republican Tax Reform Plan Part 4 CSPAN November 22, 2017 3:31pm-4:39pm EST
33, corporate amendment 17. i will make a clear from the start nature of this amendment is to try to follow the advice about every witness who testified in this room back in september about how to stabilize that exchanges. everyone's said we should make clear that the cost sharing reduction which would set the cost of co-pays and adaptable, make it clear they are going away for at least two years. number two they said put in place a reinsurance program for highly expensive patient care particular patients. number three, they said we should retain in the individual mandate if we decide not to replace it with something that's as effective in getting a good mix of young and healthy people
to be part of the insurance pool within the exchanges. the legislation before as a purely repeals or proposes to repeal the individual mandate. that would leave us with cost-sharing reduction and no reinsurance. instead of a three legged stool which is what was called for by governors, insurance commissioners, health insurance folks, they call for that three stool approach to reduce the cost of coverage in the exchanges. so my amendment, mr. chairman, colleagues focuses on reinsurance program. those of us around a decade or so ago when we debated and voted on medicare part d program and established eight drug program, prescription program within medicare voted for a reinsurance
program because some of the folks going to be in the pool medicare part d or really really expensive and they are needed to make it work. as we know the medicare part d program has worked well and comes in almost every year under budget and has favorable approval ratings that exceed any in this room as high as 80, 90%. here's a way that this would work. my proposal would create a pool as we call it a stability fund about $120 billion and the states could use that stability fund to draw down to have resources they need to set up invisible high risk pools. a lot of republican colleagues have said they think it's a good
idea and four states that elect to do that there's a backstop. here's the way that would work. for eight-- 18-19 and 20 there would be a reinsurance program has said four states that don't you like to set up a high risk pool here's how it would work. those three years health of costs for an individual in a year expensive healthcare cost between 50 and $500,000, 80% of the cost would be borne by the stability fund. between 21, 22, 2380% of the cost between those three is between 100 and $500,000 borne by the stability fund and the rest would be borne by the
insurance company. what we have heard in the testimony in this room two months ago by setting up a reinsurance program and giving the states the ability to have their own invisible high risk pool they choose to along with preserving csrs and along with preserving the individual mandate the cost of premiums and exchanges would be brought down by as much as 35%. 35% in the reason lies because insurance companies would decide to get into the game. they would decide to compete for business in these marketplaces and exchanges across the country and in the states where there is competition and they are not looking at 30, 40, 50% increases in premiums. they are looking at single-digit increases because of the
competition. again, colleagues, we need to make it clear to the insurance cover is they won't lose their shirts. we aren't interested in offering them welfare. we want to make sure they purchase of a end of the region's program does that and gives opportunities to set up your own risk pool and we are interested in federal state partnership and this is a good example of how that might be done. i asked my college to consider this an updated today if we are serious about stabilize the exchanges we need to do those three things. we need to ensure that individual mandate should go-- won't go away. those are the three things we need to do in my amendment takes care of one of them, the reinsurance program. >> mr. chairman. >> i ruled this amendment is non- germane as it's not within the scope of the bill.
i will it out of order. >> move on. >> east who thought it was a pretty good idea? >> on not going to go that far. >> could i-- earlier today there was back and forth between senator cassidy and jonathan goober and we reach out to his office and i will talk to him later tonight but i have a quote from him from earlier the individual mandate. his words earlier this year, so i wanted to be made part of the record. >> mr. chairman i don't know if it's still an order, but if you want i offered my amendment to 33,-- can i appeal ruling of the
>> the amendment is a defeated. at next amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask of the senate amendment 13 and ask consent that the senator be added as a cosponsor. >> without objection. >> this amendment would stand back the corporate rate reductions if the secretary of the treasury cannot certify that the coverage for mental health and substance abuse in health insurance coverage has not been diminished. the concern here, to my colleagues, is that we have the resources to deal with the
opioid crisis affecting every community in our country. of my concerns that you look at the the, the cbo scored it adds a $1.5 trillion edition to our national debt. my concern is that you know the casualties for the opioid crisis we know we need the resources to deal with it. we know there's been an abuse of opioid every community that has led to heroin addiction and unfortunately the use of that no , which has caused overdoses in all of their communities. i've had town hall meetings and roundtable discussions in all parts of and this story is the same in each community as we see a rise in the increase of the opioid addiction.
