tv U.S. House of Representatives 11282017 CSPAN November 28, 2017 6:29pm-9:12pm EST
as the united states focuses on problems around the world -- like urgent problems, like north korea and iran, it will pay less attention to europe. i thought that your speech made the point that this is not a zero-sum game, that if a strong europe stands with us, we are stronger together to face the tough problems around the world that are also developing blowback to europe, am i right. was that the elevator pitch? secretary tillerson: that is the message i will be taking next week. the last 100 years have proven --. recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany
house resolution 631, providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3017 to amend the comprehensive environmental response liability act of 1980 to re-authorize around improve the brownfields program and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3905, require congressional approval of any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the national forest system's land and the state of minnesota to provide for renewal of certain mineral leases in such lands and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules priestly postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. h.r. 2768 by the yeas and nays. h.r. 3115 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
remaining electronic votes will be cubblingted as five-minute votes. -- conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion from the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2768 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2768 a bill to designate certain monument peaks in the state of colorado as owler peak and boskoff peak. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
pass h.r. 3115. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3115, a bill to provide for land exchange involving federal land in the superior national forest acquired by the secretary of agriculture and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: will the house pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise tonight -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. ouse will come to order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. paulsen: i rise to congratulate the eden prairie boys' football team for winning their 11th minnesota state championship this week. the eagles prevailed 38-17 in the championship matchup they finished their 2017 season with an undefeated 13-0 record. they were led by senior running back solo faliniko who rushed carries, as n 22 well as antonio montero. it takes commitment, perseverance and hard work to become state championships. it's even more impressive when u consider that these school
athletes balance school and extracurricular activities with their athletics. i congratulate the players, coaches, and fans on your state title. our gire community is proud of your accomplishment. go eagles. the speaker pro tempore: members are asked to please take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection the gentleman s recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i met with a group of engineering and nursing students at rutgers. mr. payne: they have worked hard to get an education to help communities in need.
but they came to the nation's capitol helping for -- asking for help only congress can provide. see, these bright young minds are not u.s. citizens, they are what we call dreamers. and each day that passes without congress voting on the dream act darkens their futures. like the 20,000 other dreamers in my district. who fear young people they'll be detained and deported to places they've never seen or known before. mr. speaker, the holiday season is supposed to be a time of joy and celebration, not fear and uncertainty. i implore my colleagues to honor the wishes of the american people and do the right thing by history. let us finally pass the dream act. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order.
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, as most of us were sitting down for our thanksgiving meal with our turkey and dressing, there was an empty chair at the martinez home because just a few days before thanksgiving, 36-year-old texas border patrol agent rogelio martinez was killed manning texas' often violent southern border. initial reports indicate martinez and his partner were ambushed by a group of illegal immigrants attempting to cross into the united states. the illegals began throwing rocks, hitting the two officers
over and over again. both agents suffered broken bones and major head trauma. martinez's partner is still in the hospital in critical condition. agent martinez was killed by those speak -- seeking to enter the united states illegally by whatever means possible, ultimately by killing him. the f.b.i. is still investigating the homicide and seeks to bring those responsible to justice. rock throwers are not that uncommon on the texas-mexico border. since 2003, 39 border patrol agents have been killed while on patrol. our agents are outmanned, outgunned and sometimes outfinanced by the drug cartels trying to enter the united states. our border protectors deserve our total admiration and support so we mourn the loss of border agent martinez. may god bless his family. and that's just the way it is. yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? without objection the gentleman s recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, two weeks ago this chamber passed a tax plan that would raise taxes on millions of americans and explode the deficit. now the senate is having its turn. their proposal would devastate working families through its tax hikes and undermining american's health care through a stealth repeal of the affordable care act. mr. krishna moor thee: -- mr. krishnamoorthi: 82,000 middle income households would see a tax increase but the
damage of the senate plan goes beyond that it could cut medicaid by $1.5 trillion next year alone, add $1 .4 billion to the deficit and leave millions more without health coverage. those keeping their health care would see their premiums jump by 10% per year for the next decade. republican senators have spoken out against this bill and the truth is we all should. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are yet again reminded to please remove your conversations from the floor. he house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?
without objection the gentleman s recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, it first 1977, d in 1975 in 1976, 1992. mr. olson: the fifth time was november 18, 2017, two weeks ago. the beeville blue jays won the texas state championship. one word describe ours blue jays, domination. sets.wept one of 22 all of texas 22 is proud of our coaches, the stars who took us jansen, ve for five, sydney, haden, mckenzie.
samantha, annie. maison. evan. mr. speaker, get ready number six is coming in 2018. go blue jays. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to congratulate the flying horses of troy, high -- troy high school football for an extraordinary achievement, winning a second consecutive new york state public high school athletic association class a.a. state championship. troy's flying horses are the first team, first team in section ii history to accomplish back-to-back undefeated seasons and state championship wins. they are 41-26 championship wins this past sunday over an
impressive lancaster legends team showed the dedication and the heart of each and every one of the players, their families and their coach, their supercoach, bobby burns. on behalf of countless proud fans and supporters throughout new york state's capital region, i wish the players great success in all of their future endeavors. i again congratulate them and absolute their passion, their dead -- salute their passion, their dedication and their sportsmanship. they are indeed an inspiration to all of us. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back and thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize mr. larry hanson's 42 years of public service, including 22 years as the longest serving city manager of a city in georgia.
members of the city council say that appointing mr. hanson for city manager was one of the most important events in recent history of the community. mr. carter: one of mr. hanson's first initiatives after becoming city manager was to hire a new police chief, a fire chief, a city engineer and reorganize the entire city marshall office. a testament to his efforts, he received countless awards, including outstanding public official and georgia trend magazine excellence in public service. on december 8, mr. hanson will officially retire from his position as the city manager. the next city manager will certainly have large shoes to fill. in mr. hanson's next move, he will become the executive director for the georgia municipal association, overseeing 500 georgia cities, which i am sure will benefit from his assistance. larry, congratulations on your years of public service and best wishes for your future endeavors.
mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, today is giving tuesday, a global day dedicated to giving back. last week we celebrated thanksgiving and families across the country gathered to celebrate and give thanks for all their blessings. today on the national day of giving, many come together for a common purpose, to celebrate generosity and to give. giving tuesday kicks off the charitable season when many focus on their holiday and end of year giving to worthy causes. charitable giving is a force for good. which is why the tax reform package approved by the house maintains this important deduction. charities, families, businesses, community centers and people around the world will lend their time or their
personal resources of philanthropic efforts across the nation. giving tuesday also brings together the collective power of a unique blend of partners, nonprofits, civic organizations, businesses and corporations, as well as families and individuals to encourage and amplify small acts of kindness. as a global movement, giving tuesday unites countries around the world by sharing our capacity to care for and empower one another. that's something we can all celebrate. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to ecognize a hardworking and outstanding constituent of the 22nd congressional district who has just qualified for her
fourth consecutive winter olympic games. ms. tenney: erin hails from a beautiful hamlet in owe insidea county known as -- owe nighta county -- owe insidea county known as -- oneida county known as remson. erin earned a remarkable gold medal. at the 2014 sochi winter olympics, she became the first american ever, ever, both male and female, to medal in a singles competition where she brought home the bronze for team u.s.a. next year erin will represent team u.s.a. in the 2018 winter olympics in south korea by again competing in singles luge. please join me in wishing the best of luck to our hometown rock star, erin hamlin and all of team u.s.a. next year conscious in next year's winter olympics in south korea. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. lucas of okafor today and tomorrow, and -- oak la homea for today and tom and mr. stivers from today through thursday, november 30. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under p under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority eader. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to talk about a bill that poses a great danger to our country. and a great danger to our people. particularly our people who are struggling, who are living from
paycheck to paycheck. because this bill, contrary to the assertion of our republican colleagues, will not help them. and we're going to talk about that. i now want to yield to the senior member of the ways and means committee, my friend, congressman levin. mr. levin: thank you very much. our whip, trying to whip some common sense into this debate. i wanted to focus on the claims of the republicans that this is a middle class tax cut. you know, halloween is over. but the masks of the republicans, those masks are still on. and i think the largest one and the most dangerous is the claim that this is a middle class tax cut. i just want to quote, mr. whip, the president. it's a tax bill for middle class.
