Skip to main content

tv   Senate GOP Tax Reform Plan  CSPAN  November 16, 2017 5:45pm-6:33pm EST

5:45 pm
education. for many of the jobs that are available. instead we pushed that all to the side and decided >> more debate on the tax measure making its way through congress at we head back live to the senate finance committee, coming back from a short break, to continue its review of the senate tax reform plan. >> getting this to push forward. ok. whose amendment is up now? senator bennett, number 12. ok now let's keep our comments short. we all understand what's going on. we all know these amendments. we don't have to spend a lot of time on them but let's do that, let's get this over with. >> mr. chairman, would it be all right if i ask mr. barthold a question to follow up?
5:46 pm
i'll come in under my time. he's not here anymore. >> where did he go? >> will you be able to answer the question? i'm sorry to put you in this position. mr. hatch: is mr. barthold coming back? >> i'll wait until he comes back. >> he's coming back. is that all right? on page 1 of the distribution effects of the chairman's modification if you look at the bottom left, $1 million and over you see that? and then it says change in federal taxes for the year 2019. what does that say about the top 1%? in term os whether they're getting a tax benefit or tax cut? >> i don't want to apply the one million over represents the top 1% but for the $1 million and over income category, thing
5:47 pm
a refwat tax reduction for that $33.6 billion. mr. bennet: and could you tell me what benefit they get with respect to the estate tax? >> we don't distribute the aggregate effects of the estate tax reduction in our distribution tables. here come ours savior. > my savior in particular. mr. bennet: mr. barthold, i'm sorry to do this to you, mr. barthold, but we are discussing page one of the distribution tables and the fact that it clearly shows a cut of $33 billion for people earning $1 million and over. and the second question i asked was, what proportion of the tate tax does that group benefit from?
5:48 pm
>> senator bennett, i think i sent to all members of the committee two days ago an analysis of that based on 2013 decedents and i don't recall the specific results, but if you give me a couple of minutes. mr. bennet: thank you, i'll wait. i'll be brief about this amendment, mr. chairman. according to the congressional budget office this plan would cause 13 million americans to lose health insurance. it also would raise premiums on the individual market. the congressional budget office says by 1% each year. and still people on the other side said that even if premiums increased, people would be made whole by the tax cuts in their plan. we just saw how small those tax cuts are for people making $50,000 and below and i'll give you an example. let's look at more numbers. if you're a 27-year-old living in boulder, colorado, earning $56,000, you'd receive a $470
5:49 pm
tax cut under this plan, more than the $160 tax cut people would make who are making less than $50,000. according to the congressional budget office, premiums will rise by $586 over the course of the years as a result of that plan. that person is $111 worse off desm spite this analysis, from our trusted advisors at staff, the majority claim this is young man or woman and millions of americans will be better off under this plan. my amendment simply provides the backstop, if you are wong about that, ensures that this tax bill would only take effect if the joint committee on taxation and condition gregsal budget office certify that as a result of the plan americans won't pay more in premiums than they receive in tax cuts. i encourage my colleague to vote yes on the plan. i yield back to the chairman one minute and 20 seconds. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i want to make sure i understand this amendment correctly.
5:50 pm
it's saying one person in colorado has a 10% increase in premium and their tax cut doesn't cover it, nobody in america should get a tax cut. is that what that says? if one person in colorado doesn't, nobody in america should? >> is that -- if that's a question directed at me, i'm happy to answer it. >> i want to make sure i understand it. >> that is the way it work the congressional budget office told us that 13 million people as a result of this plan will lose their health insurance and that premiums will go up by 10% . you guys have said they are going to be better off anyway. i gave you an example of how that's not true based on their math, not my math, and so yeah, that's why the trigger works the way it does. >> because -- >> look -- thank you for responding but to follow up we're going to have a 38% increase in premiums next year in nevada. 38% because of the a.c.a. under the same arguments shouldn't we repeal the a.c.a.
5:51 pm
because of a 38% increase in these premiums in the state of nevada? >> mr. chairman, shall i answer the question? thank you, mr. chairman. i say to my friend from nevada that it's my experience that people in colorado, whether they support the affordable care act or don't, are deeply dissatisfied with the health care system. i would invite you to look at a bill i recently introduced with tim kaine called medicare x, we suggest we should roll out in rural counties to deal with some of the issues you're talking about. but i do agree it's a very big problem with our health care system. what i also believe -- >> i appreciate your comments. and that warm welcome to work together. you made an earlier comment that there isn't a republican -- there's not a republican in colorado that want this is tax cut. i'm assuming that means there's not a republican or an independent or a democrat in colorado that wants a tax cut?
