tv House Ways Means Committee Votes on Tax Cut Bills CSPAN September 13, 2018 10:07am-12:08pm EDT
jobs, bigger paychecks and mainstream optimism. this has meant real change for real people with nearly 1.7 million new jobs created just since the beginning of the year and wages rising at their fastest rate in almost a decade, so many more americans are hopeful again about their financial future. i saw this on the courthouse square in madisonville, in the two owners of local walkers restaurant on the square, who bought it arenovated told me tw weeks ago they hired two more people this week at their restaurant because the economy is so much better in their small town. i think of russell marine who because of tax cuts, they have 160 workers, because of the new tax code, they gave a million dollars out in bonuses. they raised all their workers,
gave them a 10% raise. they bought $5 million of new equipment. when you ask -- and they green lighted a new headquarters for their pretty worn out building. if you ask them what kind of year they are having, his answer, russell and sara, is simply the best ever. but we can't stop there. we have to keep building off the momentum from last year's tax reform to ensure our economy keeps booming and that our tax code stays competitive. that's why we're here today to change the culture of washington from one that waits an entire generation to modernize the tax code, to one that keeps improving every year, that keeps our code ahead of the rest of the world in the best in the world. this is after all how our successorsful organizations and businesses operate. waking up asking how do we become more competitive, innovative and better.
we intend to do the same each year in congress, look at our tax code and ask how can we make our businesses more competitive and encourage more innovation here in america, make it better for families and main street businesses. the truth is, it's about time this was done in washington because the stakes couldn't be higher. if we fail to keep our code competitive, we will fall behind our foreign competitors again. american families will once again suffer the consequences of slow growth and outsourced jobs we saw over the past decade. that's why this committee is committed to ensure our code continues to work for all americans. bogey smarter for families, fair and more competitive for businesses. the three bills that make up today's tax reform update will do just that. tax reform 2.0 is our commitment to american workers, their code will remain the most competitive in the world for them. never again will america fall so far behind.
the first bill, the protecting family and small business tax cuts act of 201 will lock in the family and small business tax cuts from the tax cuts and jobs act. this is only fair. it will give american families, workers and main street, small businesses certainty and will continue to fuel the strong economic growth we've witnessed over the past year. the tax foundation estimates making the middle-class and small business tax cuts permanent will create 1.5 million new jobs on top of what we're seeing, increase the economy over 2% on top of what we're already seeing and increase paychecks again on top of what we're already enjoying. that's on top of the 1.7 million new jobs we've already seen created. the second part of tax reform 2.0, the promoting families savings act of 2018, led by congressman mike kelly, will help families save more and save
earlier throughout their lives by expanding access to new and existing savings vehicles. this will help families and individuals save for their future, whether it's retirement, education or health care, so to make sure as they see their paychecks increase and the economy improve, that they're keeping more of their hard earned money in planning for the future. in addition, promoting family savings act will help local businesses provide retirement plans to their workers and help workers participate more in those plans. the third and last part of tax reform 2.0 is the american innovation act of 2018 sponsored by the tax policy subcommittee chairman vern buchanan. this bill will help hard-working americans, our smallest entrepreneurs move a family business from the kitchen table to the first office, allowing them to write off more of the
start-up costs in the early years and help them grow and expand as they attract new capital investment to their businesses. so while tax reform 1 was about changing the trajectory of the economy, tax reform 2 is about changing the culture here in washington. that starts with today's important update to our code. if we have our way, like the apps on our phone every year, we will look to modernize and improve, make fair and make more competitive america's tax code. now we finally have one of the most competitive tax codes on the planet, today we're going to take another bold step to keep it that way. with that i recognize the ranking member neal for the purposes of an opening statement. mr. neal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when we leave here this afternoon or evening, it's important for people to recognize that our republican colleagues would have authorized borrowing $3 trillion for the purpose of tax cuts that
overwhelmingly have been devoted to the high income earners in america and large corporations. it's been eight months since the republicans passed their massive unpaid for tax bill without a single democratic vote. at the time, democrats and independent experts warned a so-called tax reform plan that wasn't paid for and heavily skewed to the big corporations would harm our economy and damage important programs like medicare and social security. eight months on now and we're beginning to see what many of us us feared is coming true. insurance companies in state after state announcing higher premiums for next year while health coverage for those living with preexisting conditions is on the chopping block. to make matters worse, the medicare trustees cut three years off the life of the medicare trust fund because of the republican tax bill. after showering large corporations with trillions of dollars in tax cuts, corporations across the country are using the money for stock buybacks and dividends, laying
off workers and, indeed, shipping operations to other countries. in one particular egregious case an executive stated that the savings the company received from the republican tax law allowed them to restructure and, indeed, lay off hundreds of workers. despite all of this, republicans are doubling down and moving forward with another round of tax cuts for the well off and well healed. in fact, republicans are cutting taxes for the rich for a second time in less than a year. by making permanent the cut to the clinton/obama/boehner rate, republicans are providing a huge tax cuts for a fraction of the top 5% of taxpayers. the gop has disguised this givewayway to millionaires calling ate new benefit for small businesses. more than half of the benefits of the republicans' so-called tax would imbraes will go to millionaires. republicans have doubled down on
their attack on the middle class making permanent the limits on state and local tax deduction, mortgage interest deduction and casualty loss deductions which i anticipate we will have a full throttled discussion of as the morning and afternoon move on. by eliminating personal exemptions alone, 290 million individuals will no longer be able to claim $1.4 trillion in tax savings. this tax plan 2.0 repeals these and many other tax incentives that help the middle-class families get ahead lavishing benefits on the wealthy and long corporations. with today's bill the so-called party of fiscal conservatism will once again, as i noted earlier, offer $3 trillion in tax breaks in less than a year. let me give you a little bit of a history lesson here and the facts will bear out what i'm about to say. in january of 2001 when president bush took over from president clinton, cbo estimated that the total budget surplus for 2002 to 2011 would be $5.6
trillion. what actually happened during that period, the federal government ran deficits that totalled $6.1 trillion. what happened when bill clinton left office? in 2001, republicans cut taxes by $1.3 trillion. in 2003, by another trits trillion. and in 2005, a tax repatriation holiday. republicans call themselves fiscal conservatives but nothing about what we're about to do is further from the truth. history doesn't lie. we're seeing it again with the addition of more than $3 trillion to the nation's debt. this package like the one before it is being rushed through, not a single hearing, not a single witness, and no input from stakeholders. the rushed and lopsided process resulted in the previous disastrous tax law and my staff has identified over 100 problems with the republican tax bill. yet republicans are doubling down on these policies with this exercise with bills that are
guaranteed to be dead on arrival in the u.s. senate. their 2.0 legislation is another reckless tax cut for the wealthy and leaves behind average americans. hard working families are being shut out and, therefore, on our side we intend to oppose unanimously 6760 and encourage our republican friends redo this in a bipartisan manner with hearings, bring forth something we can find common ground on and have expert witnesses. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> first order of business, hr-6760 protecting families and small business tax cuts act 2018, protecting families is about making sure american's workers have first say over their paychecks, not washington. the bill will lock in low tax rates for american families, workers and main street businesses which are having a huge impact. the choice we have before us
today is simple, we can either go back to high tax rates on families and businesses which led to america's slowest economic recovery ever, or lock in the tax cuts for middle class families and small businesses and keep this economic boom going. the committee will proceed to consideration of hr-6760, without objection the measure considered as read and open for amendment at any point. at this time i offer an amendment which is distributed in advance along with the green sheet explaining it. without objection the amendment shall be considered read, open for amendment at any point and considered base text for purpose of amendment. i'll turn to tom bartle to provide the technical description of the amendment of the nature of the substitute with an emphasis on the changes made. i ask members hold questions until after his presentation. mr. bartle, you're recognized.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee have before you four joint committee documents, jcx 69, 70, 71 and 72 which describe the underlying legislation hr-6760 protecting family and small business tax cuts act of 2018. the chairman's amendment and nature along with the joint committee staffs revenue estimates of this legislation and distributional analysis of the proposed legislation. i believe all the members are familiar. let me highlight what the legislation is about. as was noted, roughly nine months ago, the congress passed public law 11597 nope as the tax cuts and jobs act and provided expiration of most of the provisions on the individual income tax side of the internal revenue code. generally those provisions would expire after calendar year 2025.