again, the president. we will cut taxes tremendously for the middle class, not just a little bit, but tremendously. the speaker, the focus is on middle class tax relief, all of these are in quotes. the chairman of the committee, the truth is, this whole tax reform is designed for middle class families that are working so hard and that main street business that's working so hard. the majority leader in the senate, to keep growing again, to get need this to do, jobs and opportunity, significant tax relief for the middle class. mr. mnuchin, on the personal tax side, middle income people are getting cuts and rich people are getting very little cuts, or in certain cases
increases, under the republican bill. mr. mnuchin again, any reductions we have in upper income taxes will be offset by less deductions so there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. senator hatch, tax reform will provide relief and bigger paychecks. again, all of this is in quotes. to low and middle income families. make america a better place to start and grow a business. and allow american businesses to compete in the global marketplace. the joint tax committee and other entities have shown that this is not at all a middle class tax cut. the main beneficiaries are the very, very wealthy. and also in terms of the pass-through, there's so much talk that this will help the small business person. the truth of the matter is that
most, the vast majority of the benefits for pass-throughs is going to go to the very wealthy. so, mr. hoyer, you have been taking the lead on this and i salute you. and i just want to close by saying one thing about the deficit. you know, i don't think they called you a deficit hawk. because you always wanted a balance. and you always said, look, deficits by themselves aren't the only issue. but they're deeply relevant. and you and i have stood together with others when bills came up which seemed so attractive, but were unpaid for . hundreds of billions of dollars. we said to the republicans, and anyone who voted with them, you're increasing the deficit and it's very risky.
well, as true as that may have been, and you and i thought it was some years ago, or last year included, it's now even more relevant and more dangerous. because here we have a proposal in the house and it's going to be duplicated in the senate. it's going to increase the deficit at least $1.5 trillion. and the notion is it will be taken care of by growth. so i close by saying maybe that's the second biggest halloween mask on the bill here and in the senate. he notion, don't worry about tax losses all of a sudden, don't worry about the deficit increasing. because growth will take care of it. we've seen that mask before and i just wanted to join you, but also to salute you for your dedicated, your endless determination to really talk
sense and talk the truth. thank you for yielding to me. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his kind comments and for the information he gave. as a senior member of the ways and means committee, he's, i think, as knowledgeable about the history of these tax cuts as anyone can be. so i thank the gentleman for joining us this in -- in this effort to educate our friends and colleagues and the american public on the consequences of this bill. mr. levin: and we'll keep doing it. now you're going to yield to another champion, how many years have we worked on these issues? don't say, it's a long time. mr. hoyer: i now want to yield to my friend from connecticut, the former chairman of the democratic caucus in the house of representatives, and one of the very senior members of the ways and means committee, who s been very focused on sound
tax policy, on policy to save social security for generations yet to come, and who is one of the more responsible leaders in this house, and i yield to my friend, john larson. mr. larson: i thank the democratic leader and i thank my colleague from michigan for joining us here. as you stated at the outset, this is a very dangerous bill and a very dangerous precedent, for this body and the other body and for congress in general. it was lincoln who said a house divided cannot stand. and in this bill, when you pit the sick against the well, the poor against the wealthiest 1%, blue state against red state, small business against large corporation, you begin to see the inequity in the bill. the lead democrat on the ways and means committee lamented that this was a lost
opportunity. a lost opportunity because there was ample time to come together both in the committee and here on the floor to do something constructive for the country and put the nation back to work and resolve issues that president obama had put forward, that i know have been on the front burners of everyone's concern to get lower taxes, greater fairness in equity across the board, but that didn't happen. now, much is said about process and people poo-poo that but here's the facts. it was ronald ragewhon said that facts are a -- reagan who said that facts are a stubborn thing. the last time we impacted a policy of this nature, the ways and means committee in fact had 30 hearings in the committee. 12 subcommittee hearings. 450 expert witnesses.
26 days of markup. before it came to the floor for debate. and it was done bipartisanly. in fact, done between ronald reagan and tip o'neill. because they knew that this would be the best way to get cohesive, comprehensive tax reform. that's not what happened here. there were zero hearings in the committee on this bill. zero subcommittee hearings. no expert witnesses, not a single person from the state of maryland or connecticut. and i have a letter here that i would like to submit from the commissioner of revenue services, from the state of connecticut, that details factually, not based on averages, but factually what happens to people in states who use itemized deductions like the state and local property tax deduction, like medical deductions, etc. all of which have a direct impact on them, all of which are going to find our citizens
paying more money, in fact, not getting a tax cut, getting a tax increase so they can pay for lowering the rate of an individual who is already eceiving $11 million from an estate tax gift? i'll tell you, if that weren't the cruelest cut, what's built into this legislation, and it's why process matters, because of the way this bill came to the floor, through budget reconciliation, primarily so the other body can get around their other arcane rule of cloture, but so that they could pass something with a minimal amount of votes. so no hearings, no expert witnesses, and only a minimal amount of votes, 51 in the senate, to pass the bill. i say that because there's a trigger mechanism here that this
gentleman knows better than anyone else in either chamber, called pay-go. pay-go provisions you fought to make sure were in the bill because of our ongoing concern about staggering deficits. it's why most people call for this bill minimally to be revenue neutral. we would add to be distributional any -- distributionally neutral as well so it doesn't impact the middle and her classes. but this bill here, the cruelest cut of all is that it triggers an automatic response that will result in a $25 billion cut to medicare. nobody at home recognized this. many people in this chamber didn't even know it existed. because there were no public hearings. there were no expert witnesses. this was jammed through so that people could achieve a political win.
how about we focus on the american people winning for a change. and doing something that's not going to put them in jeopardy. here's -- i wondered why so manien the other side have professed to be concerned about the deficit but turned a blind eye as we pass what amounts to be $2.3 trillion in new deficits. and then it dawned on me. this provision. that's in there. that would allow sequestration to go forward without a vote and cut medicare by $25 billion. i've asked people and we've held forums back in our district, people are write, people are call, people are calling their senators in an effort to stop what is a blind, dangerous precedent that would take $25 billion out of a program that desperately needs it.
