tv U.S. House of Representatives Budget Resolution Rule CSPAN October 29, 2017 10:55am-12:02pm EDT
we made and the things we're proud of. well, in the flake service to this country -- when the flake service to this country is reviewed it will be one of honor, brilliance, patriotism and love of country. and i thank >> also happening next week in congress. senate will work on president trump's nominees. if confirmed, they would be neil gorsuch's seat. the house returned tuesday on their agenda extending funding for the children's health insurance program, a repeal of the health care law's advisory
board, and several bills to prevent wildfires. watch live health coverage on c-span. on thursday, the u.s. house debated and passed the 2018 budget resolution, which sets overall 2018 federal spending at $1.132 trillion. it requires committees to work on tax reform. house passed bill to 16 to 212 after the senate approved it last week. i will show you the start of the debate from wednesday. it is an hour and a half. very much. and i'd like to say during consideration of this resolution all time is yielded for purpose of debate only. i yield 30 minutes to mr. mcgovern pending which i yield myself as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.
mr. woodall: i would like to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized mr. woodall: mr. speaker, it's budget day and i don't know if you are as excited about that when you got out of bed this morning as i was, but to be fair, i sit on the budget committee. i have the great honor of sitting on the rules committee and i bring this rule to the floor today, but by other -- i serve on the rules committee by night and by day i serve on the budget committee with mr. pascrell and we have been working since january to produce a budget for the united states of america. and i got to tell you, mr. speaker, a whale of a budget coming out of the house rules committee. you remember that budget? you supported that budget. we did a fantastic collaborative job bringing that budget to the floor and then it went to the united states senate. you know how that happens, mr. speaker. we grew i'm just a bill sitting
here on capitol hill and long, long way to the capital city, long, long way sitting in committee, we that know the song from our childhood, it is a long process to move a bill through and nine times out of 10, it comes back differently from the united states senate than the way we sent it over there. . mr. speaker, we can concur with the senate amendment and if we pass this rule, that's what we will have an opportunity to do, concur in the senate amendment and bring a unified budget to the floor. now, what does that mean, mr. speaker? we've already been working on appropriations bills this cycle and for the uninitiated, the bulk of the spending bills going on, the mandatory spending that you and i both know about, mr. speaker, medicare, social security, those important income support programs on which so many americans depend, that money is already going out the door. so today what we have an
opportunity to do in passing this budget is to create what they call reconciliation instructions because contained inside this budget, this unified budget which the house and senate agree are reconciliation instructions that allow us to bring what, mr. speaker, i believe will be the most comprehensive fundamental reform of our tax code since tip o'neill and ronald reagan did it in 1986. since 1986, four decades ago, mr. speaker, we have an opportunity today to do something that no other congress has been able to do since i have been an adult and i am excited about that opportunity. now, to be fair, we will have a lot of disagreement about how to get that done. that's not the debate we're having today. for any of my colleagues or anybody back home, mr. speaker, who's worried that right here in this debate on a wednesday we are going to sort out our entire tax code, fear not. fear not. that is not the debate we're having today. the debate we're having today,
mr. speaker, is, will we or will we not take on the challenge of reforming our tax code? i believe that we will. the debate that we're going to have today is, will we or will we not confront the fact that america has one of the least competitive tax codes in the world but americans deserve one of the most competitive tax codes in the world? the debate we're going to have today, mr. speaker, is not about the details of tax reform but about the premise of can we do better for the american people or can we not? i have the great benefit, mr. speaker, not having to learn what i know about this chamber from watching it on tv or reading it in the headlines, and i consider myself very blessed to have the opportunity to serve among these men and women. if i just had to read about them in the headline i would have a very low opinion of them, i confess. i would have a low opinion. but because i get to work with these men and women, mr. speaker, i get to see the real commitment to their
constituencies, the real commitments to their home states, the real desire to deliver on behalf of their constituencies and on behalf of the united states of america. we may have a divisive debate today. we sometimes do. but my prediction in hour one, mr. speaker, is by the time we leave this floor we're going to have agreement to take on one of the challenges that no party has been able to take on since democrats and republicans came together in 1986 to get it done. it's my great hope we will use that model that we will repeat that model, that we will improve upon that model, and we will produce something that all of our constituency can be proud of. i know that our country is hungry for tax reform and i believe we can deliver it for that. with that, mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to support this rule, support the underlying concurrence in the senate amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman
from georgia, my friend, mr. woodall, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. and the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise in very strong opposition to this rule. today, house republicans are pushing a job-killing budget so they can use fast track reconciliation procedures to steam roll through their billionaires first tax plan. mr. speaker, we're supposed to be the people's house. we ought to have the people's budget, a budget that helps the millions of americans who sent us here to congress, not a budget that helps only a few, the well-connected and well-off. i disagree with mr. woodall. this is not a time to celebrate. this is a terrible budget. this budget will devastate america's investments in good-paying jobs. it threatens growing wages and the bedrock promise of a secure and healthy retirement.