legislation before you would extend all of those provisions permanently. so that includes all the changes in marginal tax rates, personal exemption, child credit, standard deduction, itemized deductions and increased exemption for the -- under the individual alternative minimum tax and extends the doubling of the exempt amount under the estate and gift taxes. one item to note is that is not a permanent extension is the medical expense timmized deduction for expenses above a 7.5% adjusted gross income floor. under present law would expire after this calendar year. the lenls before you would extend that for an additional two years through calendar year 2020. the chairman's amount in nature makes a clerical change in terms of reference in the underlying
legislation. that concludes my brief description of the legislation before you. i would be happy to answer any questions that members might have. >> thank you. are there any questions about the legislation? >> you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the chairman has said that this bill would lock in tax cuts for middle-class families, so i want to ask you about the distribution and i won't ask you to comment on that comment of -- that description of the chairman, just to talk about the facts, okay. you have over the last year and recently provided distribution tables and i want everybody here and everybody in the country to understand them. here are the questions. is it correct that the
republican tax law that was enacted last year will provide those earning over $1 million a year an average aggregate tax cut of over $64,000 in 2019? >> mr. levin, i believe you're referring to analysis that my colleagues provided to the members last december in the distribution analysis of jcx-6817, and your calculation, which seems to be accurate, is based on the total change in federal taxes projected for that calendar year divided by the roughly 600,000 taxpayers we estimate will have incomes above $1 million. >> okay. so the answer is yes? >> the short answer is yes.
>> now, tax bill last year included both individual and corporate. i want to ask you about the impact of the extension here just for individual. your chart shows that for taxpayers, these are average, between 75 to 100,000 by 2028. that would be a tax reduction of $1,158. while for those with income over a million dollars, the tax cut in 2028 would be $39,148. is that correct? >> yes. for the member's benefit, mr. levin is referring to the distribution table we provided jcx-7218 and is dividesing the
total income tax change reported on that table by the number of taxpayers that we project in each income group pr. for the income group the average change in federal taxes represented on jcx-72 is a reduction of $1,158 as mr. levin stated. >> and 39, -- >> yes, in the income category of 1 million and over, reduction of $39,148 is the average reduction. >> so that's 30 times larger. let me just ask you about the pass through. on the deduction of pass through incomes, joint tax shows the
provision under the bill for today would provide over 93% of its tax benefit to those earning 100,000 a year in 2026. is that correct? >> approximately in the low 90%, yes, mr. levin. >> and it also shows your tax table that this bill would provide 56% of the tax, but this is under the pass through, to those earning over $1 million a year. in other words, the top one third of 1% would get over 50% of the benefit, is that correct? >> yes. roughly 55, 56, 57%, sir. >> okay. when we get to speak i'll show
how it's just pure propaganda to say that this bill locks in tax cuts for middle-class families, rather than for the very wealthy. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. bartle i would note the average family of four in mr. l levin's district will see $17,100 over the next decade of this bill. looking at the new distribution i note for taxpayers making between 20 and 30,000, your numbers show a tax cut, tax reduction of 19.1%. for those over $1 million, they see a reduction of 2.3%. is that accurate? >> that's right. that's reported in the first set of columns on the left of
jcx-72. >> so those at the 20, $30,000, that's not much above minimum wage, they're seeing almost ten times the tax relief percentage as those in the millionaires. in the 30 to 40,000, i note their tax reduction is 10%. >> that's correct. >> so again, about five times more than those who are wealthy. i noticed overall, families earning between 50 and $75,000, which can be middle-class in many states, will see 6.9% reduction in their federal taxes where a millionaire sees about 2%, is that accurate? >> that's correct. >> who is paying the burden of taxes in america? who shoulders that burden? i noted under your estimates that families today earning under $75,000, middle income
families this provides so much relief to, they pay actually a negative 2% of the individual income taxes in america, but they received 18% of the individual tax relief from the new tax bills. even though they pay frankly get a little bit more than they pay in, they actually receive an 18% tax relief. i notice, though, in contrast, millionaires pay 32% of individual taxes in america, but only receive 9%. are middle-income families seeing significant relief while the top rates are not, i note here and i'll ask, as a result of tax reform 2.0, the share of federal taxes paid by millionaire households increases
from 19.6 to 22% in 2026, so those in the wealthy will actually share more of the burden of the overall individual tax amount than before tax reform, is that correct? >> that's correct, mr. chairman. >> anyone else care to ask questions about the amendment. anyone wish to strike the last word? yes, sir. got to raise your hand. mr. thompson. >> thank you. the -- we talked a little bit about pl-11597 or tax 1.0, the tax cut bill that this committee passed and the house passed, and was signed into law, that cut taxes for corporations and the richest people in the country. was that bill paid for? >> the legislation was passed
under -- >> no. was it paid for? >> it provided for a net tax reduction, so there was not -- there were not specific -- while there were revenue raising provisions within that legislation, it was a net tax cut. >> was it paid for? >> no. >> okay. thank you. now today we have this new tax cut bill that will benefit the -- some of the richest people in the country, tax 2.0. is this bill paid for? >> this legislation extends some of the tax reductions, conventional relative to baseline it would reduce taxes in future years -- >> is this bill paid for? >> no, sir it is not. >> this is not paid for either. and by my calculation, that means that by the last action of the republicans on this committee and today's action by
the republicans on this committee, we're going to add about $3 trillion to our national debt. now, is it correct to say that that's only considering the ten-year budget window of the bill? >> what we reported in jcx-71 is the ten-year projection, sir. >> okay. so then the cost of interest of the debt financing to these tax cuts, they're not included in this, so the number could actually grow to more than $3 trillion added to our national debt. is that correct? >> our conventional estimates don't include interest costs that might arise from the legislation. >> so there is going to be interest costs because it's going to our national debt, notwithstanding the fact that
you don't calculate that, it's pretty safe to say that the republicans' actions on this committee will add more than $3 trillion to our national debt? >> i should add one refinement, mr. thompson, the size of the legislation before you constitutes major tax legislation under the house rules and my colleagues are working on a macro annual valys the legislation and that would include cost effects. >> i'm anxious to see that, when that's done. i hope that you are forthright with it. >> we intend to -- >> just the idea of adding $3 trillion to our national debt is mind boggling, if it's more than that we should know. mr. chairman, i have a chart that calculates the average salt
deductions that will be paid by congressional district as a result of your legislation. i would like to ask unanimous consent to add that to the record. >> without objection. >> it's important to point out that all you have to do is look at the average s.a.l.t. deduction on this chart for any of the districts and then subtract the $10,000 that people will be able to continue to write off, and then the difference is going to be the tax burden that the republicans in this committee will be adding to the tax bill of every american in one of these districts. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. the gentleman yields back. the average tax cut for the
middle income family is $23,700 over the term of the bill. mr. reed, you're recognized. >> thank you. i want to highlight a little bit more in focus, i'm not going to let this go unanswered too. what the chairman is talking about in regards to those percentages. when you're talking about the millionaire or million and above income taxpayer and you have a $30,000 number i heard your testimony to be, that's the amount of reduction. what's the tax liability for that taxpayer? what's that taxpayer paying each and every year? >> mr. reed, as we report on jcx-72 we provide average tax rate calculations for taxpayers in income group and average tax rate on a taxpayer in the 1 million and over is 33.4% under
present law and would be 32.3%. >> so how much -- >> roughly one third. >> do the math, how much -- that's one of the problems with this committee hearing is i think people here don't believe the american people understand how to do math. let's do the math. what is the tax bill for that taxpayer each and every year? >> well, on a -- if it were a million dollars, that would be, what, that would be $333,300. >> $333,000 a year that taxpayer is paying to the federal government and their taxes are going down $30,000. go to the $1100 tax reduction that you're referring to in your charts if you would. what is the tax liability for that family of four or that individual? >> okay. we were looking at 75,000 to
100,000. the average tax rate is approximately 17% under present law, 16% under the proposal, so if it were a $100,000 income the tax under present law would be approximately $17,000. >> then what would it be reduced to? >> approximately $16,000. >> okay. so the relative term that i'm looking at is they're trying to make the argument that $30,000 is a bigger number for millionaires and $1100 is a smaller number for the lower income tax folks, but relative to where their taxable income is, that's where the percentage of 30% versus 2.2% for the millionaire versus the working family person is coming from, isn't that accurate? >> yes, sir. >> what we're trying to
illustrate in these numbers i think is that, you know, they want to talk about a bigger number because those taxpayers are paying $333,000 a year as a tax liability, and what we're trying to do is make the argument that on a relative basis, those numbers show me a 30% reduction for that working family as opposed to a 2.2% reduction for the millionaire individual. that's i think the point that needs to be illustrated here, that this sham of not doing the math is being portrayed to the american people. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. reed yields back. i would like to recognize mr. passral. my thinking unless there are other members who would like to question him, we'll go to strike the last word. >> he's okay. >> all right. >> does anyone wish to question mr. bartell? if not we'll begin by striking
the last word. you're recognized to strike the last word. >> mr. chairman, it's well known that our republican colleagues don't believe in climate change, but this week we have some demonstration that they questioned hurricanes or at least letting hurricanes get in the way of another type of disaster, which is this bill. at least we finally do have a week in washington where star me refers to something natural in terms of disasters. this bill is about weatherizing and protecting tax breaks that were adopted last year to try to ensure that the special benefits that were available to the wealthiest people in our country and the largest multinationals are protected on a long-term basis. the cost of the bill today, the cost of the bill that was adopted last year, is very high.