5:52 pm
did i understand that correctly? >> mr. chairman, may i answer my colleague's question? thank you. that's not what i said, senator. i said republicans in colorado don't support this. i didn't say every republican. the republicans in colorado who are fiscally responsible and believe that we shouldn't borrow money from their kids to give $30 billion of tax cuts to millionaires do not support that idea. they may not know it yet but they will not support it. >> ok. i just wanted to make sure that's clarified. so we understand that republicans, some republicans, i guess, however you want to say it, don't support tax cuts. in colorado. [roll call]
5:53 pm
>> clerk will report. ? mr. chairman, the final tally is 12 aye, 14 nays. >> the amendment is defeated. let's bring up number 14. i hope everybody will consider since these amendments are all
5:54 pm
being voted down and that doesn't seem to be changing, that we'll consider everybody's -- everybody's feelings this evening and let's not just keep going through a charade here. >> mr. chairman. could i be recognized briefly? my colleagues are trying hard to be sensitive to the point you're making. >> it doesn't seem like it to me but i'm happy to accept that. >> if i could just finish. i would just say the reason we're raising these issues is here very recently, a tax bill became a health care bill. and we believe because of the congressional budget office report, millions of people are going to lose coverage, millions more will have premiums go up. we are not interested in being obstinate or difficult but because of the change in this bill here in the last couple of
5:55 pm
days from being a tax bill to a health care bill, that's why my colleagues and i feel strongly that we're going to be sensitive to question of lots of work still to do and your point. >> i understand but i think there's a meet -- there's a beating this into the ground factor here that's kind of ridiculous but let's go to, who was next. senator cardin. >> cardin amendment number 14. that would create a tax credit up to $1,000 for persons who receive services and/or treatment to address substance abuse. this is offset by the necessary decrease in the estate and gift tax exemption proportional to the cost of the amendment. mr. chairman, this is a followup to an issue that i raised earlier and senator wyden's point, we now know that the cause of the addition that was added to the chairman's mark, the 13 million americans are going to lose coverage.
5:56 pm
some will lose coverage on the affordable care act, some will lose coverage under medicaid but all those 13 million today have under essential health benefits have coverage for behavioral health, mental health and drug addiction. we know the crisis that is confronting every community in our country on the opioid addiction issue and that we also understand that one of the ways we can combat that is for individuals who have an addiction to be able to get health care and access to health care is very much contingent upon having insurance that covers it. if they don't have insurance, this bill will at least give them the ability to be able to get care and be able to use a tax credit. if we're not going to deal directly in this committee with the underlying problem, i would hope that we would agree that giving a tax credit for those who have this out of pocket
5:57 pm
cost would be certainly something that we would want to do to show our submit optometrist deal with this crisis. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. mr. chairman,
5:58 pm
the final tally is 12 ayes, 14 ays. >> senator broun, you're up. >> my amendment from last night was ruled out of order, we've talked to your staff and now it's in order. it's our patriot corporation act again. i will not drone on except to reiterate that the president of the united states like this is idea. he said it to me in front of all of you on this committee at least the republican members of the committee in the cabinet room , he said it in front of a number of democrats on and off
5:59 pm
this committee, and in front of gary cohn and mark shofert in our phone call when he was 8,000 miles away. the patriot corporation act. it's pretty simple. the president ran a whole campaign and interview in "fortune" magazine and a lot of other statements saying he will reward corporations that do the right thing and the right thing is keep their production on shore, pay good wages, pay decent benefits. these companies should get rewarded. he said, and this amendment doesn't exactly do this part but he said and you punish those companies that don't pay, that move stuff overseas and don't pay good wages. mr. chairman, the suit i wear was made by union workers 10 miles from my house. you can buy american, you can be a successful company in this country by using american products and by making american products. this this amendment would get 95%
6:00 pm
support in states as conservative as wyoming and as liberal as new york. this is an amendment that's time has come. the president supported it, when i asked him twice about it. it has strong support on our side of the aisle. this is a chance, this, mr. president, -- mr. chairman, this bill, coupled with any kind of middle class tax relief, call it whatever you want, i've got a bill, but so does senator bennett and senator casey and others. you couple that and that's really the book ends of good -- of a good bipartisan tax bill. incentives for corporations to do the right thing and helping kid and putting money in middle class people's pockets. what would work better to build a good, bipartisan tax program than that? it would get -- instead of your bill getting two to one opposition in polling from the public, it would be a bill that would get three to one support from the blick. we could all come together and do.