it makes cuts across the board that would hurt seniors, children, veterans and the hardworking people across this country who are already struggling to get by. why are republicans doing this? well, it's all in the name of fast tracking the ryan-mcconnell tax plan which explodes the deficit by $1.5 trillion and then provides multitrillion-dollar tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. we, democrats, we think this is a horrible idea. what's astonishing is the hypocrisy of republicans promoting this deficit-busting budget. republicans care how much they care about the deficit. but when it comes to giving their beloved tax cuts to their billionaire friends, they suddenly develop a convenient case of amnesia. they say, what deficit? don't worry, these tax breaks will pay for themselves. mr. speaker, this is absurd. in this republican-controlled congress, we can now say with certainty that the deficit and debt no longer matter.
all the talk by republicans, well, they didn't really mean it. if republicans really cared about the deficit, they would in no way imaginable bring up a bill, a budget that is as reckless as this to the floor. this kind of shows what they truly believe, where their values are, where their priorities are. how many times have republicans talked about the importance of a balanced budget? the speaker calls for a deficit-neutral tax plan in his, quote, better way agenda. well, i guess this debt-creating budget is the somewhat less better way plan. your budget chair took to twitter just two weeks ago to chastise senate republicans for not pursuing a balanced budget. yet, now she is fully in support of their budget which adds $1.5 trillion to the deficit with no way to pay for it. now, let me spell this out for my republican friends. this is not a balanced budget. and clearly republicans desperately need a refresher on
basic arithmetic. mr. speaker, there is nothing balanced by hitting middle class americans with giving corporations with tax cuts. billionaires are not knocking down our doors with more tax breaks. this is disgusting. this is shameful. the republican budget destroys middle-class jobs by stealing hundreds of billions of dollars from investments in infrastructure, job training, advanced energy, in research and development. it devastates medicare and medicaid. it demands deep cuts to safety net programs like snap. i'm talking about food for hungry children and hardworking families. it goes after college affordability. it makes college more expensive for working families. it undercuts key supports for veterans and their families. what is particularly offensive is that republicans are using this terrible budget as a means of passing tax cuts for the
wealthy as quickly as possible, regardless of the consequences and without bipartisan support. the tax reform framework supported by republicans in congress will raise taxes on the middle class and cut taxes for the wealthy. under the republican plan, the top 1% would receive 80% of all tax benefits. let me repeat that. the top 1% would receive 80% of all tax benefits. give me a break. those making more than $900,000 a year would receive an average tax cut of more than $200,000. think about that. a person working full time at minimum wage makes $290 a week before taxes, and under this plan people who make over $432 an hour, $900,000 a year, they get a massive tax break. corporations will receive a tax cut totaling $2 trillion. who loses in this plan, mr. speaker?
according to the nonpartisan tax policy center, one in three middle-class taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $150,000 would actually receive a tax increase. and nearly half of middle-class families with kids would see their taxes go up. can you believe that? raising taxes on the middle class to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and corporations. this is insane. to make matters worse, republicans are planning to steam roll their tax plan through congress. we're reading in the press we might actually see a plan next week. a markup and floor consideration a week or two after that. really? don't you think we owe it to our constituents to have thoughtful, open debate on this legislation which will impact every single one of them? i guess not. democrats agree our tax system needs to be updated, to be more fair and especially to be more fair to the middle class and to working families. we have always been willing to engage in real bipartisan tax
reform. but the republican tax framework is not tax reform. it's just one more g.o.p. multitrillion-dollar giveaway fought wealthiest at the expense of the middle class and working americans. in all my time in congress, i have never seen a budget and a tax plan that harms so many just to benefit so few. so i urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, to vote against this cruel republican budget and to oppose a tax plan that puts wealthy corporations and the top 1% ahead of hardworking middle-class families. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time, and the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. woodall: i had an opportunity to mention at the beginning, meesh, we might be debating the -- mr. speaker, we might be debating the details of a tax reform plan that does not exist. i see we are going to do that. there are a lot of studies out there on this tax reform plan that does not yet exist.