more than half a trillion dollars this year with this proposal. the cost is not measured in dollars alone. silence is one of the big costs of this bill. silence from republicans daily, silence about this president, and all the wrongs that are being committed. republicans will pay any price, they will bear any burden, they will ignore any tweet tantrum as long as billionaires are protected on their tax breaks. in short, it's sealing lips to seal this tax bill. you can have trump hugging thugs, silence, helsinki bear hug for putin even as he repudiates the findings of our own intelligence community, crickets. the press is the econoenemy of people. duck and cover. denying the former cia
director's security clearance which only endangers our security, not a peep. insulting the late senator john mccain even as he lay dying, no comment. an estimated 7.5 major lives per day, silence. behind closed doors, we know that those who are there closely working at the white house day in and day out, thanks to bob woodward and others reporting, we know what life is like there. not my words, but theirs. the mayor of crazy town, the intelligence of a fifth or sixth grader and stronger terms. the threat to our security, our economic security, our national security, the threat to our democracy has never been higher, but all we have is silence. as the warning lights keep flashing, a bright yellow into red, they just cannot find their voice. it's more important to enact
bills like that we have today, that are designed to line the pockets of the wealthy and it's okay if along the way you can keep rolling back a few protections to keep our air cleaner and our water safe and if you can eviscerate the financial rules that protect families in their financial security from wall street. what's the total cost of this bill and this republican silence? we don't really know yet. we haven't yet a apparently hit the bottom of what the presidential behavior is that these republicans are willing to tolerate. with each new low the silence grows a little more deafening. so we have something that is truly disastrous headed our way, and it's not just a hurricane, it is a deficit busting tax give ayeway that might lead us to having the full faith and credit of the united states declared a federal disaster area. the first tax scam that was
adopted here forced through the congress has not met with great public approval. in fact, it's probably the most unpopular tax bill in recent memory. but it sure was a budget buster. trillions in additional debt, so that those at the top and large multinationals could get massive tax breaks. today they dress it up a little to try to gain broader support for protecting that privileged position. they dress it up a little as president trump and his family are enriched by the legislation that was passed previously and are enriched by freezing into place the protection for pass through entities in today's bill. afraid of any sunlight, of course no official from the trump administration had the courage to come and sit at that desk and answer questions about this bill and the implementation of the tax bill. with the initial bill, no
witnesses from business, academia or any place else. instead, as closed a process as possible, because this bill is truly a sorry addition and a disaster for our future. i yield back. >> gentleman's time has expired. miss noem to strike the last word. >> i proudly support this bill, protecting family and small business tax cuts act. with passage of this bill the committee is making a difference in the lives of everyday americans. my colleagues on the other side throw out misleading information, but my constituents in south dakota don't buy it and know the truth. they've seen the benefits of the tax cuts firsthand. thework will make permanent the gains giving american families certainty into the future. under the historic tax cuts in the tax cuts and jobs act, a married couple in south dakota making a teacher's salary have another $2600 in their pocket each and every year going forward.
today, we're going to ensure that that is permanent policy. the average police officer in south dakota savings $991 a year thanks to our tax cuts. and today we're making that permanent. a south dakota family of five with a father who drives a truck, a mom who is a nurse, with over -- with three kids in their family they save over $3,000 each year thanks to those tax cuts. today we're making that permanent for that family as well. a single mom in south dakota, maybe working as a realtor will save over $2,000 a year. today we're making that permanent. an electrician father, hairstylist mother save $1800. that means 9,500 diapers for their newborn baby according to one family i visited with. today, we're making those savings permanent. mr. chairman, the facts are undeniable the protecting family and small business tax cuts act does what its title implies and i am proud to support it today.
i urge my colleagues to put their country over petty politics and support this bill. with that i'll yield back. >> yields back. mr. thompson you're recognized to strike the last word. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when this committee considered tax 1.0, we didn't have any hearings, we heard from no witnesses, we had a markup similar to this one where we talked about winners and losers and now we're right back at it again today. now, nine months after the passage of that first bill, we've had some time to hear from the experts and the economists who were left out of the process by our republican majority. we know that the first bill put us $2.3 trillion deeper in debt. $2.3 trillion. that's real money. that's money for our troops, for our kids, for medicare, social
security, highway infrastructure, national security. $2.3 trillion. and for what? to give it to million airs and billionaires to give them a tax break. 10 years down the road. and a tax cut that they didn't even ask for. this isn't good public policy. and given the fact that we're having this markup prior to the midterm elections some might say that it's political and some more cynical than me might suggest that this is for being done to troll for votes in the midterm elections. as a nation we're already borrowing to make ends meet. the bill before us today would make things worse. right now interest rates are low, so the yearly cost of servicing our debt are
relatively low compared to the amount of that debt. that's going to change and we all know that it's going to change. it could change quickly. as we all know, interest rates are low right up until they're no longer low. if interest rates were to go up quickly, all of that debt could be -- could put a lot of pressure on the rest of our budget and jeopardize important programs that we all care about. the republican leadership has shown us that we don't even from v to wait for the interest rates to go up. last december the speaker blamed medicare and medicaid for our growing debt, asking seniors to pay for our shrinking federal coffers. if we get nothing else out of this lousy markup today, let's remember that our national debt is not the fault of low-income
seniors. it's the result of policies like the one that we're talking about today drafted by members in this room. the people we represent deserve better. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield. mr. thompson? >> the gentleman yield? >> the gentleman's yield back his time. mr. smith you're recognized. strike the last word. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a question for mr. bartell, on the 1 99-a issue, there was action that we took i believe in a bipartisan manner as well to address the issue that had come to be known as the grain glitch. now that fix of the grain glitch would be permanent with this action, is that correct? >> under this legislation, that's correct, sir. >> right. so this legislation would be necessary in order to make that permanent? >> by making the 199-a provision permanent, the fix that congress
enacted in february would be made permanent as well, yes, sir. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that. i think it shows that we can come together to get some things done here and i think that the productivity of tax reform certainly speaks for itself with the numbers coming in. and there will always be critics probably and probably politically motivated along the way. but i hope that we can, for the good of our country, come together and focus on issues that can bring more opportunity to the american people. we have a lot of folks on the side lines of our economy. now is the time to get as many people as we can on to the playing field that we would call the economy and i hear from my constituents up and down the line they need more employees. now is the time. not only with this bill, but other pieces of legislation that we come together to address the needs of our country and bring folks off the side lines of our
economy so they could prosper and have a brighter future. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. gentleman yields back. and the average tax cut for the family of four in mr. smith's district is $16,500 over the life of 2.0. and i yield to mr. lewis to strike the last word. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, 31 years ago i joined this body to respond to the needs of the people in the fifth district of georgia and people throughout america. when i'm in my district and traveling across our country, i listen to their concern. can you not help but feel their pain, their frustration, their sadness at being left out and left behind. you cannot escape their fear from a future and direction of our country. they hope, they dream, they pray for congress to do the right
thing. to be right. to open their eyes, ears, hearts, to the threats facing our nation. the sick and elderly cannot afford their medicine and health care. people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables. you cannot escape the fear of gun violence at work at schools or even in places of worship. innocent little children, tiny babies are ripped from their arms, the arms of their mothers and fathers. and tomorrow is the 17th anniversary of the longest war in our nation's history. and there is no end in sight. mr. chairman, when you have the power to do good, you cannot -- you should not withhold it.