we know that having mental health and substance abuse coverage is critically important in dealing with this crisis. i would think we would want to make sure that we maintain the coverage in dealing with this opioid crisis. that's the purpose of this amendment to make sure we have coverage. i'm going to ask that the letter from the american psychological association be made part of a record. thank you because i think this is to set-- one of the issues we are concerned about, the american psychological association expressed their strong opposition to repealing the individual health insurance coverage mandate as part of the tax reform legislation. strong, stable, health insurance markets are important or members and the millions of americans with mental health and substance use disorder.
we have cleaned-- the reason is that in order to deal with the opioid crisis we need to have coverage. i was listening to the senator carefully as he talked about that still takes people off of medicaid or health insurance, but i would point out to my colleagues that the joint tax committee has confirmed that $180 billion saved in eliminating the mandate from the medicaid program, $180 billion is not only saved, spent by tax expenditures chairman's mark. why because there is the assumption that $180 billion
will not be spent in medicaid and that people were covered under medicaid will not covered. let me remind my colleagues in medicaid includes mental health and addiction coverage. that would carry will be lost, but that is half of the story. in addition when hundred $80 billion approximately is saved for subsidies that will not be provided under the affordable care act. then again is spent, spent by tax expenditures chairman's mark now, that $180 billion of savings that is spent in the chairman's mark and added to the deficit means there will be 13 million people needing medicaid and your portable care act that will not be covered by health insurance that will lose
their mental health and addiction coverage under their health insurance policy and as was pointed out by the american psychological association many people because of that 10% increase in insurance premiums under the individual marketplace will be priced out of coverage and not be able to get mental health and addiction coverage, so for all those reasons we need to make sure we have the capacity to deal with the opioid crisis as a result of the underlining bill and my amendment will make sure at least we have resources available if in fact the secretary of treasury cannot certify that we maintained at least the current coverage for mental health and addiction. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. >> senator we agreed to 10
minutes weekly divided and you have used up four to have, but senator mccaskill-- is it you were senator mccaskill? please keep it short. >> mr. chairman, i went to speak to. >> i want to point out an irony. >> weight, weight-- weight. i i don't mind giving additional time, but let's not take advantage because we agreed to 10 minutes equally divided and your five minutes has long been gone. 's senator mccaskill mnf i understand that you would like a minute or so. >> i went to make sure. >> on not going to do that on every vote. >> i want to make sure the irony of the situation is sent out loud. at the same time my colleagues want to say that the individual mandate field and you win comes to get insurance because of the individual mandate, that it's working, but you are can spend the money that cbo says will be
generated because of the people who are not coming to the marketplace, so another words what you say doesn't work and therefore it's okay to get rid of it. you say wait a minute it works pretty well because it's going to be $180 we won't have to spend in medicaid because people won't sign up for medicaid and we will save 185 billion nac subsidies because they won't sign up in aca because they don't have to. i want to point out that irony. what you say it doesn't work any way to spend the money because cbo says it does work. >> senator brown, were you trying to get a minute? >> let me just say this from our side. includes all the insurance mandates and requirements related to pre-existing condition and essential health
benefits. title i of obamacare is written the public health service act, not the internal revenue code so this amendment is not germane and i can't about 10 minutes for every non- germane amendment that comes up, but we will do it in this case. going to be reasonable, but my gosh let's acknowledge this is asking an awful lot of the majority here. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate your comments and i will say what we are doing will impact millions and millions and millions of people and so it's very serious, the discussion, the whole debate will impact the entire economy of our country, but i did want to add that-- i'm pleased to cosponsor with him, but the reality is one out of four americans will be deemed within illness sometime in their
life. this is a critical issue for our veterans returning home who served as to keep our country safe. the opioid addiction issue is touching every again now. in michigan and across the country and i think it's important that we take a stand and say we are not going to allow people to lose critical services. >> senator, yup one minute left. >> i appreciate the amendment. when i think about the opioids and my state i think of a man sitting with his 30 or don't work in cincinnati and he said if it were medicaid i doubt it would not be a high today and and i think about how to under thousand people in my state are getting opioid treatment because they have insurance because of the affordable care act. i just think when we make these decisions and we need to put a
human face on the more than we do that i appreciate that. the" call the role. >> no, it's not germane. >> mr. chairman, if i might be heard on that because this amends the internal revenue code it's not amending the health code. redrafted the amendment consistent with your instructions and i would urge the chair to be fair. this amends the irs code. it is not a member health code. >> i have been told it's non- germane. >> can i asked the reason why it is non- germane. if this is not germane how do you men dead code to deal with healthcare issue on mandatory coverage. let's have some fairness here. >> let's put it out. >> i'm asking the chairs role in this-- rule.
[roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> report. >> 12 aye, 14 nay. >> amendment is a defeated. >> widened at 157. >> widened 157. >> as it is being distributed i just want to respond to my colleagues, my friend who said this really fundamental tax reform, the fact is this bill is actually taken us backwards. we are going back to the world of the crazy extenders and what we learned today we will have all kinds of provisions that expire at different times with all potential interaction and i would say, colleagues it's a retreat from what we did in 2015 on a bipartisan basis when we
need both sides felt strongly about, permanent on our side with a tax credit and the american opportunity tax credit. that it was the fundamental tax reform that had begun and now based on what is told us are actually going backward to the crazy world of tax extenders and by the way the tax extender the full employment or lobbyists and not tax reform. with respect to my amendment, my amendment is the hr one as reported by the house committee on rules. after the past few days i'm sure people are not surprised that i'm no fan of this proposal. i think it's the same basic approach taken here by the senate bill and his mind human
reason i'm offering this amendment is it important to understand that level of support here in the senate what the four houses about, so if colleagues want to speak am interested in hearing their views, but i will ask for the aye and nay because i think it's important to understand the level of support in the senate on what the house is about to vote on on this issue. >> well, this amendment is serves no real purpose and i don't understand why it was introduced. this amendment would a strike to mark and substitute it with the language of hr one, house tax reform bill. a bill the house does-- has not even passed yet. we have two legislative chambers for a reason. the house is moving forward and we are working on ours. if a both past people likely have to work out the differences
and i expect all republicans on the committee will vote against the amendment because we are taking our own course and while we wish the house look and are generally supportive of what they are doing over there, i think we are content to chart our own course. to be honest, this sounds like a stunt worthy of the committee's time. would hope the ranking member would withdraw his amendment, but if not we are happy to vote no. >> mr. chairman, went to explain exactly why i'm offering this because i have given it a thought. of the public is not going to get its any time to see what congressional republicans hash out in secret discussions between the house and senate if they manage to pass and because the public really isn't going to get a chance to see where
congressional republicans come down because i think based on all of the secrecy we have seen before there will be more sane the conference between the house and the senate. i think this is important to have the senate on record and it's not something i offer nightly. i just don't think the public will get any time to see what congressional republicans hash out. >> we understand that and we respect to. we will call the role. >> my time is not even up, i think. >> well, it is. you don't have 10 minutes on each one. >> mr. chairman-- >> there were six minutes left when the clock was turned off. i would urge my colleagues to vote no for two simple reasons. i don't think you want to say tonight that we should cut $12 billion out of renewable energy credits. if you're ready to say no you don't wind in texas are winded iowa or wind in washington state
, finally go ahead and support this proposal. i don't want to cut $12 billion out of renewable energy and i also don't want to eliminate. it will cause 1 million fewer poor housing units. we have an affordable housing crisis and we need to show warehouse colleagues it-- an exceptional approach to the affordable housing crisis we face i urge my colleagues to vote no. >> clerk will call the role. [roll call vote] [roll call vote]
rural america for, before the affordable care act was passed and since it passed its not working well personal towns across colorado and across this country. competition is low and prices are high with deductibles high. often plans available are of little prod go used to individuals and their families. four years coloradans have embraced this legitimate concern about our healthcare system and over the last 10 months we should have listened to come together to address the issues of america in colorado. instead we spent all your parsing intent to repeal the affordable care act and replace it proposals to cut health care for millions of americans to finance tax cuts for those making millions in income. all year we had tax cuts masquerading as a healthcare plan. now, we have healthcare plans masquerading as a tax bill.
according to the congressional budget office the planet premise would force 13 million americans to lose coverage raising premiums 10% on the individual market and we are told by cbl it will leave $25 billion in medicare cuts. this is the office it up when i we need from rural colorado where there isn't enough coverage. .. they should support this amendment and provide peace
of mind to all towns across colorado in the country. the effect of passing this bill are going to be felt hardest in areas where there is little competition already. where people have a hard time affording insurance, where many people rely on medicare and medicaid for their health insurance all throughout rural colorado >> senator, i have to rule it not germane, it's outside the scope of this bill. >> i would argue mister chairman, i'll respect the ruling. but i would argue that it's very much inside the scope of the bill since the individual mandate is going to drive up insuranceprices . >> i hear your argument but i have to -- >> mister chairman, i will relent. >> that means a lot to me personally.