but let me tell you that we can all agree that we have the single least competitive tax code on the planet today. we can all agree that with the click of a mouse a company can transfer its assets overseas and grow jobs there instead of growing jobs here. let us have the debate that we want to have about who should bear the burden of american taxation. that's legitimate debate and let's have it, but let us not have the debate of whether foreign workers should benefit or american workers should benefit because that answer should be clear in the hearts and minds of every single member of this chamber. we have an opportunity, mr. speaker, to go from worst to first. now, i confess, i don't actually get all the way to first. i'll settle for getting in the top five and getting out of the bottom five when it comes to being able to lead in this country. but i want to mention, mr. speaker, what i think of the
force of frustration of constituencies on both sides of the aisle. -- think of the source of frustration of constituencies on both sides of the aisle. i look at the chart of my friend from massachusetts brought down to the house floor. it happened to be in georgia's colors of red and black, but i can see as a representative of all of the hardworking families in my district, that chart didn't do anything to inspire me about the impact of tax reform going forward. but my friend quoted the tax policy center. now, "the wall street journal" called the tax policy center a shield for those groups that don't want to see any tax reform of any kind. tax policy center has been doing research for a long, long time. the research my friend from massachusetts quoted was a study of a bill that does not exist. the research i am going to quote of -- is of historical tax rates. what my friends from the tax policy center is about 30% of
americans, 1/3 of americans, pay no income tax today. the tax code that exists today protects them from any tax liability at all. now, what we're proposing when we get into fundamental tax reform, mr. speaker, is to double the standard deduction. for those families that are already claiming a standard deduction, we're talking about doubling it. now, the brackets are still in question. the details are still in question. we are talking about doubling the number of folks who don't have to deal with the i.r.s. at all. today, about 30% of american families don't pay any income taxes and that same 30% gets a refundable tax credit that rebates to them their entire social and medicare contribution that they make and the entire social and welfare contribution that their employer makes on their behalf. now, these are not my numbers. these are the tax policy center's numbers. that a full third of americans aren't paying one penny in federal income tax, federal payroll tax of any kind. now, i'm not here to debate the
wisdom of that, mr. speaker. i'm here to tell you i don't know how much lower i can cut taxes in that group. i don't know how in the world i can lower the tax burden on folks who are not only paying no income taxes but are having all their payroll taxes rebated to them also. . should we talk about folks who are on the bottom running of the economic ladder? we should. do we talk about how it is that he entitlement system is trapping people at the bottom of the ladder and not allowing them to climb the top? we should. but i would say to you, mr. speaker, that it would be misleading to the american public to suggest that this tax bill is focusing its attention in one direction instead of another direction. the fact simply is, i can't lower taxes any more at the
bottom of the spectrum. now, we are talking about lowering taxes on corporations. that doesn't inspire many people. rob, what in the world are you doing lowering taxes on corporation. and folks are not particularly enthusiastic -- i am. there wasn't a better way. my better way is the fair tax and corporations don't pay taxes. corporations do not pay taxes. they collect taxes from their consumers in the form of higher prices, from their employees in the form of lower wages or from share holders in the form of lower capital. lower capital return. now lest think, rob, you are a conservative republican from the deep south, what do you know about this? i'll quote the tax policy center which says a full 20% of the
corporate income tax burden falls on workers. fair enough, if we want to argue where the tax rates are going to end up and how the cuts are going to look and what the policies are going to be, let's have that debate, but let us not mislead the american people that there is a free lunch anywhere in this tax code. we have the opportunity to move from worst to first. and every single american regardless of their region and regardless of their politics is going to benefit from that change. they benefited from it when democrats and republicans came together to do it in 1986 and will benefit it as we come together. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i don't know where to begin after that. my good friend, the gentleman from georgia, made reference to the tax policy center.
and i have the report from the tax policy center here. in fact, it is their analysis that was the basis for that chart that i held during my opening remarks which said that of top 1% would receive 80% the tax breaks based on the republican framework. i ask unanimous consent to insert the report from the tax policy center in the record, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: and where do they get this figure about adding to the deficit by $1.5 trillion? did i just make that up? i'll tell the gentleman where i got it from. it's basically the republican report in the senate on the budget. and let me read from their report here. it says this title includes two reconciliation instructions to senate committees. the first would allow the finance committee to reduce revenues and change outlays to increase the deficit by not more than $1.5 trillion over the next
five years. these are the words of the republicans in the senate. the gentleman wants to know why we are talking about the tax plan is because we are presented here with a budget that essentially fast tracks a tax plan and he's right, we don't have all the details yet, because it is being negotiated and written in some back room somewhere in this building. i wish i knew where it was and we could try to find out more details. what we do know is the framework that the republicans have put forward and that is the basis for the analysis that economist after economist after economist has stated that this budget is a give-away to the wealthiest individuals in this country and not somehow a break for the middle class. it's the exact opposite. this is a gift for billionaires and millionaires and does nothing for working families. that's why this is all relevant. this budget puts in place
procedures for the republicans to fast track a tax bill that they are now writing in some back room somewhere and that no one will see until the last minute and it will be rushed through here and big give away to the wealthiest individuals in this country. mr. speaker, let me say republican plans for tax reform would also eliminate the state and local tax deduction called salt. this deduction prevents millions of middle class families from being taxed twice on the same income on already paid state and local taxes. half the people hit by this tax hike would be middle-class families earning less than $100,000 and local communities will feel that pain. repealing the salt deduction which would state and local