i know the gentleman from maryland know this is more than most. i know the state of maryland, like the state of connecticut, also itemizes deductions and i believe leads the country in that because that, my friend, also becomes, as they noted back in 1913, it would otherwise be double taxation. and so i thank my colleague for allowing us the opportunity to ome down here and speak to the dastardly nature of this bill and what lies ahead. i thank him for his continued leadership in making sure we wage this fight every way to the end until we're able to stop that. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank very much the gentleman from connecticut for his comments, particularly highlighting how the majority party considering this legislation cut out the public entirely. speaker ryan, when he took the
speakership, talked about transparency and regular order. talked about doing things so that people would know what we're doing. not only were there no hearings in the house, not only were there no witnesses in the house, as the gentleman knows, there were no hearings in the senate. there were no witnesses in the senate. and in a short time frame, the republicans are trying to pass a massive increase in the national debt. so that in effect as the gentleman knows they say they're cutting taxes. i'm going to talk about how that's not really true. particularly for the middle class. it's not true. but they are substantially raising taxes on every one of the children in this country who will become more indebted and in their time will have to pay back
the money that is borrowed that is borrowed to give this tax cut. i thank the gentleman for highlighting those important facts and thank him for his service on the ways and means committee. mr. speaker, at this time i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: and the subject of my special order as we have seen is the dangerous, very dangerous, tax bill that this house passed and that the senate is now considering. in fact, of course, the senate bill is worse than the house bill if one can imagine that. on november 16, the republican majority in this house passed 36 to raise taxes on million middle class households
and place our country another $1.7 trillion, you'll hear $1.5 trillion, yo ul hear $1.7 trillion, what's the difference? the difference is about $200 billion that we will pay in affect to others to this tax cut. not only the $1.5 trillion immediately impacted by the tax cut itself, it will be the $200 billion additional that we'll have to pay to borrow the money to get the tax cut. and as i'm going to point out, give that tax cut essentially for the most part to the wealthiest enterprises in america. 227 republicans voted to do that to their constituents. every single democratic representative who was present
joined by 13 republicans who did what, in my opinion, many of their colleagues wanted to do but for political reasons, not policy reasons, chose not to do. they did so, mr. speaker, following impassioned remarks by the majority leader mccarthy and speaker ryan. both addressed this house. and the american people. and claimed to be pushing these tax bills in order to help the working people of our country. a worthy objective. an important objective. and perhaps one could justify this extraordinary escalation of the national debt, the largest increase in the national debt of any single bill that has been passed. they cited struggling families and the need to provide a leg up to those in our middle class.
those, of course, are very resonant messages. very important messages. frankly, we ought to be talking about how we create jobs, not debt. but they're being implored to sell a tax plan that would exactly the opposite of what they say. in his speech on the floor, speaker ryan lamented, and i'm quoting, 7 % of our workers in this country today are living paycheck to paycheck. instead of thinking about getting ahead, families are struggling just to get by. he's right about that. and he is right to be concerned about that. what he is wrong in is his response. those living paycheck to paycheck will be the ones hurt the most by this tax scam. let me repeat that. the speaker talks about those
hiing paycheck to paycheck. that concern is an absolute legitimate concern for every one of us in this house an every member of the senate. unfortunately, he is offered -- he has offered a bill, however that will hurt the very ones he says that he wants to protect. they will see their taxes go up over the next decade. in that same period, as middle class families are struggling to get by, they'll watch the wealthiest get farther and farther ahead. this is not about class warfare. this is about a judgment, who needs help who needs lifting up? he talked about the people who need lifting up. the problem is, he didn't lift them up. they'll watch the wealthy be lifted up.
and they're very high right now. god bless them. why, i ask, would the republican tax plan take $1.7 trillion away from our children and grandchildren and give 62% of it to the top 1%. mr. speaker, the salespeople get it. people think this bill is not going to help them. that's what polls show. and they're right. under the republican plan, it's wealthy individuals like donald trump who win and regular working americans and our middle class who are trying to get ahead who lose. house republican leaders cajole their members, cajoled is a very polite word. they pressured that escared their member they said if you don't pass this bill you're going to lose this election. not because the people are for it but because as one member said from new york, their doe
nors demanded it. -- their donors demanded it. they urged their members to vote for a flawed bill many of them did not want and none of them believe would become law. they did that so they could hand the reins to the senate to send back a version no one had yet read or contemplated. they put their house majority on the hook. to accept whatever the senate would pass. word for word. we'll see whether they do that. that senate bill that's now being considered would deeply harm middle class families. particularly those in congressional districts across the country where more taxpayers choose to deduct their state and local taxes. like my state and other states. dozens of house republicans from such districts voted enthusiastically to move the process along. in other words, they voted
against their taxpayers. and for their party. party bf people. to move it along by supporting the house tax bill with a promise that it would be improved in the senate. these members would be asked to make further concessions against the interests of their constituents to vote for the senate bill, were it to come to this floor. because it is worse for their constituents. not better. that's not how the congress is supposed to work, mr. speaker. that's not regular order. the american taxpayers and american businesses seeking to grow our economy have been asking congress to enact tax reform that's bipartisan and permanent. you heard mr. larson talking about the 1986 bill. it was a bill that was worked out between president reagan, peaker tip o'neill, chairman
dan rastakoski, a member of the democratic party from illinois, and the gentleman from oregon, the chairman of the finance committee a republican. republican bills in the house and senate can be called neither bipartisan nor permanent. so what can we call it? in his floor remarks before the vote on the house bill, speaker ryan called it, quote, the single biggest thing we can do to grow the economy, to restore opportunity, and to help middle income families that are struggling. that's not true, mr. speaker. however, it is the single biggest thing we can do to put our children and grandchildren further into debt. i have urged so -- i have heard
so many of my republican colleagues stand on this floor and say, we cannot spend this money because our children will have to pay the bill. and they're right. we have a pay-for problem, mr. speaker. we ought to be paying for what we buy. here, we're not paying. we're borrowing $1.5 trillion, as i said earlier, to give to some of our wealthiest citizens. that is what their plan would do. raise taxes on the middle class today and on our children and grandchildren tomorrow to pay for the wealthiest few to give tax cuts that they -- to get tax cuts they don't need and that won't grow our economy. let me stress, i think everybody in this room, everybody in the country, would like to be wealthy. this is not talking about penalizing the wealthy. it is simply to say, god bless you. you've done well. but we need to make sure that
other doswell as well. . the university of chicago released a survey, mr. speaker, on november 21, just a few days ago. in which 42 expert economists were asked whether the republican tax bill would produce the higher economic growth promised by its authors. 42 of the most prominent economists. only one, only one said that it would do so. and ironically later admitted he had misread the question. none of the 42, not one agreed that the tax cuts for the very wealthy included in the republican bill would eventually pay for themselves. and that is why we say it is one of the greatest debt -creating pieces of legislation that any of us have considered. former treasury secretary robert ruben, who presided over the basis for four years of
alanced budgets, so he has some real credibility on how to bring balance to our fiscal posture in america. he served at a time of historic budget surpluses. pointed out this fallacy in an op-ed in "the washington post" on november 15. he said this. the tax cuts, he wrote, will not increase growth and given their fiscal effects, would likely have a significant and increasing negative impact. he went on to make several compelling arguments about the dangers of the republican tax proposals. and i ask unanimous consent that a copy of his op-ed piece be included in the record in full. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. furthermore, according to the joint committee on taxation, a nonpartisan group, speaker ryan was flat wrong, flat-out wrong to say that their plan would
ensure that, quote, the average family at every income level gets a tax cut. the joint committee says that is not true. i presume the speaker was misinformed. because taxes would go up on all income groups below $50,000. perhaps the speaker misspoke. speaker ryan said, i'm a chart guy. well, i like charts myself, mr. speaker. this want to bring up first chart. i'll bring this a little closer so i can explain it. the speaker claimed that a family of four making $59,000 would get a $1,182 tax cut in
the first year alone. well, now if you hear that, that sounds, i suppose, like a pretty good deal. unfortunately for that family, their cut would shrink every year. this is the shrinkage. nd then it would drop. by 2024, it would become a tax increase, increase, increase, increase. and as you see, that increase so lates, four years, starting in the seventh year of this program, middle america, 50ds,000 -- $50,000, you get a tax increase. but guess what, it's not what happens to the wealthiest in america. it's even worse.