each and every one of us have a moral obligation to lead and face our constitutional responsibility and look at, deal with it. i want the record to be clear and reflect what ach -- what each and every one of us knows. this bill is not going anywhere. it is desperate lies minute message for your funders and campaigns. this exercise, this gross neglect of our duty is a shame and a disgrace. for this act to pass will only continue the harsh reality of your first tax deal. this tax bill destroyed the hopes hopes -- of those who dream of affordable quality health care. it places social security and medicare on the chopping block. that is not right. that is not fair. it destroyed bipartisan solution
to address transportation needs, affordable housing and student debt will be out of reach. how can you turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the desperate cries of the people. how can you ignore a moral and constitutional responsibility? how can you cement the debt of our children, our grandchildren and generation yet unborn. that's not right. that's not fair and history will not be kind to us if we continue down this road. i urge each and every member of this committee to vote no so that we may return to the serious work of the people and for the people. with that, i mr. chairman, i yield back. >> yeah yields back. mr. buchanan you are recognized to strike the last word. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to -- as we've talked about debt and deficit, our friends on the other side of the aisle, all of us came in at
a different period of time and i came in 2006. if you look at what happened through 2007, through the next ten years, we could talk about the deficits today but the bottom line, we had no growth for ten years. there is multiple reasons. we ran up $10 trillion in debt, there was a big deal about $800 trillion -- or $800 billion stimulus and they had a $10 trillion stimulus through that period of time. you might say it is 8 or 9 and we went to $21 trillion today. what happened? to continue to do what we are doing, we're going backwards. at least here i think we have one of the best economies we've had -- i've been in business for 40 years and one of the best economies and part of it is because people are excited about the political leadership and being more pro-business and the lowest unemployment and growing at 3%. people are very bullish and a lot of being in business is am i willing to make that investment into the future.
they feel confident today, so what we've got for ten years and $10 trillion in debt, we can't go back there. so i would love to have a constitutional balanced budget amendment and i think that is something both sides should work on but the bottom line is people are bullish on employment, stock market, one of the best economies we've had in a long time and you'll see bigger paychecks and with that i yield back. >> gentleman yields back mr. larsson, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is like deja vu all over again except it is doubling down on taxation. tts hard -- it is hard to sit here and listen especially when you see people in your own state who are going to pay more in taxes so
the very wealthy amongst us could borrow $3 trillion, have working families in connecticut pay for it and tell them not to worry, they'll get a break. maybe not you if you are in a blue state on the east coast or west coast. somehow you're a different american if you happen to live in one of those states. you don't qualify for that. i thought settled law was something we talked about in supreme court cases. but apparently settled law with the irs and their recognizing states who pay their share, who step up to the plate, and make sure they fund education and their health care systems and maintain their roads and bridges, that they wouldn't be double taxed. there is going to be a revolt across this country and the more that people turn to their
accountants, you better be doing nightly novinas that they don't do so before this election as they turn to their account -- accountants and find out what it is they're sull tully going to pay. and if you live on the east coast or the west coast, and find out that what you're doing just for your little estate tax benefit, where 5500 households in the whole country get $7 billion. who pays for that? you borrow it and have the working class of america on the east and west coast pay for it. people vblts seen this in their paychecks and longer this is around and the double taxation exists it is blatantly unfair and i would dare say unconstitutional as well. i look forward to a number of
the amendments coming up here today in terms of the ability to talk about the salt provisions and what is happening. but it just -- for any person listening to this in the east coast, to all of you citizens that are out there and having to pay taxes on a regular basis, and recognize at the end of the day that you're getting nothing, in fact you are financing the tax cuts and the ensuing deficit that is taking place and who is being asked to pay for it? you are. i yield back. >> thank you, gentleman yields back and i recognize mr. reed, strike the last word and the average family of four in connecticut will receive a tax cut of $38,500 in the next decade. >> i'll be very brief. i was asking my colleague from california mr. thompson to yield because i wanted to be clearly
on the record and applaud his foresight in regards to recognizing the deficit and debt crisis that we have on the horizon in regards to the interest rate policy of america. as i talked in this committee room and outside of this committee room and as i've traveled the country, this is something that i share a grave concern about as we go forward. and i understand what we're doing with tax cuts. i understand what we're doing here to spur the economic growth and we may have a different opinion, my colleague from california and i in regards to where we are positioning ourselves in regards to tax cut, growing this economy and being a part of the solution to take on this debt crisis, but i wou-- i would look forward to recognize this common threat to us as americans that this national debt is posing to us and presenting to us, especially as we enter an era where an inflation is starting to show
its face again and one of the tools that we have in our tool box to deal with inflation is interest rate policy and i'm afraid if we do not become true leaders here in washington, on both sides of the aisle, and address this in an open and honest fashion, i think this crisis will go off and will be a very serious consequence to our country. and so i -- i disagree with the concern that the other side may raise in regards to how tax cuts and all of that contribute to the deficit issue because i don't think it takes into consideration the growth impacts, the opportunity to grow the economy and the revenue that comes from that, that we can deal with. but i'm open to the conversation if we include everything on the table. everything. that means we need to balance the budget, not only from a revenue perspective but from a
spending perspective so i want to plaud him for raising that concern and join in the shared sentiment that we need to address this proactively and not wait for the crisis. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. plumen hour you're recognized. >> i think it is a sad chapter in the history of this committee when last year we rushed through major changes to the tax code obligating over $2 trillion of additional debt when the committee was not fully aware of the impact, unintended consequences. i feel strongly that there would -- people look at the committee proceedings and wonder how there could be such difference. i think one of the reasons there is such difference is because we really haven't had the economy operate and bring in independent
experts to testify and have the bill in front of the american public so the experts and the public and i dare say each member of the committee know what we're voting on. we didn't do that. and it's sad. in addition, we've added obligations of probably $2.3 trillion in deficit as a result of that action. we saw the first 11 months of this last year where the deficit gap increased $895 billion and it is estimates that the trillion dollar deficit will continue as long as the eye can see. and the republicans pivoted after that enacted to use the deficits to rationalize cuts to
programs that americans care deeply about in terms of social security, medicare and medicaid. and all of the public has to do is look at the republican budget that was put forth immediately after our work. there is a causal connection. and now we are looking at a similar act extending portions of the tax reductions, the estimate over ten years, probably $3 trillion additionally. and we're doing so again with no public input. they didn't see this bill. there has not been a single hearing and we're moving in again. it's no way to run a railroad,
it is no way for this storied committee to operate. we shouldn't have these gaps in terms of understanding and factual basis which would not be as great if we actually knew what we were voting on and we heard from the public, we heard from independent experts who don't have an ax to grind other than being able to stand by their research and their analysis. i don't know about your experience, but i've gone home and i've talked to groups of tax attorneys, accountants, financial planners who are mystified about what we did. they don't understand the rational. it certainly hasn't simplified the tax code. it has made it hopelessly more complex. and everybody who is involved
with a capital intensive business who rely on the ability to borrow, to be able to function and to grow, they're deeply concerned about the path you've launched us on. i find this troubling. rumor has it that not only are we not going to be here tomorrow, we're adjourning early. rumor has it that we're going to give back most of october, if not all of it, so people could go out and campaign before the election. there was plenty of time, mr. chairman, that we could have had this legislation in its entirety available for a few hearings allowing the public and independent experts to critique and explain so we know what we're getting into. and last but not least, i
identify with my friend from connecticut. many americans are going to get an unexpected tax surprise from you because they are limited to $10,000 deduction under the salt provisions. this republican tax is going to not just be in blue states, coast coastal states, you all have communities where there are high property tax values and it is going to affect their taxes. maybe fewer in your districts, but by golly, you're going to have thousands of them. and they're going to get a special tax by virtue of what you've done. i would think if we are serious about diving back, changing, making permanent, making adjustments, one of the things we should have attacked is
looking at the consequence on your constituents and mine of that provisional loan. mr. chairman, i'm sorry, i understand why we're doing it because of an election, but i hope that we will not make this a routine, that is not a precedent that sullys the reputation of this committee. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. and i do want to compliment you, mr. plumen in our, in 201215 democrats on the committee voted to make the bush tax cuts permanent at a cost of $3.9 trillion. you and mr. lewis who wasn't here for the vote for the day are the ones who did not vote that so you actually have an argument on the deficit issue that rings true. so mr. kelly, you are recognized to strike the last word. >> thank you, chairman. i wanted to ask mr. barthold a