deductions would put pressure on local governments to lower taxes. a september 22 letter said that the salt deduction has contributed to the stability of state revenues that are essential for providing public services. these services include health care, police and fire departments and schools. i ask unanimous consent to insert the letter from the national governors association into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i ask members to vote to defeat the previous question, if we do i will offer an amendment that would prohibit any legislation from limiting or repealing the state and local tax deduction. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the tax of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior on the vote on the previous question. to discuss the importance of the state and local tax deduction, i want to yield two minutes to the
gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell, who has been outspoken on this issue on behalf of states and communities and middle-class taxpayers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. good to see you today. mr. speaker, there are some real terrible parts to this budget. but this to me is the worst. this deduction has been part of our tax system before it was an income tax. going back to the civil war, for the very reasons that my friend from massachusetts just talked about. thet wasn't such picked off shelf. people count on it. people count on it. so i rise to urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule, the previous question, the budget,
the weather, whatever. we know that this budget resolution paves the way for a tax reform bill done through reconciliation. i'm sure that's interesting. reconciliation on governor street in pater son, new jersey. blocks maneuver that democrats completely out of the process and allows republicans to pass a purely partisan juiced-up bill. comprehensive tax reform is a goal we should all share and lasting tax reform should be bipartisan. and my friend from georgia believes this. but this ain't it. while they are cutting deals behind closed doors, what we are pushing is eliminating the state and local tax deduction and
that's in the senate budget. republicans are adamant about eliminating this middle class benefit, that they add in an amendment to that budget before us today. so let me be clear. a vote for this rule is a vote for the budget, is a vote to repeal the state and local deduction. my colleagues -- mr. mcgovern: i yield an additional one minute. mr. pascrell: my colleagues representing new jersey, new york, california, minnesota and so many other states, including georgia, including geneva lake, andonsin, better think long hard about their vote today. the american people are seeing if they vote to raise their taxes. this amendment in the budget falsely claims that the salt
only benefits high-income taxpayers. let's take a look at that. the fact is that he repealing it would hurt the middle class and working familiar cyst and at the same time, how do you justify through the speaker -- how do you justify keeping deduction still viable for corporations? they can deduct the state and local taxes, but the families of america can't? i want to hear your justification of that. that's going to be a good one. 40% of taxpayers who make between $50,000 and $75,000. 70% of those claim the state and local taxes. mr. mcgovern: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: well, mr. speaker, i could stay here all afternoon on it because i feel it in my
bone marrow. we are talking about tax cuts. we're increasing the tax burden on the middle class and you cannot deny it. there is no place in that budget that you can deny it. none whatsoever, you could say we are going go to do this. 'm tired of that walnut trick. pick it up, where's it under, groups representing teachers, firefighters, all support retaining the state and local tax deduction. it's bad policy, plain and simple. i appeal to you we got enough ammunition. we don't need this ammunition for next year. let's think about this in a nonpartisan way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time.
if you wonder what kind of passion we have on the budget committee, i will recognize how much i enjoy serving with my friend from new jersey. everything you heard from him is from the heart. i hear it on the committee and we end up with a better product. it's a legitimate debate to have about the state and local tax deductions. perfectly legitimate. there are those from low tax jurisdictions saying why is the federal government and federal taxpayer want to subsidize those states that are higher tax jurisdictions -- mr. pascrell: would you yield? mr. woodall: i heard my friend make the case before, there are those jurisdictions that are low tax jurisdictions because the gentleman's constituency in new jersey make so much money and pay so much more in federal taxes and states like mine, alabama and mississippi are the beneficiaries. there is a case to be made on
both sides of this issue. the falsehood, mr. speaker, is to suggest we are deciding that issue today. we're not. we're not. i don't blame my colleagues for fighting for their constituency at the height of their ability, the highest vocal point of their capability because issuesr at their core, local and personal to each and every one of us. we are going to have to have this conversation and sort it out. and i believe it's not going to be a partisan conversation. in fact, i know it's not going to a partisan conversation. i know republicans who share my friend from new jersey's opinion. we know this is going to be true and we will sort this issue out, mr. speaker. what i fear though, is that emotions are going to run so high that we are going to miss an opportunity to figure out
these things. to conflate these deductions is to create confusion. every business in america can deduct the meals that they serve throughout their day as a business expense. my family cannot deduct our meals. every business out there that has rented an apartment in order to conduct business, they can deduct that rent as a business expense. in the great state of georgia, i'm unable to deduct my rent as a business expense. there is a fundamental difference between families and businesses and that fundamental difference goes back to what i said at the beginning and saying there is one taxpayer in this country. not wal-mart, apple, microsoft, but the american consumer. we are the only ones, the buck stops with each and every american family. the debate of how to structure a corporate income tax code, mr.
speaker, perfectly legitimate. but to suggest that the fact that the personal code and the business code look different is to deny what's just now over 100 years of tax policy and i yield to my friend of new jersey. mr. pascrell: now that you have agreed to the fact that the families are going to get shafted but corporations will correspondent to be able to deduct their local and state taxes, this is pertinent to the budget, my friend, through the speaker. right in the bill, the budget bill we are talking about right now. the rule, previous question, related to changes in federal tax laws which may include reducing federal deduction -- this is right from the budget. why do you say we are not discussing this? . mr. woodall closh what you hear is absolutely right. everybody is entitled to their own opinion not their own facts.