the speaker mentioned the family making $59,000 a year. and what he said is they get $1,182 a year in a tax cut. what he didn't say is what the upper 1% get. per week. ,198 $5 -- 52 times more than the middle class families that the speaker spoke about and lamented the fact that they needed more dollars in their pocket. he didn't talk about the wealthiestest. didn't say what they got. i don't blame him -- wealthiest.
he didn't say what they got. i don't blame him. because he's giving $1,198 a eek to the wealthiest. what kind of fairness is that? what kind of rationale is that? what kind of real help to the middle class is that? that's about, by the way, $25 per week. per week. 98 speaker ryan showed us a chart that highlighted how in the house bill those middle class families promised a tax increase to get to see an extra $11,8 -- $1,182 in savings a year. we put it down and then we put 52 layers above that. for the people in the upper 1%. under that same plan, as their
cut shrink, you saw that in the last chart, the wealthiest taxpayers would see an average ax cut of $1,198 every week. and it's even a wider disparity under the senate bill. now that is a gulf of disparity. a gulf of unfairness. a gulf of not helping the average working person in america. but the senate bill, the senate ill is even worse. the senate g.o.p. tax scam would increase taxes on 82 million -- remember how i said in the house bill, 36 million middle class taxpayers got an increase? well, the senate has doubled that. actually more than doubled that.
82 million middle class households will get a tax increase under the senate tax bill. and with substantial increases on 36 million middle class households over the next decade in the house bill, it's hard to imagine a worse plan. yet somehow senate republicans achieved it. tax policy center found that under the -- another nonpartisan analytic group -- found that under the perverse structure of the senate bill, sunsetting individual benefits in a few short years, even as it offers permanent -- get this, follow this, we're talking about speaker ryan spoke from that podium, talked about the struggling americans living paycheck to paycheck, and he offered a bill in the
senate -- and the senate is now doubling down on the proposal of making sure those struggling americans got, over the life of this bill, less and less and less. and then finally paid more and more and more. while the wealthiest had no cut. tax policy center said that the sunsetting individual benefits in a few short years, even as it offers permanent corporate ax cuts, 82 million middle class individuals and households will pay more in taxes than they would under the current system. mr. speaker, i want to make that point again. the tax policy center says people are going to pay more under this tax bill, some $8 -- some 82 million of them, than they would under the current
system. on top of that, the nonpartisan has essional budget office pointed out that under the end to ill, the undermine the affordable care act. so not only would their taxes be increased over the life of this bill, but 13 million americans would lose their health care. under this -- under the senate bill. not the house bill. but under the senate bill. and that's what the house is going to be asked to vote on. i hope the senate doesn't pass that. mr. larson talked about sequester and the pay-go act requiring a $25 billion cut in medicare. as a result of this bill. he senate has added in there
legislation to adversely affect the affordable care act which will adversely affect 13 million americans. some of them may be the same people who get the tax increase. some may not. they would kick 13 million off health carement so so the republican tax plan -- care. so the republican tax plan is not bipartisan. and it's not permanent tax reform. the way you achieve those, as i said at the beginning, is through bipartisan cooperation. as mr. larson pointed out, there was no intention to do that. no intention to include the public. no intention to have markups over a period of time. they did have markups. but they were very short in duration. and no american had the opportunity to weigh in and give their opinion. and there were no hearings. and there were less than zero witnesses. i guess there can't be less than zero. there were zero witnesses.
so the bill is not a tax cut. speaker ryan has also tried to escribe it as a job creator. again, we're talking about, correctly, the folks in this country who are living paycheck to paycheck and having a hard time. we need to help them. we need to work on creating jobs. by the way, there's no jobs bill that's been sent down here from the president. but they claim this is a jobs bill. as a matter of fact, they claim that it not only explodes the debt, costs taxpayers $1.9 trillion, but it would create, 890 new jobs. ladies and gentlemen, in order
to create what they say are 890 new jobs, and by the way, going back to secretary ruben, he does not believe that will happen, he's the one that led us to balanced budgets. in fact, we have unof -- every one of those jobs, every single job is going to cost $1.9 million to create. that's what the speaker said. this is going to create $879. e're going to borrow to do it. my golly, could you give everybody $100,000, you'd be way ahead of the game. but that's not what was done. we're creating large, large debt and we will not create the jobs the speaker said. and if we did, it would cost $1.9 million per job. according to the conservative tax foundation, using the most
optimistic model projecting economic growth so far presented, that may be technically true, over 10 years now. but with a price tag of $1.7 trillion in added debt over the same period, that means that each job would cost $1.9 million. while 82 million working americans, those struggling americans of which paul ryan spoke, would get a tax increase under the senate bill. nearly two million of added -- $2 million of added debt to create a single job. nearly $2 million of added debt o create a single job. so, this clearly isn't a jobs ill either.
this has already been discussed, but let me reiterate a key point i made. earlier, i said it can't be called bipartisan. republican leader after republican leader after republican leader has lamented the fact that we passed the affordable care act without it being bipartisan. the difference, of course, was we had literally thousands of eetings, scores well over 60 hearings, amendments offered by republicans and democrats. it took over a year of consideration by the country. well vetted. controversial, but well vetted. this bill has been rushed through without hearings,
without any kind of consideration and input from the public. . 1986, 30 hearings in 2017, zero hearings. witnesses, i'm repeating what mr. larson said but important to understand the dramatic difference between a bipartisan ll with president ronald neill and speaker tip oh agreeing on bill that was revenue neutral. it did not create any new debt trillion, to the $1.7 that is with a t, that will put every child in america deeply in ebt for decades to come. in 1986, 450 witnesses.
in 2017, zero. bipartisan support, yes. bip, no. markup, i mentioned markup, that's when you put the bill together and you give it thoughtful consideration where you offer amendments and try to perfect it. 26 days. that was in 1986. four days in 2017. this is a bill of over 600 pages. i remember everybody saying how long the affordable care act was and you possibly couldn't do it. again, over a year and a half of consideration of that bill. four days. introduced next week, markup, four days, on the floor. i was here in 1986, mr. speaker. the last time we rewrote our tax
code. that was truly a bipartisan process. i hope everybody read the remarks of senator john mccain when he came back to the senate and voted to move the process forward on the affordable care act, but then voted against the final product. he voted and he gave a speech in which he said, mr. president, i have been here, speaking to the president of the senate, mr. president, i have been here for some period of time. and my experience has essentially been that when we did things in a partisan way that were neither lasting nor very good. but when we do things in a bipartisan way, they're much better and much more permanent. there is much more competence in that product that was reached in a bipartisan way. speaker ryan made a point in his remarks about how long overdue
we are for tax overhaul. he said it was 31 years. i was chairman of the ways and means committee and didn't report out a tax bill. i'm not sure why, if that was the case. we did bipartisan in 1986 and did permanent tax reform, we did it together and we did it in a way that was paid for. that's not what this is. neither the house bill nor the senate bill achieves those key aims. republican tax overhaul process s dangerously flawed precisely because it is partisan, because it rejects the benefits of compromise in favor of the pitfalls of expediency. i called it in my speech in opposition to its adoption, reckless and feckless.