6:01 pm
this i ask, how can any of you vote against something called the patriot corporation act, mr. chairman? yield back my time. mr. hatch: senator brown, can you identify the offset for everybody? what is it? auto mr. brown: the offset is the exit tax. that's the amount they need. mr. hatch: what's the amount? >> they actually have a new proposal that would tax the crude on real -- unrealized gains of the controlled foreign corporations. it's several hundreds of billions of dollars. mr. hatch: let's vote. clerk will roll the call. the clerk: mr. grassley, no. mr. crapo, no by proxy. mr. roberts, no. mr. enzi, no.
6:02 pm
mr. cornyn, no. mr. thune, no. mr. burr, no. mr. isakson, no. mr. portman, no by proxy. mr. toomey, no. mr. heller, no. mr. scott, no. mr. cassidy, no by proxy. , aye. en ms. stabenow, aye. ms. cantwell, aye. mr. nelson, aye. mr. in a men -- menendez, aye by proxy. mr. carper, aye. mr. cardin, aye. mr. brown, aye. mr. bennett, aye. mr. casey, aye. mr. warner, aye. ms. mccaskill, aye. the chairman votes no. mr. chairman, 12 ayes, 14 nays.
6:03 pm
mr. hatch: the amendment is defeated. senator casey is the next in line. mr. casey: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is designed to ensure that we're supporting and making it possible for americans in their 50's and 60's to access health care coverage in reasonably priced health care premiums. according to the congressional budget office, repeal of key provisions of the affordable care act would cause 13 million americans to lose health care coverage over the decade, four million by 2019 and increased premiums by 10% each year. this proposal, the tax bill we're debating, would rip coverage out from under american families, including those in need -- who need it most. children, people with disabilities and older workers nearing retirement. let's revisit what the affordable care act and access who health insurance coverage for the marketplace means for americans nearing retirement. medicare eligibility begins at
6:04 pm
65 for most, but many people in their 50's and 60's find it hard to stay in full -- in a full-time job or full time i should say in the job market or find new employment after a job loss. making access to affordable health care coverage through the marketplaces critically important. people in their 50's and 60's nearing retirement also are likely to have chronic conditions, making access to comprehensive health coverage vitally important. indeed, nearly 3.3 million americans ages 50 to 64 rely upon marketplace coverage. marketplace coverage, representing the largest share of enrollees nationwide. more than one in four, some 26%. 3.3 million people in the ages of 50 to 64. the amendment would protect near retirees and older adults from losing their coverage or experiencing outrageous premium increases. so basically the amendment, mr. chairman, says that no provision
6:05 pm
of the chairman's mark as modified shall take effect until unless the joint committee on taxation and the congressional budget office certify that the bill will, number one, not reduce the number of individuals 50 or older covered by insurance, or, two, increase premiums for health insurance for americans for individuals 50 and older. mr. hatch: we understand that you've modified your amendment. we're going to reserve that and then go to senator stabenow and listen to her. then we'll have the two votes on both amendments. >> could i speak briefly on the casey amendment? like a minute? mr. hatch: sure. >> colleagues, it's casey amendment, it's exceptionally important. i began to see this back in the days when i was director of the great panthers. you're between 55 and 65, pre-medicare, you are out there lost in a health care desert. mr. wyden: and these are some of
6:06 pm
the people who face the toughest economic challenges in our country. sometimes they've been victims of age discrimination. so i really urge my colleagues to support the casey amendment and, mr. chairman, out of deference to you, if it was not late i'd have more to say about it. but this was an exceptionally important amendment. mr. hatch: thank you. we'll turn to senator stabenow now and then vote on both amendments. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'd like to offer an amendment, stabenow number one. this will make sure tax cuts go to the companies creating good american jobs. because that certainly, i hope, is the focus for all of us. tax reform should not be about giving tax breaks to the 1% of shareholders. tax reform should be about growing wages, putting money in the pockets of middle class families, bringing jobs home. that have been shipped overseas. this is the focal point, as we talk about repatriation, and the
6:07 pm