what the gentleman is reading is accurate. but they are not binding. what this is is such a personal and important issue to folks on both sides of it it got its own personal line out of the united states -- i can't even get nominations out of the united states senate, mr. speaker. i'm sitting here trying to staff out region 4 down in the great state of georgia. folks are delaying the debate. folks let me get my people in place. this is so important -- mr. pascrell: will my friend yield? mr. woodall: it came with its own line. i don't want to diminish, i n't want to diminish the importance of this issue on either side. what i do want to insist upon, though, is that it will not be decided during this hour today. and i want to insist, mr. speaker, that it will not be decided on partisan lines. i would just ask of you, mr. speaker, and my friends here on the floor, we have two things we can do with our voices.
we can either sow consensus, or we can sow discontent. i know that we're passionate about these things in which we believe, but to suggest, mr. speaker, that we're not going to come together and sort it out and do the very best we can for americans is to sell this institution short and to further the misunderstanding, the misimpression, the misinformation that the media sends out about us every day. i know we're better than that and i'm proud to be a voice saying that here on the floor today, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time -- let me yield nother 30 seconds to mr. pascrell to respond. the speaker pro tempore: 30 seconds. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, families in pascrell to my friend's state, the state of georgia, great lose a georgia, will deduction of $9,000, those
families, on average. i think you are concerned about that. you cannot deduction of $9,000 not. the fact of the matter is -- you used the word, through the speaker, you used the word that your states are subsidizing the donor states? let me give you an idea of new jersey. states like west virginia, the average salt deduction claim is $9,463 per household n ohio it's $10,445. in wisconsin it's $11,6 -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: another 30 seconds. this will probably have to be it unfortunately we have so many speakers over here i wish i could enjoy the loneliness my colleague from georgia enjoys nobody wants to speak on the budget. . pascrell: the 38th, 39th
state. where new jersey is. subsidizes whom? go back and tell the secretary of the treasury, he doesn't know what he's talking about. he says new jersey is being subsidized? not these numbers. show that. don't you can't defend this. you can't defend it under any circumstances whatsoever. and you have admitted, the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is minutes. for two ms. chu: mr. speaker, i rise today to the strong opposition of the underlying rule that would allow for consideration of the senate-passed republican budget. if passed this budget minutes. ms. chu: would allow republicans to fast track their tax plan through congress
without democratic support. now, i stand in support of a tax plan to help the middle class, but that's not the tax plan we're seeing prosed by republicans. instead, we see that 80% of the benefits will go to the richest 1% in this country. the problem? somebody has to pay for it. and it looks like it could be the middle class. i have heard from workers worried that cuts of contributions to their 401-k plans will ruin their retirement. i have heard from seniors worried that losing homeowners incentives will make it harder for them to stay in their homes. and i have heard from families worried that a repeal of the state and local tax deduction will increase their tax burden. in fact, we know that one third of the middle class will see their taxes increase under this plan. and the numbers show that as our constituents begin to learn more, they are realizing that this plan only cuts taxes for the wealthy and corporate
middle s and leaves class families behind. that's why a reuters poll released yesterday found fewer than a third of the americans support the republican tax plan at all. this tax plan for the rich will increase the deficit by $2.2 . illion and who will pay for it? your children and their grandchildren. they will have to suffer. and who from the cuts made down along the line to education, to medicaid, medicare. and for what? to make the rich richer? to line the pockets of washington special interests? that's not right. reject this budget. most importantly reject this tax lan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. woodall: we heard a lot
about the distributal aal siffs tax reform. as i suggested it's hard to do. folks who make a whole lot of money, like my friend from new constituency, they pay more in taxes. i hope that one day my constituency makes as much money as the friend from new jersey constituency. if we can stimulate the economy the way i believe this tax proposal will, we'll have a shot f getting that done. but we have to have these conversations about limiting tax deductions for the wealthiest mericans if we're going to solve the solve the issues that my friends have raised. and reading right out of that senate budget report, the whole purpose of considering the state and local tax deduction and considering modifying t. tapping t. eliminating it, whatever you want to insert there, mr. speaker, is designed around limiting those tax deductions that only benefit the wealthiest among us. that only benefit the wealthiest
among us. that's the conversation that folks are trying to have. again, mr. speaker, there's so much more that we agree on than disagree on in this chamber. but it appears time and time again we come to the house floor shrilled n the most on the 20% of those things that divide us instead of the 80% of those things we can deliver on for our constituency. tax reform doesn't have to pass with 51 votes in the senate. we move reconciliation bills through the senate with 60 votes. moved them through the senate e with 70 votes. we have moved them through the senate with 80 votes. growing the american economy, mr. speaker, is a commonsense goal that is shared in every single region and in every single political quarter. let's not make this about us here. let's make this about our bosses back home. we can and we should, and i believe that we will. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at
this point i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas who is the ranking member on the tax policy subcommittee on the ways and means committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. doggett: thank you. this bill is truly about one thing and one thing only. it is about lavishing tax breaks on donald trump personally, on his family, and on all of his billionaire buddies. it is about lavishing tax breaks incentives on the very same giant multinational corporations that have shipped away so many american jobs, that have refused to pay their fair share of our national security by hiding their profits in offshore island tax havens. it is about doing all that and hoping that at this time of the giant multinational year here at halloween they can trick the american families of the middle class into believing that a little of those tax benefits will trickle down to
them. because if they can do that, if they can pass this bill, they will treat them selves, the billionaires and job exporters, they will treat them selves to tax benefits of almost astronomical proportions. to suggest that there is anything bipartisan about this bill or anything bipartisan about the tax proposal that republicans will unveil next week is truly a farce. there is no bipartisanship here. they learn nothing from their failed health care repeal efforts. no, they plan to use surprise jack-in-the-box tktics to pop out a bill at the -- tactics to pop out a bill at the last minute. through the ways and means committee and foist it off on the american people. and with halloween coming, there is a simple trick or treat test that you as an american family can use.