it was reckless because it would heap that $1.7 trillion, with a $1.7 trillion of additional debt on our country. n our children, on our people. bob rubin in that column which i referred to said that that debt would undermine expansion because it would rob the capital markets of money that could be used to build small businesses and build medium-sized businesses to create and keep jobs. feckless because the same people who used to call themselves , senator esponsible , senator, speaker ryan
name, others that i could have all stood on the floor of the house in a press conference and said we need to have the debt reduced. and yet, they offer a bill that debt. .7 trillion to the feckless because the same people who used to call themselves physicianically responsible are ignoring this. this is not about policy, it is about politics. it is about appealing to a relatively small group of very, .ery connected people but it's our country that will
lose. i told people during that speech -- i have been in office for some time and served in the state senate and now in the house, it takes no courage, no courage to vote for tax cuts. what takes courage is to pay for what you buy, whether it's national security, which i .upport, whether it's education our country is great because we have invested in our education system. unless we invest in the health of our people, which is the health of our society. we will not be great unless we invest in the security of our and e domestically in law,
order and enforcement and protection for people. it will not be great unless we invest in basic biomedical research to make sure that the diseases that exist now and may exist in the future can be met with medical cures. we will not be great if we sink our country, deeply, deeply, deeply into debt and do not have the courage to say, in this generation, we will pay for what we need. and not simply buy and pass the debt along to our children and to our grandchildren, because that's what we're doing. t is not only a bankrupt policy, it is an immoral policy that we pursue. if the senate version takes
shape, mr. speaker, the republicans who voted grudingly for the house bill ought to be concerned. and i hope for the sake of their country -- they're good people, there are good people on both sides of this aisle. they are americans on both sides of this aisle, americans who have sworn to protect and defend the constitution of our country. and have as well sworn to protect the people of this country. there ought to be deep concern among people of good conscience, concern that it does not meet the very same criteria that speaker ryan set forth and what he claimed the house bill achieves. neat they are does it adhere to
the speaker's clear promise not to package separate matters into the same legislation. make no mistake, the senate bill, house republicans will be asked to vote for isn't just a tax hike for the middle class, although that it is, it is repeal of a significant component of the affordable care act, which will hurt that same middle class. it may have been difficult for republicans to cast their votes on vague promises on november 16, but i suggest to you, mr. speaker, it will be even more difficult to put their constituents, those, the speaker talked about, struggle just to get by. ople who if they have a $500 debt not sure they can pay it. it will affect those folks and put them in even greater danger
should the senate bill make it back to the house. . speaker, i urge my colleagues in the senate toll reject this bill. i urge my colleagues in the house to look deeply into their , uls and not at their polls and reflect upon what they're oing to their country. by perpetrating the fiscally irresponsible policies of borrowing, of borrowing, of borrowing, and not having the courage to pay this bill, this generation's bills now, and not pass them along to our children and to our grandchildren.
every member of this house and of the senate, mr. speaker, ought to look themselves in the mirror and say, when i gave those speeches, when i referenced that to the press, was i being honest, am i following a policy today that is consistent with that assertion? i think they will come to the answer, no. if i vote for this tax bill, i am not. therefore, i hope that all of us piece ject this partisan of legislation that vastly increases our debt, increases the taxes on middle-class workers, threatens social ecurity with a $25 billion cut
and threatens our economy. let us have the courage to serve our people honestly and take the tough vote. and then come together in a bipartisan fashion and do what we showed what we could do in 1986, pass a bipartisan bill, that yes, makes our corporations competitive internationally and gives the bulk of the tax cuts as the speaker referred to as struggling. they're the ones who need relief. and we can do that in a bipartisan fashion, and we can pay for it. david camp showed us the way. i didn't agree with him all the way, a republican who was chairman of the ways and means committee and put a bill on tax reform that was paid for. and the republicans were in charge of this house and they dismissed it out of hand.
too tough. mr. speaker, let's do the right thing. let's reject this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from maryland -- the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr.
speaker. we have a lot to be thankful for this thanksgiving. ybody who is in america in this or these united states have a lot to be thankful for. . people are counting on us across the ountry to make sure we don't mesothelioma the country up. -- we don't mess the country up as we've done a great deal of damage from washington. much of it done by bureaucrats. but the only way they can do it when congress relegates and delegates obligations that we bureaucrats. especially unaccountable bureaucrats.
like those at the consumer financial protection bureau. it's time to get power back to where there's accountability. and there's a better chance of having accountability right here in congress than there is in some agency, some bureau that thumbs its nose at executive, legislative and judicial branches and says, we're above the constitution, we're above everything else in the country. we do what we want to. and nobody can say otherwise. well, they're finding out at the cfpb that's not the case. everybody in america has some accountability somewhere.
and it makes me smile to hear friends from across the aisle talking about running up a deficit. because i remember that talk in 2006. and we were properly excoriated on the republican side of the aisle for running up a deficit of around $160 billion more than we brought in. and we were castigated, we were beat up all kind of ways. and democrats were right -- kinds of ways. and democrats were right. who ever would have dreamed that the people who were belittling republicans for allowing $160 billion deficit would soon be so very proud, since they had the majority in the house, the senate, the presidency, just a couple of
short years later they would have a $1.5 trillion to $1.6 trillion deficit. and we would be treated to the first four and the first eight ears in our nation's history under a president during which 2%, up omy never grew to 3%. never grew up to 3%. did not. the whole time the democrats had the majority in the house and the senate, those four they had the majority in the house and the senate, and then that time when they had the house, the senate and the white house, yeah, they managed to run up the debt higher than
anyone has ever come close to before. but the good news for those who ave forgotten that the talk of $160 billion deficit being so outrageous before they ran up a $1.5 trillion to $1.6 trillion deficit, those that don't remember those days can be reminded of those now as we begin to hear the rhetoric out the current proposed appropriation. we passed all 12 appropriations here in the house. we did our work. it's time the senate did their work. now we're being told, oh, well, you have to get over all that stuff you did, all that hard work, all the cuts to planned
parenthood -- all the things you did standing on principle down there in the house, you got to forget about that because we don't work like that down in the senate. so we're just going to be lucky to fund the pet projects we're interested in. we have no interest in taking up the hard work that the house of representatives did. but it's time the senate tried that. i think if they will look into the appropriation bills the house passed, they'll find out we actually did some very good, solid, amazing work. , before we on ensured that the second amendment applies everywhere across the country, that the
constitution meant for it to apply, we're going take up a . ckground check bill tomorrow abbreviation nics, gathering information on people's backgrounds who want to buy a gun. and despite all the inaccurate information that's often touted about the lack of background order or how you can online or, you know, gun shows, these kind of things, there are background checks when you order online. and it's really unfair to the gun stores who didn't actually make the sale. but anybody that order as gun online still has to have the background check and they still have to go in and pick it up at a store and meet the in the nts of the law
background check. we've heard many times about how the background checks have prevented three million americans who should not have guns from getting guns. but that's not true, for this ccurate -- nor accurate. apparently the last year that the obama administration decided to bless us with actual information about background checks, they reported that were 73,000 americans prevented from getting a gun on the first check, under the laws that exist there are five different checks. the first check
does not take all of the information that someone buying a gun has to fill out, not the date of birth, not social security number, not any of the information that is replete on the document being filled out, none of that's used, they take pronunciation of the name and use the pronunciation to do a background check. and that's why they have so many millions of hits since this has been begun on -- since this has been going on. because if someone's name just sounds a bit like somebody lse's, it comes up as a hit. but then at each stage, each one of those five
checks, more and more are found to not be
the person who should be revented from having a gun and in the last year we have data. i was talking to john lott about this earlier this afternoon. but 2010 there were 73,000 denials approximately, the ability to buy a gun. and as they went through each of those five checks, they ound out that so many actually were not the person that should have been blocked from buying a gun. and when the obama administration got down to the bare facts, they found that out of about 73,000 initial denials ,000 cases only 42
that were referred to be prosecuted for potential prosecution. and if i recall correctly, the obama administration only prosecuted about 1/4 of what the bush administration prosecuted. -- and i the 42,000 don't mean 42,000 out of 73 ,000, i mean 42 period, out of 73,000, the obama administration only decided to get 13 convicts. 73,000 initial denials. that tells you the system doesn't work very well at all. it doesn't make sense that we would have a system that would use all the information that somebody provides to look for hits of somebody that should not be able to buy a gun.