is senator cochran next? >> thanks mister chairman. this would be amendment number 228 and it's 12, deals with veterans.several others on this committee, i've been about 23 years in active duty and one of my favorite days of the year is veterans day . my favorite day of the year is veterans day. i guess almost all of us respect the states, probably on friday which is the penalty for veterans day and saturday, veterans organizations and those who serve regard the real veterans day, that the 11th month of the year, 11th hour of the 11th day and one of the things that i spoke with back in delaware, they talk about the benefits that we enjoy in delaware when i moved to delaware in 1973, i
was eligible for the g.i. bill and the a healthcare. at the time, we had a bill that gave us $250 a month, that was it. $250 a month. folks cominghome today who serve at least three years, but through the g.i. bill who want to go to a state university, it's tuition free. books paid for, tuition paid for, tutoring fees paid for. they get a housing loan . looking around here to see if we have anybody on our committee from idaho, we do. housingallowance for 36 months for veterans. housing allowance in idaho, $1100 a month . i'm not sure what that buys in idaho but it's around the month. delaware, mouth monthly housing alliance is $3100.
looking around to see if we have anybody from new york state, it's $4000 a month. or three years, the rate benefit. my pay when i got to delaware, we had a veterans hospital, world war ii hospital, notvery good quality of care and bad morale . and we had no community-based outpatient clinics in delaware, no veterans homes in delaware. today we have world war ii hospitals in northern delaware regarded by many as the goldstandard . we now have community-based outpatient clinics in the hospital, and every county in delaware, we have a great facility. and i suspect we may be the only state where we can actually make that claim. but as it turns out, not every veteran gets their coverage, their health care coverage through the va.
and a lot of folks get their coverage, a lot of veterans it turns out throughmedicaid . and medicaid, their coverage is about four 2 million veterans is one in 10 . and as it turns out, since the affordable care act when into effect, the number of working age veterans insured as decreased. i'll say it again, the number of working age veterans who are uninsured in this country as decreased not just a couple percentage points but by 42 percent. that's due in no small part to the affordable care act establishing the health insurance marketplace and expanding medicaid. mister chairman and colleagues, remember that it's before us would ensure that no veterans or their families should require
adoption in excess of their health care as a result of this bill. this amendment would ensure that no veterans or their families could get access to their healthcare as a result of this bill. i must have heard 100 times last weekend on the veterans day, i must have heard hundreds of times people thanking one another for their service. thanking one another fortheir service . i thank brian for my service and a whole lot of people. how do we make real those words? how do we know for sure that we really mean then? one of the ways we can do that is to indicate if this legislation is going to move forward, at least with the stipulation that no veterans or their families could block access to healthcare as a result of this bill. i think everybody in this committee, in this room believes we have an obligation to honor our veterans.
not reduce their benefits or take care of the private care and the benefits theywork or answer . >> your time is up, i think senator isaacson once to this. >> we recognize our veterans and i'm proud to be one of the 14 people honored at the caucus in the rust building last week. leading up toveterans day. as chairman of the veterans committee we have during the course of this year , seven of the eight bills to reform and bring veterans healthcare in the choice bill in the united states senate and united states house. the remaining bill would be marked up on 29 november when we fully fund choice and eligibility so the private-sector multiplier would be part of the veterans just like the va is assisting them now. i appreciate the credit to the veterans and i share the comments and the compliments
that senator carver has made but the veterans, what they are doing, they would see to it that every veteran gets the benefits they were offered through healthcare that they were promised when they sign up and everybody in this room has been a part of that effort and this year i want, one of the veterans committee to do what it has done and that's take care of our veterans, bring them forward to do so and do the expansion of our programs, make sure they have access to healthcare. i would object to the amendment on those grounds. >> no further rebuttal for the comment, clerk will call the role. >> can i have 30 seconds to respond? >> thank you. i don't serve on the veterans committee, not familiar with the legislation you describe. we also serve on this committee and we're all considering legislation that in effect what's going on in the exchanges. a lot of veterans get free health care coverage in the exchanges and what we're
>> the amendment is defeated, casey number 26. >> mister chairman, this is simple. we heard earlier about the process will likely unfold if this bill moves out of committee. that there will be a bill on the finance committee and of course the house is working on their bill. should the bill go to conference, this amendment requires an open hearing on any measure of the revenue budget impact or revenue or budget impact . greater than $1 billion, that's too much for the openness and transparency so that taxpayers in this rust process leading up to vote on
the finance committee which i have argued, this i argued is moving too fast. drive by tax bill. that it would be subjected to the number of hearings that the ranking member referred to earlier in the mid-80s where president reagan's something on the order of 489 proposals 27 hearings. and the house bill at the time got six hearings. a lot more review, a lot more scrutiny and there's an old expression, secure from every suspicion. if you don't have more transparency in this process, there will be a lot of suspicion and frankly, a lot of mistakes made and i hope we get a yes vote on the amendment. >> mister chairman. >>. >> senator mccaskill. >> human is left. >> i want to i've never and in this before, i've been in lots of markups.