if you are in the top 1%, you get 80% of the benefits of the individual benefits out of this bill. so just look at your income. if you're not up there in the seven or $900,000 range, don't benefit getting much out of this bill. in fact, a number of studies show your taxes may actually go up benefit out while others see a significant decline in the revenue they are asked to pay to finance our country. , t about the idea of growth growing jobs? after all growing our economy is what we should be all about. what is claimed for this bill. i turn to that objective source, goldman sachs, the home of the treasury secretary and top economic advisors, goldman sachs within the last month has advised its own investors, don't of this tax bill
because any momentary growth at the beginning will be offset by of trillions of dollars of additional debt from the same people that have been telling us for years we can't afford another dollar for abused children, we can't afford the dollars for children's health care because we're so very worried about the national debtf well, there's reason to be worried about the national debt and not to explode it by trillions of dollars with its giant unpaid tax bill. does the gentleman have an additional 30 seconds? mr. mcgovern: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: a zombie of supply side economics is returning from the death. we know it didn't work for bush. we know it didn't work in the reagan era. they are bringing it back again saying if you just give a little more to those who have so much already, it will benefit everyone else. the data does not show that. this is a tax bill that needs to be rejected because it is so unfair and inequitable to the
american people. this is much worse than the health care repeal because its ramifications in leading the cutting medicare and social security will be far-reaching. there will not be a family in marker that goes untouched. reject this budget and tax bill. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: to agree with some what my friend had to say. there will be no family that goes untouched. if you like to go to the council of economic advisors webpage, mr. speaker, you can see their most recent report which suggests on average $4,000 in additional wages for every wage earner in this country. every family in this country. making a difference for economic growth. we know that economic growth matters. more jobs means more pressure on labor. higher wages means more income for the federal government and taxes and more income for families to put into their pocket. we're hearing about zombies and surprises and tricks.
you can tell that halloween is right around the corner and scaring folks is kind of the tag halloween, mr. speaker. sadly that's what we see going on here today. i promise you you have not heard a single bipartisan word about this tax plan from my friends on the other side, so i'm going to provide those words for my friends. i'll read from yesterday's "wall street journal," mr. speaker. in 2012, president obama and ha sadly that's what we see going on here his advisors proposed lowering the corporate tax rate because it creates good jobs and good wages for the middle class folks who work at those businesses, end quote. the tax gue about what reform ought to look like. what we can't argue about is the benefit of -- for american families of tax reform. in 2013, lawrence summers, president clinton's treasury secretary and chairman of president obama's economic council argued that the tax on corporate profit creates a
burden without commensurate revenues for the government. and that changing it is as close to a free lunch for the american taxpayer the tax reform ought to look like. what we can't argue as reformer get. president obama's treasury secretary, again, we can argue about what it looks like, what we can't argue about is what it's intended to do and what leading experts believe it will do. in 20 have a, democrat chuck schumer, republican rob portman, co-sponsored a senate bill to reduce the top corporate tax rate, which is the highest of the 35 countries in the oecd today. our international tax system, as i quote chuck schumer, our international tax system creates incentives to send jobs and stash profits overseas rather than creating jobs and economic growth here in the united states, end quote. we can fix that together and we will fix that together. . bill clinton said he regretted
raising the corporate tax rate for exactly those reasons. who is advantaged by trying to persuade the american people that something is nefarious going on. i don't know about my friend's constituency, but my constituency want things to work together. my constituency looks us to roll up our sleeves and sort thins out. my constituency wants to believe we are united in making a difference for them together. we have this opportunity. we passed this rule. we concur in the underlying senate amendment and we will move forward on tax reform that will leave no american family behind. the best government program we have in this country is the program that allows jobs to develop so folks can have one. the best program we have in this country is it allows wages to rise so folks can earn more. my constituency is not looking for anything from the other side of the aisle except cooperation on freeing up the marketplace so
my constituency can go to work and folks can go and make their own pathway and future forward. we can do it in ways that hasn't been done since 1986. who is advantaged by convincing folks that cooperation, consensus, making it together is dead? i don't think anyone. not just the debate, but the body politicing is damaged by those concerns, mr. speaker. i hope we will join together and refute those. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: we don't need lectures on cooperation and bipartisanship. we have offered to work with republicans on tax reform. we have offered to work with republicans on improving the affordable care act. and every time they talk about rolling up our sleeves, we aren't invited. open up this process. go back to regular order. hold hearings.