use the data -- date of birth, use the social security number, use the information there to check to see if someone is ineligible to buy a gun. and then we can get serious about better gun enforcement. especially since we now have a department of justice, except for the special prosecutor
. at's interested in just them just us kind of justice. except for that special prosecutors group, we do have a department of justice that truly is interested in doing justice. so, when it comes to background checks, yes, we will continue to have them. but i hope we make some needed changes in the law. and i also hope that we're able
to pass a bill this week out of committee, get it to the floor, pass it out of here, hopefully the senate will do their job on it, but that would allow reciprocity for people that are in one to carry a gun jurisdiction, to be able to carry that gun across the country. omething we're working on. mr. speaker, i was so greatly encouraged to see an article about poland. those people have always been such an independent-minded people, even though they have been yanked to and fro. whether it's russia, president bushia, germany -- prussia, germany, they've had a
difficult time. off therya. they've had a tough time. but they have -- austria. they've had a tough time. but they've always been independent-minded. the s president reagan, as former polish pope noted, and , president trump has noted poland generally peeking -- speaking understands what people that go through the 12-step program understand. there is a higher power. and but by the grace of god we would not have this incredible little experiment in self-government, we would never , ve lasted as long as we have there are miracles where the divine hand of goode god truly
stepped -- god truly stepped in . during the revolutionary war, during the early days as a nation when we could have and probably should have fallen. one after another. as the founders would say, divine providence protected this little experiment. and it's in trouble right now. there's so many people that have been taught across the america is an embarrassment and owes the orld an apology. all of those who were hippies, not all of them, but so many of them that were hippies and found that as terrorists like bill aires was, they didn't get
the results they were seeking by blowing up things or people they got a lot more done by moving into universities, becoming tenured professors, an hing future teachers improper history, an inaccurate istory of these united states. so that now we have, we're told, half the people coming out of college think socialism would be a better way of living. they don't understand. they never thought it through. they don't look at what has happened, because they haven't been taught through history. they don't understand. they don't know that every time if you progressivism
would like to call it that as some many in this body do, it will fail to the end of the age. as long as there is jealousy and , and even common sense. as i mentioned here on the floor, the russian former who id i make the same number of rubles here in the shade or if i'm out there in the sun, so i'm here in the shade, so that explained why socialism will not, cannot ever work. it always fails. and the only way you can have it where people share across from
those according to their ability, to those according to their need, what a lie. it didn't come from those according to their ability. hen socialism sets in, so does malaise. there's no incentive to work harder and harder, except if you can get politically entrenched efficiently, then those in political power, as a russian college student told me back when i was a college student there over in the soviet union, he said in america, you can vance yourself and working harder. here in the soviet union, we can only advance ourselves by stepping on others and trying to get political power by stepping on others.
with all its flaws, i think it was churchill who said, capitalism is the worst form of government except for all the others. but it allows people to succeed or fail as they are driven to do. it's called freedom. we've had it. beff's been losing it. and when the democratic house and majority set up the consumer financial protection bureau, they set up a bureau that didn't have to answer to congress and they could violate the constitution, 4th amendment, 5th amendment. they didn't care. they are all powerful. in fact, they are so full of themselves that they think no one can hold them accountable,
they can do whatever they want. they don't need money from congress. they get it from the federal reserve. they are a perpetual bureau that's not answerable to the president, to the congress, not to anybody. they found out today that it's not the case, but sure thought it was. when i was a felony judge, if the government wanted someone's bank records, they had to either get that person's permission or they had to come to a judge like live or h either affidavit testimony sworn under oath, they had to prove that a crime was probably committed and that this particular person probably committed the crime and that these bank records were
needed because of the probable cause that existed from the evidence. i would consider the evidence and then decide if probable cause existed. if it did, i would sign the warrant and the government only then could get the bank records. ot so with the cfpb. they're in the protection racket. it's right in their name. consumer finance protection bureau. protection racket like the mob. they got their money from the federal reserve and they're here to protect us all. so they gather up peoples' banking records, debit and credit card activities. why? because they're there to protect us from greedy evil banks. some have said, wait a minute, how about you just leave my
privacy alone and if a bank messes me around, then aisle come tell you. you don't need to get all of my private records. has the the cfpb unmitigated gall and arrogance to think they are unaccountable, they don't care about what the constitution says or the court says, they get a warrant. why? because they are in the protection racket, out to protect us. you do what they say or they ruin you. what a racket. unaccountable to anybody. well, that's got to change. the president is doing what he can to change that. thank god and thank president
trump both. we've got a chance of reigning in an unconstitutionally-acting body. fortunately there is at least ne judge that recognized that. hopefully, there will be more. but those in poland -- and it's amazing as i continue to meet people who have lived in areas like poland under the soviet yet were alive t or during the ravages of world war ii, those people here in the united states, they seem to nderstand more what's at stake right now than most any natural born american. they know what it's like not to have freedom.
they know what it's like to have a government watch every move and tell you what can and cannot do and sometimes punish on a whim just to keep citizens terrified of the totalitarian government. it's a totalitarian government that has to exist in order for socialism, communism, progressivism to exist. in fact, when i was in college, i was doing research and saw back in the days, i believe it was around 1960, 1961 in that time, that the premiere of the soviet union, khrushchev, he understood that under the idea of communism or progressivism,
everyone would share and share alike and the ultimate form of that progressivism or communism, socialism would be when there is no need for government, everyone just shared and shared alike from those according to their ability, to those according to their need. everyone shared. and of course in the soviet ion in 1960, 1961, under khrushchev, it was, indeed, a totalitarian country. not as bad as under stalin. but the ukranians who lost their lives when stalin saw to their starvation, those that lost loved ones during that period of
starvation at the hands of stalin, they understand what freedom is and what it isn't. and they understand the only way a progressive or communist, socialist country can exist, you've got to have that totalitarian government forcing, taking money or goods away from those that earned them and worked for them and created them and giving to those who did not. so khrushchev realized, well, gee, in the ultimate form of communism, progressivism, there is no government. so he appointed ar committee or issue.ion to study the and figure out how we eventually achieved that will perfect state where there is no government.
