the bottom line is, we have a tax code that creates an incentive, apparently a powerful incentive, to headquarter multinationals somewhere other than the United States of America.

So anybody arguing that we are rushing or ramming anything through has a pretty selective memory.

I am in favor of that. I am glad. My point is there are many other institutions that are conducting transactions.

The threat of mandatory sanctions immediately once that legislation passes sends a very, very powerful message to financial institutions.

I think there is strong bipartisan consensus here in Congress and also ultimately in the executive branch, that those congressional sanctions backed up by the President's signature are what brought Iran to the negotiating table.

I understand that, but having the authority to do something is not the same thing as being required to do something, and the latter simply sends a stronger message.

I think there should be a way for an institution that ceases and desists, for instance, to no longer be subject to sanction.

Medicaid was then less than 6 percent of the Federal budget; now it is 10 percent.

Medicaid's growth rate is not on a sustainable path.

The Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson bill and previous Republican bills are not the first attempt to restructure Medicaid.

I do not think we should do that.

Yes. Cash method accounting tends to be simpler, like you said, and it does provide a lot of incentive.

The key point here is, by lowering the cost of capital, you are improving the opportunities for businesses to invest.

I thought Senator Toomey did a very good job of delineating the importance of, from a competitive perspective, how lower rates equal a better competitive position against folks in other countries.

if you get the incentives right, you will have more growth, and if you have more growth, you can generate more revenue

A lower rate also will encourage economic activity in a way that can be scored dynamically.

It would be nice if we could move on, sir.

I appreciate your skepticism.

We have an extremely progressive tax code, and it is going to remain a very progressive tax code.

In my view, we ought to have a very pro-growth tax code that is going to encourage an economic expansion, and if, along the way, a relatively wealthy person manages to benefit from that, I, for one, am not going to lose any sleep at all.

The fact is, the top 10 percent of income earners earn 47 percent of the income in America and pay 71 percent of all the taxes.

I think we have all agreed that we would like for tax reform to provide tax relief for working-class and middle-income families.

And the effect of this, of course, all else being equal, is it keeps Federal marginal rates higher than they would otherwise be if we had a different treatment.

If you lower marginal rates, you change incentives. You increase the incentives to work, to save, to invest.

I think that is a waste of money.