efforts in the bill that relate to that, i want to make sure that when we change the rates, that in fact jobs are being created when the dollars come home. in 2004, the low rate on repatriation ended up being a windfall for companies. the 15 companies that brought back the most money to take advantage of the low tax rate unfortunately cut almost 21,000 u.s. jobs in the three years that followed. even though that is not how it was sold. to all of us. they also decreased their spending on research and development. however these companies increased their stock buybacks and their executive compensation grew. this is the opposite of what we want to accomplish. the middle class is being promised that this tax reform bill will increase their wages from 4ds,000 today 9,000 -- $4,000 to d 9,000 a year and
6:08 pm
millions of new jobs will be created. i would say the proof is in their paychecks. and my amendment would make sure that companies don't just get a windfall from the low tax rate for themselves, but that we add accountability to the lower tax rate so that companies are actually creating jobs. higher wages and good paying jobs. and i would ask as part of the record, there was a very important story in reuters that really makes the point that addresses the concern of my amendment, mr. chairman. in the reuters article it said, some of the biggest s&p 500 companies have plans more pleasing to investors than workers. and i think this should be about creating good-paying american jobs and putting more money in the pockets of the folks working hard every day. >> mr. chairman. mr. hatch: yes, senator. >> just earthquakely in trollings the casey amendment --
6:09 pm
just quickly in relation to the casey amendment. had this kind of provision been in effect in regard to the affordable care act, in 2014 it would have gone away. because six million people-plus were kick off -- kicked off of the insurance and had to pay a penalty besides. mr. enzi: i'm just going by the number of people who had to pay a penalty. they were harmed by it. it's something that nobody can certify to. so it's an interesting proposition. mr. hatch: all right. senator casey, we'll vote on his amendment first. and then beal vote on senator stabenow's amendment second. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: mr. grassley, no. mr. crapo, no. mr. roberts, no. mr. enzi, no. mr. cornyn, no. mr. thune, no. mr. burr, no. mr. isakson, no. mr. portman, no.
6:10 pm
mr. toomey, no. mr. heller, no. r. scott, no by proxy. mr. cassidy, no by proxy. mr. wyden, aye. ms. stabenow, aye. ms. cantwell, aye. mr. nelson, aye. mr. menendez, aye by proxy. mr. carper, aye. mr. cardin, aye. mr. brown, aye. mr. bennett, aye. mr. casey, aye. mr. warner, aye. ms. mccaskill, aye. mr. chairman. the chairman votes no. mr. hatch: the clerk will report. the clerk: the final tally is 12 ayes, 14 nays. mr. hatch: the amendment is defeated. ok. now i think senator stabenow -- ms. stabenow: yes. i would appreciate -- again, this basically brings accountability by indicating that as we allow companies to use the smaller rate on
6:11 pm
repatriation, that every year we would take a look and see whether or not they really are creating more jobs and higher wages. and if so, that cut would continue and if not, it would not. >> mr. chairman. mr. portman: maybe we should go ahead and vote but i'm confused by the amendment because it says on the sheet i have, talking about dean repatriation. is that accurate? ms. stabenow: is it number one? are you looking at number one? mr. portman: yeah. ms. stabenow: yes. it's the dean repatriation. which they can elect to pay essentially over eight years. so each year they would evaluate whether or not wages would have gone up through fica. and if so, then they would get to take that year. and if it had not, they would not get to take that year. then you'd go to the next year. if there were wage increases, more jobs, they would get it. so it's a way of accountability
6:12 pm
because what we're saying, what we want is that we want this to be invested in american jobs and american wages. many, many companies are saying that's not what they're going to do. mr. portman: i see you're using it as a pay-for. just so we understand, dean repatriation is for investments that have -- they've already made or liquid cash and equivalentance that they have overseas. this is to clean the fwooks move forward with the new system. so it is not money coming back to the united states, it's a tax that's being levied on whatever their earnings have been prior to en-- prior to enactment of the legislation. they do have time to pay it off. but it's not as if the money's coming in as it will under the new system at a zero repatriation rate. anyway, i want to make that point, mr. chairman it. seems to me this is maybe not the right source for the object thave you have. mr. hatch: point made. the clerk will call the roll.