and everyone is sharing, sharing alike. how do we get to that place? and they were always big on having five-year plans in the former soviet union. so he thought perhaps this commission, this group, learned people, could set up the plan for how they could move forward each year until there was that state of perfection. but were no government just people sharing and working, working together, sharing together, sharing with those who ave not and could not. , t as i learned from studying khrushchev eventually had to
disband the commission. you realized there's no way ever reach that perfect state of rogressivism or socialism, communism. you can't ever achieve that in this world. ere will always have to be a totalitarian government that has taken away peoples' freedom and tells them what they're allowed to do. and that's been the direction of this government for years now. to total people in dependence on the government and then we get to tell them where they will live, what they'll do. you think that's a stretch?
look at what happened when the democratic house and senate ted to take over all college loans. it's a lot of power. when the federal government takes over all college loans, it enables the federal government get into an area of governance that the soviet union did. friends i came to know the summer i was there, the government told them whether they were going to be allowed to go to college. they told them what they would study in college. they told them where they were going to work when they finished college. they told them what they were going to do.
in that place that the government directed them to go. heck, there were 15 states in the former state of union, you couldn't cross the states without having a visa to go between the states. i was shocked by that. but if you're going to have progressivism, socialism, communism, the share and share alike mentality, spreading the wealth, as a former president would like to say, you are going to take from the sweat of someone else's brow and give it to someone else who did not earn it. you are going to have to have a totalitarian government. when the government in the united states took over college loans, it put it in the position of being able to say, we know historically what the soviet union did, we like that kind of
power, so here's what we're going to do. you do this job or that job or go this place, and we'll start forgiving that huge amount of debt you know -- owe for your college loans that we are in charge of. when the federal government kes over, flood insurance, gives the federal government the power to tell people where they can or can't live. and goodness, we finally were allowed to reform the flood insurance. that's why probably the biggest reason some of us didn't vote for the second swath of money or the diss asers this fall -- disasters this fall, there were no reforms that were promised to
be there. so that like the lady who said she had to rebuild her home in the same place 21 different times, so many homes that the federal government has paid for since we took over the flood , surance because apparently you had to build where your home flooded even though you wanted to move elsewhere where your home wouldn't flood again. because if you wanted the money, you had to rebuild right there. that's what one lady was explaining. she didn't want to be there, but she couldn't sell her lot with a destroyed flooded home on it for enough money to build anywhere else, so she had to keep rebuilding. we need to reform so people can ve and don't keep paying for
people's home over and over in the same place. if they want to pay for it, fine. the federal government shouldn't be forcing people to build in the same place and keeping them there as financial prisoners. . but at least in the house we finally passed some reforms recently. that was a good thing and i'm grateful we did. but through all of these decades, for the last 100 years , poland and the people of poland understood what freedom is, and they understood when they didn't have it. and i can recall back in the 1970's, being on a train, coming -- i believe it was from gradna on the border between poland and the soviet union, coming across poland, which was
considered to be one of the satellite nations under soviet domination. and an american made the mistake of saying in the presence of a polish gentleman that this land look just the way it had for the last couple of days. he became outraged. he said, no, no. in the soviet union there are huge farms and you can't tell what's cultivated and what isn't because they're not farmed very well. you look out here at the farms in poland, they're much smaller because we own our farms and we work our own farms and we produce and you can tell what we've cultivated. he got very upset. i thought it was kind of a beautiful thing. how proud he was of his country. and the difference between a progressive or socialist style
overnment that rewards pointed there nd in poland with pride to a place where their hard work actually showed. well, we keep heading in the direction of the countries that have failed, as they have tried this progressivism that always fails. doesn't make sense to keep trying it. never works. didn't work in the new testament church, it didn't work for the pilgrims. it will work in heaven. in a perfect world, in paradise, no jealousy, everyone pulling the same direction. loving, caring. but in this world it will not ever work.
so, poland, i'm reading , has come to the conclusion, at least their government leaders have come to life was ion that etter when they followed a biblical example and had one day of the week where people rested. and they were with their families. they went to church and they worshiped god. they found it's not a bad idea. and so now there are people in poland in leadership positions that are saying, you know, we've had this seven-day orkweek, but families have suffered significantly. maybe we should look back at
that biblical example of having one day of rest, one day together to worship, a day to be with family, a day to rest, to love each other. seems like sometimes we get to moving so fast that we forget the best things in life. and it looks like that's what some of the polish leaders are now saying. they've also made clear to the e.u., just as president trump of a re, as leaders ation, the leader owes to that nation the protection that they were elected or hired to provide. of survive and provide. survival is supposed to be what the leaders are ensuring. and flourishing.
and as a result of the policies we've seen change in the last two ths, we now have had months. heck, one month was a record for the last eight years, but now we've had two months, as i understand it, where growth has gone over 3%. 3.4% growth of the economy. we can keep that up and continue to grow. we're going to have plenty of money to pay this country's bills. in fact, the only way we will ever get out from under the massive debt we're about to leave and impart to our children, our grandchildren, is if we grow the economy sufficiently, to grow our way ut of that indebtedness. i believe the laffer curve, i
believe it is true, it's a truth economically. you tax up to a certain point and then at some point, the more you tax, the more you overburden the work and there gets to be less and the economy brought down and you end up ielding less as a percentage f what you were bringing in. so, as arthur laffer explained to president reagan, reagan's aides, if the goal is to maximize federal revenue, you ant to hit that percentage tax that encourages work and growth to the greatest extent, and then you'll bring even more money in. the trouble is, like in
ireland, when they dropped their tax rate, corporate tax rate so low, apparently in the 1980's tax rates were dropped, revenue starts flowing in better and better, and congress started spending. did the same thing in ireland. record revenue comes in. even bigger record spending took place. e can't be doing that. here's an article here today in the "washington times", vice president pence commemorating israel's birth says president trump is actively seeking to move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem. we've had presidents saying for ars that they would move the embassy to the true capital of
israel. it's been the capital of israel since king david moved it there about 3,000 years ago. and i knee there are some that are very up-- and i know that there are some that are very upset that say, no, no, no, you can't move the israeli capital from tel aviv to jerusalem. ell, jerusalem is the capital. but perhaps a compromise might when nce we know that king david became ruler over ll of israel, he first went to ebron. i've been there a few times. i've stood there at what is strongly believed to be the tomb of king david's father,
jesse. they think they've found the synagogue, the small synagogue he created. looks like that's what it was. it's where abraham, isaac and jacob are all buried. there at hebron. and in fact, abraham made a big deal. e wanted to pay for the land where he would be buried, his that would be buried, so there would never be any question that it was their land where they were buried. and that town, heeb ron, is where king -- hebron, is where king david first went and ruled over israel for seven years and six months. after 7 1/2 years, he then moved the capital to jerusalem. so, i'd be fine if we wanted to compromise and say, ok, you
need time to get used to the idea, then let's move the capital from tel aviv to hebron and make that the capital of israel for 7 1/2 years, like king david did. then following king david's example, after 7 1/2 years in hebron, with that as the capital, then move it on up to jerusalem. that would give people time to get used to the idea. i do want to make a comment. the senate is -- or at least some, not all of them, but some senators are dragging their feet on getting something assed in the way of tax reform . i was totally shocked to hear that some senators were saying they wanted to have the corporate tax rate cut, put off for a year.