i've never had all the republican amendments stood on the bill the night before and all the democratic amendments or even one party done that way. i've never seen this done before where all the republican amendments got put on and the democratic commitments have to be brought up and voted on there's a different set of rules for one party or the other. i'm also curious because we are being told, idon't know if this is true and maybe you can confirm it but this bill is going to be conferenced next week . that in fact the house is going to vote if their bill is done and you guys are going to conference next week similarly the way this bill was drafted, none of us were around, none of us knew what was going on.nobody was allowed to give input but it's going to be conferenced next week and the only bill we're going to vote on is going to be a bill that's
already been agreed to by the house. which is why we think this amendment is so important. it would be great if we could participate in a conference, if we can do this work was the regular order, that would be terrific senator mccaskill, you need to vote but we took a number of democrat amendments in the park. >> that's what we did. so that's where we are. >> the clerk will call the role.>>. [roll call] >> c-span.
>> mister chairman, 12 aye, 14 name. >> quick question, this has been defeated to have a real conference committee and hearing. i would hope the fact that the entire committee voted against the house bill would be what the majority would take into the conference committee because that's a pretty strong message to the house, thank you. >> thank you. number 24, i believe. senate bill. >> thanks for the recognition. his brown, number 24, moving
expenses. this amendment fixes the problem that i'll bet you everyone in this room has spoken out against, has said that they want to fix this problem at somepoint in their careers, in their state. the bill , if someone shuts down production in line in ohio and wants to move to peru or shuts down production in iowa and wants to move to russia, they get a tax break to make that move, but if you're living in cleveland and you moved to salt lake for a job, you can't deduct it off the move. this fixes to problems. it fixes and in equity to moveto take a new job , the cost of the move against your personal tax. it fixes that in equity but the other thing it does, it says why should we encourage companies to move overseas? it's become too often the business plan for far too
many companies to shut down production in washington state or michigan and move overseas and deduct the cost of the move, set up production there and sell the product back in the united states so this amendment will fix that. we should do something about this mister chairman and i think this is something because so many people have spoken out about it in both parties for so long, i would ask that mister chairman that just except this amendment . >> further comments? senator crapo look supportive of this and i see that look on his face and banking when we work together. >> mister chairman, one minute. >> thanks mister chairman, i could not agree more with senator brown. there is another way also,
it's a one-two punch would be to accept my bring jobs home act which stops the right off of companies that are sending jobs overseas. we have text taxpayers for the move right now. you lose your job, pass things up and as a taxpayer you pay for the move and your whole community does so what senator brown is talking about is a terrible in equity where we are paying a taxpayer for jobs move overseas but if somebody is moving from columbus ohio to detroit for a new job, we love as manypeople possible coming from ohio to michigan , but we, they can't do that. that just seems absurd. thank you. >> the clerk will call the role. >>. [roll call].