6:13 pm
the clerk: mr. grassley, no. mr. crapo, no. mr. roberts, no. mr. enzi, no. mr. cornyn, no. mr. thune, no. mr. burr, no. mr. isakson, no. mr. portman, no. mr. toomey, no. mr. heller, no. mr. scott, no by proxy. mr. cassidy, no by proxy. mr. wyden, aye. ms. stabenow, aye. ms. cantwell, aye. mr. nelson, aye. mr. menendez, aye by proxy. mr. carper, aye. mr. cardin, aye. mr. brown, aye. mr. bennett, aye. mr. casey, aye. mr. warner, aye. ms. mccaskill, aye. mr. chairman. chairman votes no. , no.assidy
6:14 pm
mr. chairman, final tally is 12 ayes, 14 nays. mr. hatch: the amendment is efeated. bennett number three. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to call up bennett number three. mr. chairman, higher education has never been more important in our economy. it has also never been more expensive with prices consistently rising faster than inflation. that has put an enormous strain on working families across america. for the least affluent families, it often means shutting the door to higher education entirely and in today's economy that amounts to cutting the door on economic security upward mobility. in my view, instead of cutting taxes at the top 1% of taxpayers, earning an average of $2 million, we should open the door to higher education for more families. my amendment would help do that. first, it increases the tax
6:15 pm
credit for tuition. and related expenses to $3,000. while allowing students to claim the benefit for five years instead of four. and practice a four year's bachelor degree means you're in school for five calendar years. this makes pell grants tax-exempt if they're used for tuition and books and to pay for rent, groceries and other essential. we forget that these costs often prevent low-income students from pursuing higher education as well. third, the amendment encourages employers to invest in their workers. under current law, when employers contribute to their workers' education, they can exempt up today 5,250. we raise that to $10,000. fourth, amendment completely exempts the americorps award for higher education, serbing -- serving our nation should never be a barrier for americans to pursue higher education. mr. chairman, if we're going to borrow somewhere between $1.5 trillion and $2.2 trillion from america's middle class for tax cuts for the very wealthy, and then ask our kids to pay it
6:16 pm
back, at a minimum let's use it to invest in their futures and make higher education more affordable. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hatch: i recommend we vote this down. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: mr. grassley, no. mr. crapo, no by proxy. mr. roberts, no. mr. enzi, no. mr. cornyn, no. mr. thune, no. mr. burr, no. mr. isakson, no. mr. portman, no. mr. toomey, no. mr. heller, no. mr. scott, no by proxy. mr. cassidy, no. mr. wyden, aye. ms. stabenow, aye. ms. cantwell, aye. mr. nelson, aye. mr. menendez, aye by proxy. mr. carper, aye. mr. cardin, aye.
6:17 pm
mr. brown, aye. mr. bennett, aye. mr. casey, aye. mr. warner, aye. ms. mccaskill, aye. mr. chairman. chairman votes no. mr. chairman, the final tally is 12 ayes, 14 nays. mr. hatch: the amendment is defeated. nelson number one modified. is the next one. i'd be happy with you'd withdraw some of these. but if you want to go, it's nelson. not here, ok. is he here? mr. nelson: yes, i'm here. i couldn't hear you, mr. chairman. thank you. mr. hatch: i'm sorry. i'll have to peek louder. mr. nelson: i want to call up my modification to amendment 189. to nelson amendment one. 40 copies of the modification have been filed with the clerk. the number one goal of this bill
6:18 pm
should be job growth. and not just growth of low-wage jobs. that's what we need is job growth with real wages. this amendment tries to add balance to the chairman's bill by offsetting the cost of new hires for small business through a new tax credit worth the employer's portion of the payroll taxes. employers could get -- employers could only get the credit if they have less than $15 million in gross receipts and pay an average minimum wage that's at least $1.4 times the applicable minimum wage, which works out to around $10 an hour. the provision expires after three years, so as to stimulate small business job growth.
6:19 pm
this sort of policy has gotten bipartisan support in the past. it should get it here. and especially if you are in a state of which many members on this committee from a state -- are from a state where the real engine of the economy is small business. which is the case of my state and the states of many of us here. , mr. chairman, i suggest an aye vote on the amendment. mr. hatch: some of these amendments may have merit but not on this particular bill. i suggest we vote this down. the clerk: mr. grassley, no. mr. crapo, no by proxy. mr. roberts, no. mr. enzi, no. mr. cornyn, no. mr. thune, no. mr. burr, no. mr. isakson, no. mr. portman, no.