that seems crazy. as someone who has been to china and met with different c.e.o.'s, asking why did you move all these manufacturing jobs to -- from america to china, i thought it would be labor unions, it would be overregulation. those are all problems, they said. ut i loved hearing preetedly -- repeatedly corporate leaders saying, our best quality control, our best workers were in america. i loved hearing that. they seemed sincere. the reason we moved to china is because of the corporate tax rate. ing about half of what it is in china, as to what it is in the united states. and they said, so, we have saved so much money by more than cutting our tax rate in
half. what a corporate tax is, as steve moore says, a great way to explain what a corporate tax is, we like to say, oh, we're making the greedy corporations pay. no, actually, you're making their customers, their clients, they pay. if somebody -- if a corporation does not -- whether it's subchapter s, whether it's a c corporation, if it does not pass those taxes on to their customers, to their clients, they can't stay in business. so it is a part of the price of heir goods and services. but i've advocated just doing away with it. you'll have so much more people working, so many more people making so much more money. the income taxes from the individuals will make up for it. it would be a beautiful thing. it's not a zero-sum game. everybody can do better and
better and better. it would be a beautiful thing to see the economy expand like that. and it could. we could get those jobs back. but a corporate tax, the corporate tax here in america, is the highest tariff any nation puts on its own goods or services. anything made in corporate america. it's a tariff on our own goods. why do we do that? we could be so much more competitive around the world if the government didn't put this burden on corporations. so i was hoping that president trump's figure of 15%, that undercuts the chinese at least a little bit and that would be even more incentive to bring
back manufacturing jobs to america. because any nation, any putterful nation that does not produce what they need in a time of war, because there will always be wars, they're not going to remain a powerful nation quond the next war. we need to be producing steel and rubber and all the things we need. we need to produce them here in the united states. there's no reason we can't. but we drive those jobs away because of the corporate income tax. president trump had the right idea at 15%. but he's compromised so it's at 0%. thank goodness he didn't let them work him up beyond that. and there are some in the senate trying to work it up beyond that. huge mistake. this economy can explode. it's already top 3% and it can
keep climbing. dr. laffer tells me that after the 1983 final part of the 30% tax cut kicked in 1983, they had over % growth in the economy. that's just unheard of. there were people saying in the obama administration you know, we'll probably never, ever hit 3% again. it may just be an impossibility. no it's not. you get rid of the corporate tax or at least get it down to where we're not putting such an enormous tariff on our own goods and services and that economy can grow like that again. and we can get our manufacturing jobs back. and article here, todd starns, he and i were both honored recently with an award. people like tom landry, cal thomas and others have received.
for being christians and speaking up for our faith, our beliefs. tom starns today has this story, that -- that is this story, thank you, mr. trump, for bringing merry christmas back to the white house. i certainly echo those feelings. it's amazing the story from fox news, media twist tax plan studies to claim it hammers middle class. i've been hearing people here on this floor talking about how the tax proposal that we passed here in the house was going to hammer the middle class. actually, the corporate tax cut alone will get the economy going so strong everybody is going to benefit. just had a -- an
across the board, flat tax created, you make more you pay more you make less uric pay less. that's where i wanted to go. that's true reform. but politics being what it is, because the republican leadership did not want to have to fight about a bat that will, oh, we're just helping the rich, the highest tax rate is only one we didn't change. and that idea was, well if the only tax rate we don't bring down is the 39.6% tax rate that the richest americans make, or have to pay, then the democrats won't be beating us up, they won't be able to beat us up for raising taxes on the poor and middle class to help the rich.
well, they were wrong. despite the fact that there will be more people now under the republican tax plan that's passed here in the house, the nat would just adopt it, there will be more people who will not be paying taxes. i kind of wish all of us, every american, had a little skin in the game, that they're making money and they pay something. that's where a flat tax comes in. if you just make $10, you only pay $1. you make $100, you pay $10. you make $1 million, you pay $100,000. that's fair. but anyway. we passed our bill, it gives a tax break to the poorest americans, it's going to help the economy grow, but we got to get it done. and i am hoping and literally praying that the senate keeps
their elimination of the individual mandate from obamacare so that people have the freedom to get policies that are best for them and not something forced on them by the government, and yes, we know, there will be unfair media who will do nothing but complain about millions that no longer have health insurance. i can tell you, there are millions that are paying taxes now to the government because they can't afford an insurance policy that won't ever pay them because the deductible is too high. and they don't want to keep paying higher income tax because they can't afford the obamacare policies. and there are people that are paying for obamacare policies where they deductibles are so high they'll never get any benefit. yes, there's apparently a segment, a small minority who
aybe as much as 20% 25rk%, who like in the soviet union, they are getting their money from -- where somebody else has earned it. having that money pay for their insurance. some of that coming from people who can't even afford their own insurance so they're paying higher income tax so this other group of americans can take their money from those working poor and pay for their insurance. what's fair about that? forcing the working poor in america to pay higher income tax or pay for policies where they'll never get anything back because the deductible is too high? all so that some people who will vote democrat will get their insurance for free? that's not the way america
became the greatest nation that it was. and can be again. and yes, north korea fired an icbm today, in the last 24 hours, and i'm very grate to feel president trump for taking it seriously. i am so glad he's there. i'm glad we don't have the same people that gave north korea the ability to have nuclear bombs during the clinton administration. how foolish was it to basically say, oh, look, north korea, we'll give you what you need to make nuclear weapons if you will just agree not tover use those materials for nuclear weapons. and of course the north korean leader said, sure, you'll do all that? all i've got to do is sign?
you give me all i need for knew cleefer weapons, i'll sign saying i'll never create nuclear weapons. and what do they do? they make nuclear weapons. because that's what they do. that's what the leaders do. pe the people of north korea deserve better. iran is the same way. they can't be trusted. so we need a firm leader that understands, enough is enough. and i'm glad president trump is that leader. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate.
mandatory anti-harassment and antidiscrimination trump are training -- training during each session of congress. follow the house live wednesday 10:00 a.m. eastern for legislative work. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] democratic leaders pulled out of the meeting with president trump he tweeted this morning. accused thet also democratic leaders of being soft on crime, taxes and immigration. earlier from president trump next on c-span. after that, senate leaders talk about tax legislation.
that is coming up later. c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact year. coming up wednesday morning, oklahoma republican caucus men will discuss republican tax reform effort and the possibility of a government shutdown. oregon democratic congressman will discuss the possibility of the government shutdown and republican tax reform efforts. the wall street journal reporter will be on to talk about the senate tax debate. we should watch c-span's "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern wednesday morning. join the discussion. trump spoke to reporters at the white house about the latest missile launched by north korea. and the ongoing efforts in congress to pass the republican tax reform plans and budget legislation. he was joined by paul ryan and mitch mcconnell.