>>. [roll call] >>. >> c-span. >>. [roll call] >> the clerk will announce the boat. >> 12 aye, 14 nay. >> we will go to number five. mister chairman, round number five is of the four employers. some of you at the white house while i will take all the republicans at the white house and the democrats were invited to meet with the president and the cabinet
room, and he asked us for his id and i gave him too. i will speak of one of them as this amendment called the patriot corporation, patriot employers act. if the company does the right thing and pays good wages, it provides decent benefits and it keeps production in the united states, they get a tax benefit. and i heard the president and senator grassley talked about the president made promises, can we depend on that promise from 40 minutes ago? i know the president said he wants to help companies stay in this country and punish the company that move and reward those companies that say. you all heard all the republicans here for the democrats of the white house say he liked the idea of paying the corporation act, this is a chance to emphatically tell the president yes, we agree with that idea. it makes senseand i would close with this .i live in cleveland ohio, my wife and i at the 105 in my zip code in 2000 seven had more
foreclosures in these zip codes in the united states and that was less about wall street which i pointed out as often the case but it was less about wall street that was declining manufacturing jobs and i go quarter-mile from my house every day and i see the devastation that brought about factory closings, plant closings, companies that move overseas and get those tax rates instead of rewarding those companies that stay here. one of the ways to fix that is the patriot employer. i would hope that this committee would agree with this president, his promises, his forms magazine article is his comments to me. in the end, i like as i did on the other end mister chairman, just to ask the chairman to accept this amendment. >> in your amendment, what's the score? >> we will get back to you, mister chairman.
i've not seen a score on much of anything in thiscommittee, on this bill . >> is not germane roulette non-germane and the clerkwill call the roll . >>. [roll call] it's not germane. >> you call the roles a call therole. i want to hear the role. i was so taken , i have an emphatic role and i want to see what else. >> the german have the right to do that. what do you want to do? you can feel the ruling. >> i'll appeal the ruling in the chair. it's the tax code. >>. >> mister grassley. >>. >> misreporting no. >>. [roll call].
>> no, no proxies were called . not until we rule the chair. >> i don't for the life of me see why what senator brown was talking about wasn't germane because it's talking about the internal revenue vote and on top of that -- >> that's why it's not germane. >> he's been trying to get a revenue estimate for some time. >> mister chairman, you've given us a long time to consider this bill. for you to penalize us because we don't have time to get anykind of documentation , any kind of ruling, you face the bill every day. first it was a last-minute change and it changed again then you changed it midnight last night. you don't honor -- this is a
farce mister chairman. to say we didn't have a score because i didn't move fast enough, we're trying to get this overworked staff who you put all this work on in such a short period of time because mitch mcconnell gave you some artificial deadline and you want to damn us, is that the way this committee? i love this committee but -- >> senator grassley, he will vote on thisamendment, the last one for tonight . >> it's my amendment but i want to replace it. i don't know whether to ask you for senator wyden, is in our desire to finish on thursday or saturday. >> we like to finish tomorrow , what do you think are the possibilities? >> mister chairman and senator grassley, i think you can see the frustration on our side. if i can just finish because we are raising substantive issues because we are talking about taking $10 trillion worth of changes on the fly
and we want to get answers, we want to be able to offer real amendments. i think senator rounds last amendment was germane because it's depends on the internal revenue code so my sense is tomorrow, we are going to be here a while because my colleagues want to raise substantive serious issues that the american people deserve but this could be one of the few opportunities to talk tax policy in the sunshine or i guess now under law. but i'm concerned about, that's why for the amendment, going into conference and it's all secret so we have serious questions that we are going to talk about tomorrow . >> friday and saturday. >> we're going to go late tomorrow is my production, then we will take a day +. >> we may go into friday and saturday and let me say that you're right. i thinkthe last one , you are right to bring up what you worked toward.
but there's an amendment for everything and i think it's pretty apparent that we are where we are. i think senator brown has number 11, will turn to senator brown for his amendment on opioids,i believe . >> mister chairman, this is amendment number 11, opioids. like any senators here tonight, my state has been devastated by the opioid crisis . tragically, more people have died in ohio from overdose than any state in the country. we will lose 11 ohioans to this epidemic by the end of the day. or funding is needed to address the situation. the senate has acted, the house is acted but we've not put much money behind our actions. we also play defense for much of the year when people were trying to cut medicaid, knowing that you hundred thousand, and i stand with x, he's a democrat, i stand with him on fighting back against
the cuts in medicaid that would have threatened 200,000 people getting opioid treatment today in ohio because they had the aca. this still makes it harderfor people to donate money to local institutions who are fighting this epidemic . i entered the charitable giving deduction for donations made to state certified medicare, medicaid nonprofit addiction treatments sensors. so really that's something we can support. >> thank you senator. any rebuttal or any other comments? >> mister chairman. >> clerk will call the roll. >> go ahead, have a vote. >> i'll be happy to take it. >> it's okay mister chairman, i was pointing out -- >> i recognize you. >> chairman i want to say something about the opioid.