question and it comes down to when we project long-term debt and deficits, what do we project growth at to come up with the figures that we're hearing bandied about the room, about how much that growth widens? >> the projections i think are being quoted based on the congressional budget office, macro economic baseline, so the baseline that was used for the analysis last fall was the january 2017 economic baseline. i believe the congressional budget office macro economic growth projection for the next several years was approximately 1.9% real growth per annum for that period. they've increased -- i don't recall offhand, in the 2018 baseline projected slightly higher growth rate. >> okay. so when we go with the slightly higher growth rate, i think it is important to understand, so if you are looking at a meager
growth rate and as we were told by the last administration that, look, if you think things will get any better than 1.6% to 1.7% annual increase in gdp, you need to readjust your thinking because that just can't happen. and that was true under the tax laws that we -- under the regulations that we were under. i think most people felt they were stymied and didn't have time to grow. and today as i listen, this is like a tale of two cities. it is the worst of times and the best of times depending on who you listen to. and i will say this, you are right, politics will trump policy, expectly in election years and when is it not an election year. so let's take a really good look at not what is good for democrats or republicans, but what is good for americans. and we allow more of our hard working american taxpayers to keep more of their own money, i think that is really a bright spot. if real gdp grew 1% faster than the projected every year for the
next decade it would produce roughly $2.5 trillion in additional revenues. so when an economy is doing better, and i just know this from my experience, there have been several years of my life running my private business and i didn't pay any tax and it wasn't because i was brilliant and knew how to get through the tax code, it's because we didn't make any money that year. people pay taxes on profit, not on wishes. and the other thing is working people are the ones that -- they are responsible to them and the people that employee them and the wage and income taxes that they pay. so it is important to understand where the revenue comes from and how it gets spent. but i want to really talk about that 1% growth adding $2.5 trilli $2.5 trillion in additional revenue. you'd have to be a fool to sit back and look at an economic program that is losing. look at an economic program and that is keeping you behind the rest of the world that is an economic program that means
people have less take-home pay and their wages have been stagnant so you know what? that's the kind of america we need to come to washington and keep fulfilling that promise and keep people on the back side of suck less. i have to tell you, i'm so much in favor of this tax cut 2.0. and i know none of you voted for it and it is hard to go back home and say please don't tell me about how good we're doing and i didn't vote for it and i won't vote for it today and if you put us back in the majority, we'll raise your taxes so get ready for that rough ride. gentlemen, thank you for holding this hearing. thanks for bringing this up and there is no time like the present and doubling down and making it better for americans. this hasn't to do with democrats or republicans, it has to do with the hard-working taxpayers and the way they view the future. we have never had bluer skies and stronger winds at our back than today because of the legislation that took place.
these people didn't just wake up one morning and say hallelujah, we're going to move forward. i watched for eight years and i watched the stagnation and the depression, i watched people thinking there is no bright tomorrow because we were told, why would you think you're exceptional. you're not exceptional. you're just americans for crying out loud. don't put yourself in the boat that you are exceptional people. we are exceptional people and we've done exceptional things and it is hard to deny the last 20 months to look at the progress our nation has made and i'm talking about our nation and our people, it has benefited every single american. i'm going to yield back my time because we have a lot more to do today and tax reform 2.0 i'm all in favor for our fellow citizens to enjoy life. thank you and i yield back. >> mr. chairman -- question, mr. kelly made reference to thank you for the hearing today. i just want to ask a question, is this a hearing or a mark-up. >> it is a mark-up. >> thank you for the correction.
>> were you not aware of that mr. kelly? >> no, he made reference to thank you for the hearing and i want to -- for the record to be said there has been no hearing on this bill or the prior bill and that this is a mark-up and not a hearing. >> will the gentleman yield? >> my time is -- >> all yielded back. >> well it is a mark-up. there you go. >> for the record. i wanted to clarify that. >> so we will continue with the nit-picking. mr. pascrell. >> thank you. thank you for not having a single committee hearing. >> we're having a good day. >> sory mr. chairman. >> in 2026, the year in which most of the new republican legislation -- tax legislation would start having an effect, that is the first year in which all members of the baby boom generation, including the younger, the youngest, will be eligible to draw social security retirement benefits. it is also the year we see all
of the baby boomers will turn 80. so now what we're looking for is -- and agree with mr. reed and those who brought this up -- what are you going to cut in order to make up for what you've done? it's pretty bad to listen to both sides. well, start by cutting social security. that is already been proposed. medicare, medicaid, that is already been done. so here we have caddyshack 2, weekend at bernie's 2, jaws, the revenge. and the sequel is never as good as the original. >> the original sucks -- >> in this case -- in this case i sure hope this tax scam 2 is just as popular as the first one. 34% popularity. i can't imagine anyone in the
movie business backing a sequel to such a flop. consider the headline. fox news poll -- voters like obamacare more than the gop tax cuts. even guys and gals on our side find that funny to even say. that's right. a majority of americans approve of the affordable care act. let that sink in a minute. maybe that is why new jersey republican leonard lance last week called this new attempt an exercise in futility. he's not the only one. another headline from the week, republicans consider dropping second phase of tax cuts after the backlash of salt. so why exactly are my friends on the other side bringing up this bill. what problem is this tax bill trying to solve? consider the original tax scam way back in january, the gop saw
that corporate profits were at historic highs. and they concluded not high enough. we need to shower them with lavish tax breaks. they came in, they assure the middle class families are struggling with health care and housing costs and said let's make health insurance costlier and make homeowners pay more taxes by eviscerating the individual mandate and capping the deduction that goes back to the civil war, not the code. you're wrong. and now they see how unpopular the first go at the tax cuts were, so let's do more of the same. but why would this time be any different? paul ryan and the president said when they passed the tax scam that the average family's wage and salary would go up by $4,000. he said it.
i didn't. wages are down for most workers. only about 1% of workers are getting a wage increase. the republicans only come up with 4,000 based on the assumption that workers would successfully bargain for a bigger share of profits from corporate productivity. but that hasn't happened for 40 years. republicans have waged an all-out war on labor unions, collective bargaining rights, what power do workers have to bargain for higher pay. official data shows that workers wages are flat or even slightly down in real terms over the last year. i have all back-up information since you've asked me that a couple of times. if you want it. while corporations reap historic profits, they're gains have not trickled down to regular workers. in fact, this tax bill has only made it harder for them to get ahead. companies aren't investing in employees or innovation. and another headline, trump tax
cuts have no effect on most businesses hiring plans. corporations are spending 101 times as much on shareholder bonuses as they are on workers' bonuses and wages. telling us the wait -- telling wo workers to wait. they didn't raise wages, they simply passed the tax cuts by the u.s. treasury to the wealthy shareholder pockets. i'm aware the sequel is the same, failed trickle down economics that has never worked before. i would rather go see "weekend at bernie's" again than watch this sequel. we have urgent problems facing working people -- >> gentleman's time is expired. >> and i thank you for your indulgence. >> i would make the case for "mission impossible: fallout" as
stronger than the other three. >> i think that is a great idea. >> and i would note the average family of four in the ninth district of new jersey will see a tax cut of $5,508. mr. bishop, you are recognized -- >> mr. chairman since you directed your comments to me. can i say something to you -- >> not at this time. >> you have not even -- even gone there and how much they're going to lose in salt deductions -- >> gentleman's time -- >> and inflation in new jersey. why don't you look at all of the numbers. >> that is part of the calculations. >> you have selective numbers that is what the whole bill is. >> thank you, mr. bishop. you are recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate that. thank you today for the mark-up, and the opportunity to talk about this. mr. chairman, in michigan, my home state, we're seeing a positive impact of tax reform. i guess this is a matter of perspective. but i've been around my state -- around my district talking to families, taurking to big companies, small companies, from large major corporations to
start-ups and all of them have shared their positive feelings about tax reform and what it is doing for our state. the heart of our economy is the manufacturing sector and of course that is the auto industry. as we say in our state, when the auto industry sneezes, michigan catches a cold. on the flip side of that, when it does well, so does the state. so i'm excited to talk about tax reform and what it has done. there is so many examples from the people that i speak with, specifically i'll mention one. fiat-chrysler has decided to bring back the ram heavy duty truck from mexico, investing a billion dollars hiring thousands of new employees and doing by itself an enormous substantial new economic investment to our state which will make a real difference. and that is just one example. but it is not just our auto
industry and manufacturing that benefit from tax reform. our main street businesses are being benefited as well. they're growing, they're hiring workers, and i hear all of the time about new expanded benefits. in my home town the main street downtown is called rochester road and rochester road we have everything on that street locally owned car dealerships, jewelry stores, restaurants, clothing stars, law firms, accounting firms, you name it, we have it. i've talked to each one of these folks and every sector of this part of the economy, and they've told me about their positive feelings about tax reform and how it's allowed them to reinvent in their companies and in their business and in their workers and continue to make my city, my home town of rochester a great place to work, live and raise a family. just last week for example, the nfib main street optimism index hit a record all-time 45-year high.