don't write bills in the back room and rush them to the floor and force the members here to vote up or down on them. we want cooperation. we want bipartisanship, but we don't need any lectures from the other side of the aisle. this has been the most closed congress in history. we don't need lectures on the importance of cooperation. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kind: i thank my friend from massachusetts. i rise in opposition to this rule because i rise in opposition to the underlying budget, a budget which is really a budget buster that could be before the full house for consideration tomorrow. it calls for an delirble $1.5 trillion worth of debt accumulated over the next 10 years. and they call tore that, i fear, in order to clear the path for unpaid for tax cuts. it has been 31 years since we
have taken a serious run at the federal code and long overdue. one would that simplify, simplify the code, that would broaden the base and make us more competitive. it could help promote economic growth but i fear that's not the direction that the opposing party is taking with their tax reform proposal. i say fear, so we can't say with certainty what will be offered the next couple of weeks. if history is any guide, there is a path to pass tax cuts that are not paid for. if history is a guide, we have been down that road. 2001 and 2003 that promised to bring a boom of economic growth that would offset and pay for the lott revenue. instead, we had huge budget deficits. and unfortunately today, we don't have the luxury of time to
help us recover from a huge fiscal mistake, because today, 70 million baby boomers are beginning the massive retirement and joining social security and medicare. 10,000 a day. we go down this route of going with massive tax breaks that aren't paid for, we are going to jeopardize the long time solvency of social security and medicare. folks back home said they would like to see fax reform but aren't telling me they are more interested in trickle-down economics with the predominant relief goes to the most wealthy that it somehow benefits everyone else. they would like to see fairer for individuals, families and farmers to share in the grogget of the prosperity if we do this in a correct way. but instead, i fear we will be witnessing history repeat itself. unlike the time of the past, we
don't have the luxury of time going forward without jeopardizing social security and medicare and without leaving a legacy of debt once again for our children and grandchildren to inhernt. et's regroup and do a budget that protects our children's future. this budget doesn't get us there. reject the rule and reject the budget if it comes up tomorrow. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume and i associate to my friend's comments. i can't disagree with the word he said until the end when he said vote against the budget. there is so much that we can do together. my friend spoke out on behalf of small businesses and family farmers. as the tax code exists today and you see charts of the benefit going to the top 1%, they are
talking about small businesses and family farmers and that family that has plowed every single penny back into the business for new technology to make employees more productive or open up a new facility or more distribution. everything because they have 350 families who depend on them to make that business successful so the 350 families can put food on their table. but when the tax code is analyzed, mr. speaker, when the i.r.s. sends back the statistics, that small business in my district that sends every single penny back into the business, they look rich. they look like they are the wealthiest and they're not. there are small family farmers and small family businesses that are trying to make a difference. and i want to say because my friend from wisconsin had a significant concern about blowing holes in deficits. as you know from your
experience, one cannot pass tax reform that is permanent through reconciliation if it adds to deficits in the out years. that is what is so wonderful about this process. i support what my friend from wisconsin said about keeping an eye on deficits. i appreciate what he said making sure that social security and medicare are growing, which they do when people go back to work and folks earn more money. i don't want to be in the business of lecturing. i want to be in the business of working with my colleagues. folks have a choice, are we going to make this a day about arguing with one another or tear something down or build something up. i stand for building something today, mr. speaker. let's build something together today. and i reserve. mr. mcgovern: i would like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr.
doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. doggett: my constituents would like to see the same spirit of togetherness that we just heard about. how has that been handled in our committee and why do i call the claims of bipartisanship here a far as? well, people in texas would like to know what is the effect of our payment on property taxes. people in michigan want to know what is the effect of putting a cap of how much we can contribute to our retirement savings. other people were concerned about adding 20 cents and a barter adjustment tax to every purchase we made from mexico, canada or elsewhere. and so since may, i have been asking for hearings on these matters. i have been asking for one single trump administration official to have the courage to come in front of our committee and answer questions about their proposal and the great gap
between what president trump says one day and what they do the next. and they have refused every day. we have been here all of september, we have been here all of october. they have refused to have a single hearing with a single trump official because they plan to jam through while they yell, they plan to jam through a gift to those who are the superrich and the multi knife nationals that chip these jobs offshore and don't want any accountability for it, they don't want public involvement. they want the public to know as little as possible and that's why they'll have it introduced this week and passed in committee the following week, forced on to this floor and the senate and the american people have to speak up and say no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i yield myself 15 seconds to say i don't want to sneak anything past anybody.