>> about this amendment? >> i'll be happy to recognize you in advance. >> go-ahead. >> each of our states have a terrible problem of opioids. did you know that pregnant women on opioids she transfers the dependency to the unborn child and when born, that child as a dependency, not an addiction, a dependency on opioids and the only way to get him off in the hospital is 30 to 60 days on morphine. that's the only way to get a child off the dependency. and therefore i certainly support said the senators
>> i want to thank numbers for being here. we had a good debate, i know the motion is running high and can run high and were goingto keep things nice and civil . the only way this is going to work if people don't want to be recognized, before speaking. it isn't going to work if we are not respectful of each other's time and their right to express our views. things are really here a few times and that's inappropriate. but i think all of you know i want to be fair and i will be fair. i'll be accommodating to everyone but i want the committee to function as well. tomorrow we will start again at 10 am. and continue with amendments and as long as the debate remains productive, i ready to go to consider more amendments. >> so i like to finish tomorrow but if we can't, we will go into friday. i'd just say i appreciate
everybody on this committee, this is not easy for any of us . we all feel aggrieved in some ways with some of these problems that come up. but people on both sides are very sincere and it should be considered in essence here. let me turn to senator white. >>. >> to the point mister chairman, what is the process for my colleague probably within an hour of that mark being filed last night filed an amendment and then asked for its store and just got ruled out of order because he didn't have one. so what do we do about that in this process here so that we can -- >> we are not going to close the process down just because people haven't been able to get scores, they could have
asked for them a long time ago so we're going to go throughthis . >> he asked on thursday. >> i think senator brown moved weekly as he could with the information that he had on hand. he did it. >> we asked for the scores thursday, before the bill was even committed to paper where we could see the bill. we began right then so it's just asking too much of the staff. they're all working hard but i've never heard one of them complain i also know they're working hard and they can't everything done. because we are rushing this throughwithout any , i heard a number of my colleagues talk about 1986 and in 1986 and went through regular order. they had discussions, they had hearings, lots of time to do it. they did it bipartisan way. there's been no effort like
that here. this bill is written in a back room and sarah mcconnell's office with a bunch of lobbyists and wall street writing a bill like this and the american public isn't going to understand it and members of congress are going to understand it. >>this is 1986 nor do we have a cooperation we had then and we know we have to move ahead and we know that's not going to disagree and frankly, we're going to move in tomorrow. it's . >> i just want, as we wrap up , make it clear that we reject on our side the idea that you cannot have bipartisanship from the very beginning. we said the tax code is broken. excuse me, if i could just. we said we want to work in a bipartisan way. by the way, i just referenced 26 where everybody just said it's just going to be a bunch of spenders and what we said is, all sides ought to come together to work from sensible policies that in effect would lay the foundation for arguing tax reform now so we have shown here in the last couple years
and you remember that because nobody thought that we could get a bill with sensible policies on both sides. sensible bipartisanship. it wasn't about each other's from the ideas,that's politics. it was principal bipartisanship . >> i appreciate it senator. a number of years ago i knocked on the committee lawn setting up those working groups. you made senator crepo and i cochairs, i appreciate you didn't know the democrat rate writing. and we were charged to do the chapters to do a proposal in savings and investment. it was the beginning of our working relationship. it helps us get to know each other and put that aside, we came back with a very specific and it was not earthshaking but very specific proposals and we gave it back to you mister chairman. we've never seen any movement on that. that could have not in this bill, that could have been the beginning, the speed of a bipartisan effort where we
would've had bipartisan legislation, bipartisan language, we could have grown it through there but i've heard nothing from you since then. we tried to be bipartisan. >> let me say that it's time to go to bed. >> senator grassley is going to be running in three hours. >> it's time to recess and i hope everybody overnight will calm down a little bit. we've been very open to amendments, we've been trying to do this as low as we can and frankly i don't think anybody's by been hurt by this process we will recess until tomorrow morning at 10:00.
>> and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> we are reviewing the senate finance committee's markup to the tax reform bill. the committee continued in this fourth day of consideration, committee chair or in says he was frustrated with democratic complaints over the bill content and a debate in the amendment process while democrats continue to