i think that is a great positive step in the right direction. giant step in the right direction for our country. mr. chairman, as you know, the nonpartisan tax foundation looked at the effects of making these tax cuts permanent in tax reform 2.0 and the projections are very optimistic. the legislation before us according to the tax foundation would add 1.5 million new jobs to the economy and increase the gdp by 2.2%. i don't know about all of you, but that sounds like pretty good news for me -- to me and it will be great for my constituents in michigan and our citizens in this nation who are looking for something positive in this economy. we've seen the tax reform has spurred the kind of growth we've anticipated from tax cuts. i believe it is time and i agree with the chairman and this committee that we add to that. lock in those rates and give our businesses the cent-- the certa they need to grow and thrive.
thank you and i yield back the rest of my time. >> gentleman yields back. >> what we're doing today is under the category of exercise in futility. the senate has made it clear they have no intention of taking up this action today nor is there a need to. the major provision involving the individual rates doesn't take effect for another seven years but instead of taking this opportunity to take a look back and see what mistakes and corrections need to be made with tax 1.0 and we are moving forward with this this what is strictly a political exercise and the only reason we're wasting our time marking this up and moving forward is because of the political calendar with the midterms just around the -- corner and the reason we have it here today is because tax 1.0 went over like a wet blanket back home and they knew it was a huge giveaway to corporation and
a recent revenue report showed tax is down 35% and overall tax revenue down 5%. congressional budget office is now estimating that the era of trillion dollars budget deficits is upon us this fiscal year. we don't even have to wait until next year. and since when is a philosophy of family value agenda mean passing huge debt on to our children and grandchildren. this bill alone, when it is fully implemented and for the next ten years will increase our national debt by over $3 trillion. no off-sets, no pay for and let's just borrow more money from china and stick our kids with the bill. and what is significant about this time period? it also coincides with the exact time when all of the 74 million baby boomers who are beginning their massive retirement, 10,000
each day will be fully retired and fully vested in social security and medicare and now you're going to throw another $3 trillion worth of debt that will only jeopardize the long-term solvency of social security and medicare for that generation and for future generations to come. let's stop kidding the american people. we know that is what the game plan is. shortly after tax 1.0 passed last year, a republican budget that came before the house this year, called for over $2 trillion worth of cuts to medicare and medicaid which happened to coincide exactly with the $2.3 trillion worth of debt that you're tax bill called for. so it is not rocket science. it is basic imagine. and this is adding up very clearly of what the play is here expecting to have social security and medicare cut and reformed in order to pay for these massive tax cuts. $35 million in reduction in
corporate rate, we all knew this would happen and what did they do with the additional money, they did not increase employee raises. some of them gave one-off bonuses and some applied to retail workers in employment for 20 years which means very few saw those ben uses but what they did is what they said they would do. massive share buybacks, massive dividend distribution and huge plus in salary and compensation packages and that is exactly where this corporate money is going. when corporate america was already sitting on a pile of cash on the sidelines. so they told us before tax 1.0 passed, what they would do with it and that is exactly what they've been doing. mr. chairman i would ask at this time the federal reserve report be put in the record that i just cited about the republican party today now has become the party of death because they're being led by the king of death. don't take my word for it.
take his word. president trump on the campaign trail back in 2016 said, and i quote, i'm the king of debt. i love debt. people said i want to go and buy debt and default on debt and i mean these people are crazy. this is the united states government. first of all, you never have to default because you print the money. i hate to tell you, you just print the money. this is your leader in the white house and what he feels about debt. i don't know who gave you the green light of huge spending increases with the budget that passed earlier this year, huge tax cuts that aren't off-set and paid for, but i do know that future generations will pay a very serious price all for a political point -- political statement leading up to the midterm elections. we're better than this as a committee, mr. chairman. let's get back to regular order and clean up any mistakes made in the past, and let's be thoughtful and have hearings and feedback on where we want to go with the tax code next. this isn't the way to do it. i encourage my colleagues to
vote no. there is still time to do this the right way. i yield back. >> thank you. without objection i'll enter the voting record from 2012, 15 of the democrat colleagues voted to extend the bush tax cut at a cost of $3.9 trillion and although who were present the at time voted to add another trillion dollars with debt -- >> i would add i was not a party to that -- >> you are recorded as voting yes for the tax cuts of $3.9 trillion. mr. cash ella you are recognizing. >> i'm confused because some of the colleagues are saying the tax policies are highly unpopular and ineffective yet they accuse us of bringing them forward at this for political gain. it is somewhat of a dissent argument and i think we should all acknowledge the truth that we have real challenges in our
country. i think about the debt all of the time. i'm worried about social security and medicare. i'm 38 years old. it is my generation and people younger than us that will face the brunt of the consequences of inaction and we should all work together to make these programs solvent and work together to make sure that we keep our promises and not just to today's seniors, but to tomorrow's seniors as well. and that means young americans all over this country that are contributing billions and billions every year to social security and medicare. now if we're honest, i think we should also recognize and i really haven't heard this at all from the other side, that our economy is doing really well. that the economic recovery that had passed over so many families and individuals in our country is now reaching them. that people are moving in the workforce, switching jobs because they're getting paid more. we have more jobs available in our country than people looking for jobs at this point according to the most recent report.
and the most recent report also highlights that we saw major jump in wage growth. these are all things to celebrate. and i'm not going to be disen genius and say our tax reform is the only reason for the successes that we're seeing in the economy today. but it is certainly a part of the story. and anyone who fails to recognize that, i think, is just not sharing a complete picture of what is happening in our country. i can tell you, there are a lot of people in my district who are grateful for the new opportunities that they see in the economy. a lot of young people, a lot of immigrants that are seeing opportunities that they had not seen in many years and that are better off today. that is certainly something to celebrate. now, there are some people that are displeased with the new tax policies and i'll tell you, in my district we do have some wealthy pockets and people who own mansions and live in really
expensive homes have complained about the deductibility of property taxes. and that is understandable. but as i think mr. barthold went over earlier, the wealthy under the new tax code are paying a greater share of our nation's taxes than under the old tax code. a greater proportion. so i understand that any time we pass broad comprehensive policy there will be some people that will be unhappy, but i think we did the best we could and i think we're seeing the results in the economy, more and more americans are cha americans are sharing in the recovery finally and that is something i think everyone on the committee should celebrate. and of course we have to work together to face some of the other challenges that pose a threat specifically and most acutely to my generation and people younger than me. we cannot hand over this kind of debt and that is something that i'm committed to working on with every member of this committee
on the republican side, on the democratic side. so thank you, mr. chairman for this opportunity and i look forward to supporting our legislation today. >> thank you, mr. curbelo. and mr. crowelly, you are recognized for the last word. >> for the purposes of introducing -- i yield to mr. pascrell. >> thank you. mr. chairman from the department of -- and bureau of labor statistics i want to introduce into the record real wage growth under president trump and the chart will show that it has slowed since he raised his hand. minus two, mr. chairman. >> reclaiming my time, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i regret that i will not be returning to the house of representatives, nor to this committee in the next congress. i have dedicated a good portion
of my public life in congress trying to get on this committee and i've had the great honor to serve on this committee for the past 12 years. but over the last decade, i have witnessed under both parties' control the diminishment of this committee. but i must say that with the passage of what is termed now as tax cut 1.0, i believe we have -- we've hit rock bottom. no hearings, no witnesses, no amendments accepted by majority party of the minority offering, no regular order, no bipartisanship. one of the most personal issues of the american people is their
taxes and yet the bill that was passed was rammed through this committee and rammed through the house of representatives. this wasn't just a missed opportunity, though. it was willful and premeditated and intentional. it was intentional in its execution. and unlike what we saw in 1986 with then republican president ronald reagan and democratic speaker tip o'neal, what was true bipartisanship in the last overhaul of the tax code, that bill that we passed late last year and the one before us today are in whole partisan and divisive and the wholesale creation of one party.