i want to take full credit. i don't want anybody to confuse. it's my fault. when we get tax reform and get this economy going again, blame me. when we have the opportunity to go from worst to first in the international business community, blame me. i don't want anybody to believe there's anybody hiding here. with that, i would share with my friend from massachusetts. i do not have any further speakers. truth needs no defense, i would say to my friend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself the balance of the time. so, mr. speaker, today we are considering a budget that will basically pave the way so we can bring up a massive tax cut for billionaires. and again, the gentleman from georgia mentioned the nonpartisan tax policy center in his opening remarks and his
chart is based on their analysis and the top 1% get 80% of all the benefits. if you think that's fair and representing your constituents, go ahead and vote for this budget because it is paving the way for a tax cut that will do just this. i don't think it's fair. i don't think anybody on the democratic side of the aisle think it's fair and i'm hoping some on the republican side of the aisle don't think it's fair as well. the gentleman from georgia talks about cooperation and we need to get along. who agrees with that? but actions speak louder than words. you can't talk about open and transparent processes and as we just heard from the gentleman from texas, have the ways and means committee which is writing this tax bill behind closed doors without any help from the democrats, but not having hearings, not allowing any administration official to come up and testify.
how is that an open and transparent process? how does that encourage the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship? i thought my friends would have learned from their terrible experience with repeal and replace of the affordable care act. what happens when you write bills behind closed doors without bipartisan input, without committees of jurisdiction, in that case, deliberating on what the final product should be. i thought you would have learned from that process. and you ended up failing at the end of the day. and i hope that this effort that my republican friends are now undertaking for tax cuts for wealthy people in this country, i hope that is as well. a lousy process usually leads to a lousy product. and my friends on the other side of the aisle have mastered the art of lousy processes. in the rules committee, virtually almost everything is closed, everything is shut down.
germane amendments are routinely denied the opportunity for members to offer them on the house floor because republicans don't want to have the debate. if you want cooperation and want bipartisan tax reform bill, then -- you just can't say it, you have to do something. in 1986, the last time congress did a comprehensive tax reform, we had 30 days of full committee hearings spanning over a year, 26 days of markup between september and december. this time, the time line is being reported in the press maybe just a week or a little bit more, if that. you know, and again, recent history is any indication, we might not even get that. a bill might appear one day and rushed to the floor so no one has time to read it or annualize and our constituents don't understand what is really happening here. i go back to that chart.
80%1% of the wealthiest get of the tax breaks. if you think that that's fair, then vote for this budget, because this budget paves the way for that tax bill to move forward. and if you care about a balanced budget and if you care about deficits and debt, please vote no on this budget because this allows us to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion. i mean, whatever happened to deficits matter? i guess maybe, it's inconvenient because tax cuts for billionaires matters more than deficits and passing on that debt to our kids. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question, to vote no on the rule, to vote no on this budget and fight like hell against this horrendous tax cut plan that my friends on the
republican side are pushing. this is bad policy. this is bad for our country. this is bad for middle class families and bad not only for my constituents but i would argue it's bad for your constituents. it's about time that the people's house start enacting legislation that benefit the people of this country and not just the few who are well off and well connected. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i wish coy bring school groups down here on the house floor to help the next generation understand why we face some of the challenges that we face. we're down here today, both confronted with a tax bill that folks are certain is going to giveaway everything to everybody that they don't want it to go to. and down here confronted with the fact there is no tax bill to look at and it's going to get sprung on folks with no notice and ability to read t either one of those things could be true.
it happens to be that neither of how things are true, but in the world do folks listening to this debate that we're advancing the cause of reform? deficits do matter, to my friend's point. they do mattle much the stranglehold that the obama regulatory economy created here in america on economic growth, reduced economic g.d.p. growth by a full third. by a full third. for every .1% of g.d.p. growth we talk about 200 billion additional dollars coming into the treasury over the 10-year window. the full percentage point we lost, $2 trillion coming into the treasury. era peaker, if we had bush growth instead of obama era growth over the last five years, the budget would be balanced today. but we're where we're. and the question is, can era growth instead we do better tomorrow? we can. before i talk about that, mr. speaker, i want to recognize some of the folks who helped to get us here.
my friend from massachusetts and i we come down here and carry the debate. but the work goes on behind every single one of these doors rooms, i serve on the budget committee, mr. speaker, and our staff director over there, rick, has done an amazing job shepherding this process. jenna, andy, tim flynn, robert, patrick lewis, jim pates, mary, jonathan, elise, these folks are all working day and night, weekends many times to get this product to the floor. steve gonzalez. eric davis, robert, ellen johnson, emily, brad watson, brittany, and steve. mr. speaker, s, who don't come here because they have political passion, they come here because they have policy fashion. they want to do though things
that matter. they could go anywhere they want to in town and make more money, but they stay here working for the american people because the who believe they can make a difference. and they're right. mr. speaker, they're right. they can make a difference. we can make a difference. this rule, this rule if we pass it today, mr. speaker, will allow us to concur in the senate amendment. concurring in the senate amendment does not bind us to the senate process, but it enables us to move a bill in that direction that they can process. we have seen the holdups in the senate, mr. speaker. i'm not happy about that. that's just wait senate process is. we can do better. reconciliation allows us to do better. passing this rule enables us to do better. vote yes, mr. speaker. yes on this rule. vote yes on the underlying budget. and open yourself up to doing together what has not been done together in 31 years.