6:20 pm
mr. toomey, no. mr. heller, no. r. scott, no by proxy. mr. cassidy, no. mr. wyden, aye. ms. stabenow, aye. ms. cantwell, aye. mr. nelson, aye. mr. menendez, aye by proxy. . . carper, aye by proxy mr. carper, aye. mr. cardin, aye. mr. brown, aye. mr. bennett, aye. mr. casey, aye. mr. warner, aye. ms. mccaskill, aye. mr. chairman. chairman votes no. mr. chairman, the final tally is 12 ayes, 14 nays. mr. hatch: the amendment is defeated. let's go -- we'll go to brown
6:21 pm
number two if he wants to put it forward. blown brown thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. brown: thank you, mr. chairman. tax reform, as we said many times, should be about one thing. putting money in the pockets of working people. if we wanted -- we're going to do middle class tax breaks, we should do tax cuts for the middle class. that's -- it's what this amendment does. it's not something we can all support, it tells the american people whom this bill is really for. instead of giving money to corporations, hoping some of it ends up in the pockets of working people, this money gives directly -- this amendment gives money directly to the people whom we serve. if we want to cut taxes for middle class, then let's cut taxes for the middle class. let's get rid of the middleman. let's quit talking in this committee, we hear the term middle class all the time, that this is a bill from for the middle class. if we're really serious about that cut out the middleman, give tax relief directly to the middle class. that's how we grow the economy.
6:22 pm
you grow the economy from the middle-out. we know from looking at the 1990's and looking at the clinton years and the bush two years, when you give tax cuts to the wealthy hoping it will tickle down, the economy doesn't grow -- trickle down, the economy doesn't grow and wages don't go up. if you give tax cuts directly to the middle class the economy grows and wages increase. it's as simple as that. history proves that. this amendment makes sense, mr. chairman. mr. hatch: i oppose this amendment. let's vote. the clerk: mr. grassley. no. mr. crapo, no. by proxy. mr. roberts, no. mr. enzi, no. mr. cornyn, no. mr. thune, no. mr. burr, no. mr. isakson, no. mr. portman, no. mr. toomey, no. mr. heller, no. mr. scott, no by proxy. mr. cassidy, no. mr. wyden, aye. ms. stabenow, aye.
6:23 pm
ms. cantwell, aye. mr. nelson, aye. mr. menendez, aye by proxy. mr. carper, aye by proxy. mr. cardin, aye. mr. brown, aye. mr. bennett, aye. mr. casey, aye. mr. warner, aye. ms. mccaskill, aye. mr. chairman. chairman votes no. mr. chairman, final tally is 12 ayes, 14 nays. mr. hatch: the amendment is efeated. we have stabenow six. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to offer stabenow amendment number six. ince we have now interjected tax policy related to health care into this bill, i think we ought to really do something that really does help working
6:24 pm
people. instead of policy that takes away health care for 13 million people. and that is we ought to repeal the cadillac tax. this is something that during the very long markups and many, many, many hours of meetings that we had before passing the affordable care act, that i never supported, i always felt that this was unfair for working people. and the fact of the matter is what the cadillac tax does is penalize working men and women who are effectively bargaining for good health care benefits, for better network or lower co-pays and premiums. they choose to do that rather than take a wage increase in collective bargaining because health care cease important to them -- care's so important to them. then the cadillac tax will get them. millions and millions of working people. i felt at the time it shouldn't be called cadillac tax. it's much broader than that,
6:25 pm
although i like cadillacs, which are made in michigan, 15 minutes from my house. i'd be happy to do an ad about that. but the truth is that working men and women across the country have been affected by. this i know my colleague, senator heller, has worked on this issue and others as well. this is a tax on good health care benefits that folks are collectively bargaining for and oftentimes getting -- giving up wages in order to get. it's a big deal. for us in michigan, 4.8 million people in michigan will be hit by this. 150 million americans with employer-provided health insurance will be hit by this. i was glad to be a part of an effort to fight to delay this until 2020. but it's coming very quickly and if we're going to do something on health care and taxes, we ought to do something that actually helps people in this
6:26 pm
bill. as it relates to tax cuts. so, mr. chairman, i would urge that we pass the amendment to repeal the cadillac tax. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i want to thank the author of this legislation or this amendment and i will assure you that i agree with everything that you said. the problem is this is a good amendment on the wrong piece of legislation. senator heinrich, as you mentioned, and myself have been working on this for quite some time. in fact, this was supposed to go into effect in 2018. with the help of the chairman, we were able to postpone it to 2020. mr. heller: the clearly the angle and the goal here is to repeal it altogether for all the reason us that said so. this does effect 150 million workers. 1.3 million in nevada. including public employees, strip workers, small business owners, and retirees across my state. i will mention one thing that