i regret that i will not be here in the next congress to help restore the faith and confidence of the american people in our congress and in this committee to do what is right on behalf of all americans. that i will not be here to help restore to hard-working men and women, struggling men and women in this country trying to make ends meet, a code that is fair to them. as opposed to a code that benefits the special interests of our nation. i look forward to seeing in the future from another perch the restoration of the prestige of this committee that i love.
and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. dr. davis, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i strongly oppose this bill that asks hard-working illinoisans and middle class americans to pay for luxurious tax cuts for the wealth and most secure people in our nation. chicagoans lose under this bill. illinoisans lose under this bill. real families lose under this bill. under this bill over 40 million middle class families will be double taxed permanently due to the cap on state and local income tax deduction. while corporations that donation
to political coffers get the full benefit. indeed 31% of illinoisans recently claimed the salt deduction for a total of $24.12 billion. thus the republican bill would increase the taxes on over almost 2 million illinoisans by hundreds of millions of dollars with 85% of whom are in the middle class. and the august economic report showed that the fastest growing occupations for older workers require 14% to claim food stamps just to eat. this republican bill champions permanently helping the elite afford more yachts and vacation homes. when baby boomers are retiring
and needing security, the republican bill explodes the deficit and threatens an automatic 4% reduction to medicare and critical safety net programs. the first republican tax cut damaged the health of the medicare trust fund and this bill is more of the same. after decades of wage stagnation, when over 41 million laborers earn less than $12 an hour and almost none of the employers offer health insurance and the cost of childcare and college are soaring and more than one quarter of americans struggle to cover housing costs, the republican bill preferences millionaires, giving an average tax cut of over $39,000 to the
top 1%. illinois has one of the highest childcare rates in the country. yet this bill keeps the child n in -- independent tax with parents capped at a shameful $15,000 and bestows amazing tax benefits on estates under $20 million. people in chicago expect government to help real people. they do not want trillions of dollars in unpaid for permanent winfalls for the elite. the medium income in my district is about $54,000. under this bill these constituents may save between 15 and 550 but those earning over a
million dollars get an average of over $39,000. it gives almost half of the individual tax cuts to households earning more than $350,000. 6.5 times the median income in my district and as community organizers would say, that ain't right. no, it is not right. we need to help families pay their rent, buy good health insurance, afford quality childcare so they can work and send their kids to college. we should not raise the taxes on hard-working americans and undermine local government to subsidize special interests. i oppose this dangerous bill that threatens the economic security of our country and of its people and i yield back.
>> thank you, dr. davis, yields back. mr. shwiker you're recognized to strike the last word. >> thank you mr. chairman. and look, and this is for all of us here on the committee and those who are watching and those who have to report this, many of us feel like we're in parallel universes because we're saying such different things and looking at some of the -- we should be seeing some of the same numbers. so mr. chairman, i'm going to ask to be able to put this "wall street journal" article into the record because i don't know how i -- how any of us sort of match what is being said by the analysis of shall we say first the current tax law. a couple of points of reference, under the old tax law, so pre-january 1st, according to this "wall street journal" analysis, the top 20% of income earners paid 84% of all of the federal income tax.
so top 20% and 84% of the income tax. today under the new tax code, where we've heard so many offous brothers and sisters on the other side say it is this wind fall for the wealthy, that top 20% is no longer paying 84%, they're now paying 87% of the federal income tax. the tax according to the analysis by the "wall street journal," the new tax code that got rid of some of the games that the wealthy got to play actually became more progressive. so i know that doesn't fit sort of what we want to say rhetorically, but that is the analysis on the data. the tax code got more progressive january 1st and the top 20% of income earners are paying a higher percentage of the total federal tax revenues. but there is also another thing in here that is also
interesting. it just makes a point that the first 60% quarter i'll of -- quartile will now functionally pay almost no federal income tax. and the nice thing with this, it is not -- it's not our side or your side doing the analysis, it is an outside group. i'm just hoping that at some point when we get out of what is the nature of this time of year and the political season, if we have failings in the tax code that are not lifting everyone, i'm one of those who desperately wants to know about it. but what i see happening in arizona is some of the lowest unemployment in my lifetime. jobs that seem to be across the board in some populations that
have had a really rough time. about three weeks ago i visited a homeless campus in downtown phoenix and they were telling me, they have people recruiting workers from the homeless campus because they're so desperate. even outside of the political angst, i'm hoping some of us can find some joy that those folks who have just came out of a pretty rough decade who have been the most diseffected of our populations are now finding work. and somewhere in there should be some joy. and with that, mr. chairman, i'll yield back. but i do request to put this "wall street journal" article into the record. >> without objection. and gentleman yields back. miss sanchez you are recognized to strike the last word. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by putting an end to this nonsense average tax cut talk that keep getting thrown out here in the chamber today. according to mr. reed, a
millionaire in his district would get a $30,000 tax cut, and a middle class worker would get a $1,000 tax cut and according to the chairman of the committee -- >> the gentle lady -- yields -- >> i will at the end of my time. i would like to make my point without interruption. and according to the chairman they're walking off with $5,500 in tax cuts and that is the kind of fuzzy math that we hear when you talk about averages. okay. you can throw out averages all you want, but averages doesn't mean that everybody gets a benefit and that's for sure not happening to my constituents. the problem is that working american families didn't get the great tax relief that you guys sold this bill as. and that is why they don't believe in this law. if it was actually helping working class americans, then i would think that it would be supported by more than just three out of ten people. but it's not. it is hugely unpopular.
in my district, no doubt the chairman has some statistics that he will throw out about the average tax cut for an average family in my district, but that's just speaking in generalities. because by throwing out these averages, you're clearly not taking into account that the average family in my district will get $8,000 more in tax liability simply because of the cap on the state and local tax deduction. that is $8,000 more in tax liability. they may have gotten some relief, but then on top of that, they're getting this huge tax bill. and while the average worker might see, let's say, a benefit of $30 a month extra on their paycheck, that is more than erased by the rising interest rates which affects things like, oh, student loan debt and credit card debt, the kinds of things that working families take on to try to improve their situation. but i'm sure that average families in my district don't
need to worry. because i'm sure they rest better at night knowing that the first $11 million of their estate they can pass on tax-free to heirs. my district was really concerned about that. and when i tell them that. they are flabbergasted and they know who got the benefit of the tax cuts and it wasn't them and if you have any doubt about that, that the fact that the rich are doing so well under this plan, i have an article that i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, if you have any doubt about who is getting the benefit, i would just point to this article that says "tax change helps executives afford pricier planes." the recent changes to the tax code are giving business executives a new perk. the opportunity to deduct the entirety of a corporate jet purchase and i would ask the chairman to enter that into the record. >> without objection. >> so my constituents might have
been born -- they weren't born last night. they know who is getting the benefit of this tax cut and it is not them. so don't try to sell this as a benefit to middle class families or working class families because it is not. they know it's not. so let's just stop pretending and let's just end the charade and with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentle lady yields back. mr. higgins, you are recognized to strike the last word. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the corporate tax cut last year resulted in a $1.1 trillion budget deficit for next year 2019 meaning you will spend more than a trillion dollars more than you collect in revenue. by 2028 your annual deficit will reach 1$1.7 trillion. the national debt will hit
$29.4 trillion by 2028. more than 100% of the american economy. with the reckless actions of this committee today, the federal deficit $2.4 trillion in 2028, and the national debt in the same year, 2028 will reach $33 trillion. a new debt record exceeding the debt gdp ratio of 1946. that is inflection point, that is a distinction that the members of this committee that vote for this today will own. the white house council of economic advisors issued a record in october of last year saying that a reduction in the corporate tax rate would increase average u.s. household
income in the united states by $4,000 a year and that would recur throughout the decade. is there any credible empirical evidence that suggests that this is happening or it will happen? >> mr. higgins, there's a lot of current study going on in terms of increases in wages and household income. i don't know of anything specifically on the point that specifically addresses the point of your question. >> chairman, about an hour ago, you indicated that under this bill that's before us today, that in mr. levin's district, the family of four will save $17,000 over the next 10 years. according to the white house council of economic advisors, a
$4,000 annual savings per household, mr. levin's family of four is owed about $23,000. i think the largest point here is that this is a cheap trick, this is fraud being perpetrated against the american people. this is a moral horror of debt being imposed on a generation without representation. ms. sanchez said that, you know, we were born recently, but not last night. well, the people that were born last night, will be forced to deal with the debt that's being imposed on them today. this is reckless, it is irresponsible. i yield back the balance of my time. >> ms. jenkins, you're recognized to take the last word. >> it i yield to the gentleman from tennessee. >> since my name was used by my good friend from california, i
would just like to ask possibly the gentlelady from california a question, the first question is when she indicates that her constituents are going to see a tax liability increase of $8,000 because of the interaction of the state and local tax deduction, how she concludes that number of $8,000? the gentlelady from california would to response? i would be more than happy to yield her time. so the question to the gentlelady is that clearly clearly the 8,000 will result in a loss result of the state and local tax deduction, i would like to know how you arrived at that number. >> sure. the average constituent in my district, which is a working class district, gets about a 1
th, 1,is -- the average constituent of my district now takes on as a result of this bill that was sold as a boon to middle class families. >> so reclaiming my time, i so appreciate the gentlelady analysises because that's one of the -- when the gentlelady says there's a tax increase of $8,000, i know my constituents are under the impression that their tax liability will be going up by $8,000 if those numbers are utilized. that's not the case. because what we are talking about is a tax deduction, not a reduction in your tax liability. so for the information to be relayed from this committee, from this hearing to the american people, that somehow by
capping the state and local tax deduction of $10,000, any itemized deduction above that 10,000, will result in a tax liability increase to a taxpayer is just false. it's just not accurate. it is a basic misunderstanding of the tax law that i hear so many people from across america under the erroneous conclusion that that's how tax policy works. >> will the gentleman-year-o yi? >> i will in just a moment. i just want to clarify, and i think it's very important that we make sure the information coming out of this committee here is correct on this document. that the average family is scare because they are going to be facing -- the average itemized deductions, the state and local
tax deduction is $16,430 and i have had constituents stop me on the street and say, tom, by capping it at $16,000 you're exposing me to a tax bill of $2,000. should i start saving for that bill i think is coming due that tax time next year. that is absolutely erroneous. that is not how tax policy works. when you walk our folks through, when i walk those individuals through a basic tax return, they then see, i get it now, because also what we're doing, in regards to this, is if my itemizers in my district itemize at $16,230 and we have expanded the standard deduction to $24,000, they get the benefit of an additional, approximately,
$8,000 worth of deductions under the standard deduction that they would not be able to access, because it was at 12,000 before, and 16,000 now. so the point i'm trying to stress, and i will yield to the gentlelady at this point in time. we have got to be careful that tax liability, tax deductions a and -- >> i would respond by saying the following, that when you cap the average deduction at $10,000, that's $8,000 in deductions that is now considered taxable income. so the average constituent in my district, their tax rate goes up by the marginal -- >> your time has expired. >> gentleman yields back. >> i would like the gentleman to
explain that to my constituents. >> we -- i have to tell you i was excited about the prospects since i was a new member of the house ways and means committee and really did think that we had an opportunity to do something that was truly bipartisan and that would help all american people. instead the democrats on this committee were reduced to being spectators as republicans pushed through a reckless tax bill that was poorly designed, provided huge wind fall gains to wealthy investors, failed to raise wages and promote benefits for workers in a significant way while plunging us further into debt in a way that will impair our ability to invest in our future, take care of our seniors, provide for our children and create jobs. mr. chairman, you will recall
that not a single democratic effort to improve the tax bill was accepted. as a result republican tax law became a missed opportunity for those that have been waiting for tax reform, true tax reform for 40 years. and a huge betrayal for middle class and working class family that were left with a tabit tha they and their children will be paying off for generations to come. now we're in the same place, less than a year later, being asked to consider a bill that will double down on that betrayal, and put hard working families that are working every day to make ends meet further into debt. i believe that this first tax bill cost us $2.3 trillion. we were told today that we don't know how much this 2.0 tax bill or tax sham of a bill would actually cost. i can tell you, though, that the first tax bill was supported by
exaggerations and i believe outright lies. the idea that this tax cut would pay for itself, that somehow we don't have to actually have to have a pay for is ludicrous. the folks i represent have been waiting for trickle down economics to trickle down to them for so long that they can't believe it. >> the gentlelady will yield. i want to be respectful to the members and their comments so if you could quiet the room. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think it's important that we remember that we're representing all americans, and when you do a tax bill that represents the top 1% the most, how is that truly helping all americans? several of my town hall meetings, i met constituents that said we were waiting for their bonuses, those
corporations that would come out with more bonuses or increased wages, it never materialized. i want to make sure that whatever i do here on this committee, will not only affect the top 1%, but will really affect all americans. working class americans, and middle class americans and we're talking about a bill that's probably going nowhere in the senate, may not even pass the house, it's unimaginable to me that we're not talking about infrastructure improvement, shoring up our health care system. that's we're not talking about making sure that social trust fund is shored up and can make sure that it's there for those hard working americans that need it most. instead we're doing tax reform 2.0 and i don't know how that is going to help the people back home that i represent. i think this is a missed
opportunity, mr. chairman, a missed opportunity that we could spend our time doing so much more to help the american people than a tax 2.0, that's still going to be waiting, that still is going to only affect the top 1% and not the vast majority of americans. i just think this is a colossal waste of time and a real missed opportunity for us to be able to show the american people that there are reasonable folks on both sides of the aisle that do want to do comprehensive dax reform, that actually would like to have an opportunity to have bipartisan opportunity to affect the tax code and incentivize that which we want to see, which is higher wages. people having livable wages, people being able to have the tax code help them with their liability and not hurt them. i know that alabama is a state
that does not have high state and local taxes. but many of my colleagues do. i do know that we want to promote the opportunity for people to have homeowner ship and the like. there's so much we could do to help average americans and i don't see how this bill will do that. >> mr. chairman, over the summer, i met with our state's insurance commissioner, along with a doctor who works at a number of clinics in the region, a mom with a child with autism. a woman just starting her career struggling to pay for health insurance and a woman who's worgot health conditions and i want to know how -- driving up health care preemt yumyums -- the moth the young person and doctor i
talked to, are not hypothetica hypotheticals, they're our friends, our neighbors and our constituents. there are millions just like them, hard working americans who are doing everything right and wondering if the folks on this body and on this who have been for so long been the most distinguished committee in congress, have their backs. but there's nothing distinguished in those rate hikes. including version through version 1 of this tax bill. and there's nothing distinguished about what is being done here today. we're talking about a conscious decision by my republican colleagues to put operations over people. a conscious decision to let companies get tax breaks for moving jobs overseas, while not allowing americans who must move for work that same benefit. a conscious decision to slash medical expense deductions for seniors and families that are
caring for loved ones with long-term illnesses just so shareholders can reap those rewards. in the months before -- without any transparency or input from the american people, we have identified at least 100 unintended consequences that must be repaired. einstein said the definition of insanity is doing things over and over and expecting different results. and that's what this is, pure insanity. and this is one that encapsul e encapsulates everything that people at home say is wrong with washington, d.c., politics are -- let's not forget some of the questions we're considering today are weather to permanently
take whipermanently -- whether to permanently take away benefits for individuals who move for work, while corporations get a write off for shipping jobs overseas. whether to erode the medical expense deduction for family and seniors while the most wealthy can now lower their tax bills to zero by buying private jets. you can't make this stuff up. so what's happening here, we're 54 days out from an important election. the clock's winding down and the players are getting desperate. they throw a hail mary and they hope for some magic. but the players here in this game are not russell wilson or aaron rodgers. the set of policies being enshrined in this legislation before us was a failure for the american people the first time around and it's a failure today. so let's take the time to do things right this time around. let's put people first. let's make sure every american
can live, work, see a doctor, raise a family and retire with dignity. perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can own up to the misplaced values they made clear the last time around, putting corporations figgs, people second. we can't afford to make a $2.3 trillion mistake a $3 trillion one. thank you and i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back, mr. smith, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have some documents of support for bill 8760 that supports family and small business tax cuts act, i would like fto ask for -- the home builders, the association of general