6:27 pm
kind of intrees me. i offered -- intrigues me. i offered it back in july when we were having the health care debate. and what has intrigued me is that the author of this amendment voted against that amendment at that time. even though it was a bipartisan piece of legislation. as did everybody on the panel, on other side of the panel here, with us today. it was bipartisan. but not one democrat that's here today voted for it. i'm pleased that you guys found religion. i really am. but having said that, i think i'd be willing to work with you, mr. chairman, and the author of this amendment going forward to see that by the end of the year, we can find a full repeal and an appropriate bill to put it on. mr. hatch: be glad to help you. ms. stabenow: mr. chairman. mr. warner: since all of these votes have been pretty much party line, i just want to, for the record, indicate why i will
6:28 pm
be opposing the amendment. i concur that the cadillac tax needs to be reformed. but i can't be criticizing my colleagues on the other side for faking -- taking away the individual mandate and undercutting the affordable care act and then vote to cut it, take away one of the other funding sources for the affordable care act. i'd love to reform it. but i was one of the 11 members who opposed it in the past. so i'm going to continue that position. until we have a real reform effort. ms. mccaskill: i agree with senator warner. and will vote accordingly. ms. stabenow: mr. chairman, if i might, just to clarify one thing. unfortunately the amendment this summer, which i supported, it was in the context, i did not vote for it because it was in the context of gutting the entire health care system and cutting $1 trillion out of medicaid, ripping apart nursing home care in my state and across the country as well as children and families and so on. so that really wasn't the right
6:29 pm
place to do this. but i would say this. if we're talking about priorities and doing things that actually would help middle class families in the context of this ll and something that is a tax, and this is a tax bill, i don't understand why we wouldn't put this at the top of the line, rather than what's in the bill, which takes away 13 million people's coverage. mr. hatch: do you have an offset for this? ms. stabenow: mr. chairman, i would argue that if the committee and the majority is willing to -- i do not have an offset. because i believe this is just as much of a priority as we look at $1.5 trillion in debt, that the majority is willing to sustain, and the context of this bill, there are other things not offset and i would suggest that this is probably one of the most
6:30 pm
important taxes for repeal for middle class families. mr. hatch: if we start doing, that we're never going to get done. i'm going to it out of order. ms. stabenow: mr. chairman, i ask for a vote to overrule the chair. mr. hatch: all right. the clerk will call the roll. , no. erk: mr. roberts mr. no, mr. thune, no. mr. burr. mr. burr, no. mr. isakson. no. mr. portman. no. mr. toomey. in. mr. heller, no. mr. cassidy. no. mr. wyden. aye. ms. stabenow. aye. ms. cantwell. aye. mr. nelson. aye. mr. carter. aye. mr. cardin.
6:31 pm
aye. mr. brown. aye. mr. bennett. aye. mr. casey, aye. mr. warner. i'm going to vote aye but i want the record to reflect i would have vote against. >> aye on process, no on the underlying. >> mr. chairman. o. >> the clerk will tell the tally. what's the outcome of the vote? >> 11 ayes, 11 nays. >> the amendment is defeated. senator cantwell number 9 if you want to go forward. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to clarify for my colleagues, this is not the previous amendment we were talking about. we'll come back to that later. i call up my modify cage to cantwell number 9, committee amendment 188. it has been offset.
6:32 pm
mr. chairman, this amendment fixes another unintended consequence we just heard about in the interactions between the low income housing tax credit and the marks international provision. the marks international provision erosion provisions, the base erosion and anti-abuse tax provision appears to inadvertently prevent banks with foreign parents or domestic banks with substantial foreign operations from claiming the benefit of any tax credit other than r&d tax credit. this would limb the low income housing tax credit by limiting the poolling of investors and major private nevadaors in affordable housing and this country would no longer be investing in those communities. now i understand the original purpose of the provision but i think this is an unintended consequence. we don't truly understand all the impacts of this because this is the first time we've seen the new beed which was just


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on