[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 72 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2930-H2933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TAX PLAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, this Special Order is for the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus, and I am so proud to be a vice chair of that caucus 
and to lead the Special Order hour with my colleague, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  We do this once a week, and we try to take up topics that we think 
are of great interest across the country to our constituency. So I am 
very proud to have the Congressional Progressive Caucus leading the way 
on so many issues that are important, from education to transportation, 
infrastructure to, of course, today's topic, which is the tax plan that 
was released yesterday by President Trump.
  The tax plan that was released yesterday--and I have to start by 
saying I am not sure this is actually the plan. I am not sure that a 
one-page document constitutes a plan. This is not even a two-sided 
document. It is a one-sided document. This is what we are reacting to. 
And it is similar to the tax plan that candidate Trump spoke about 
during the campaign.
  So we will do our best with what has been put forward as a plan, but 
this plan, in our estimation, when you look at what it contains, really 
amounts to nothing more than a one-page document full of handouts to 
the rich.
  The Secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, yesterday said, during 
a press conference, that one thing that this President has done very 
well--this is a quote: ``One thing this President has done very well is 
listen.''
  Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree with that. Two weekends ago, there 
were 190,000 Americans in red States and blue States across the country 
who were on the streets asking for the President to release his tax 
returns in the same way that every other President of the United States 
has done in modern history. Unfortunately, this President has not 
listened. As a candidate, he said he would release his tax returns. As 
a President, he has refused to do so.

[[Page H2931]]

  He didn't listen when women and their allies took to the streets in 
the biggest march in American history to demand that he respect women, 
protect Planned Parenthood, and support equal rights for women.
  And this President certainly didn't listen to the millions of 
Americans who were outspoken in their opposition to the Republican 
healthcare plan that essentially took $1 trillion off of the backs of 
working people and folks who need health care across this country and 
transferred it to the wealthiest in our country.
  The reality is this President, unfortunately, has not been listening 
to the American people. If you look at that healthcare plan, just as an 
example, only 17 percent of the American public actually supported 
TrumpCare. This President has not been listening, to now put forward 
another plan on health care that again suggests that we should actually 
take away essential health benefits from people, take away the 
opportunity for people to have preexisting conditions covered, and, 
once again, leaving an additional 24 million Americans stripped of 
their health care.

                              {time}  1630

  So in this tax press conference yesterday, it became very clear that 
the administration doesn't have really an idea of exactly what the plan 
is going to look like, except for the fact that it will be good for 
business.
  Secretary Mnuchin said:
  ``Under the Trump plan, we will have a massive tax cut for 
businesses. . . .''
  Despite all of President Trump's broken promises, we have to believe 
that this may actually be true. Let's not forget that the Secretary of 
the Treasury was a C-level executive at Goldman Sachs and his loyalties 
have been with Big Business.
  The tax plan, as we have been given it on this one-page document, is 
a gift-wrapped tax cut to the highest earners and corporations. The 
claim is that it was written to create jobs and spur economic growth 
and help low- and middle-income families, but what it really does is 
drastically reduce tax rates for Big Business to just 15 percent. That 
tax break isn't just for cooperations; it is also for pass-through 
firms.
  Let's be clear about what pass-through firms are. Pass-through firms 
are entities that wealthy people and companies use in order to funnel 
money and have lower tax rates. Among these companies is The Trump 
Organization.
  This is why, in asking for the President's tax returns, this is not 
just an ask that doesn't have any meaning. It is not a partisan ask. We 
have 190,000 Americans in the streets in red States and blue States 
asking. When we know what is in the President's tax returns, then we 
have the ability to make sure that we understand, as the American 
people, whether any plan he proposes is in the interest of the American 
people or whether it is in his own financial interest.
  According to the Center for American Progress, 70 percent of 
partnership and S corporation income goes to the top 1 percent of U.S. 
households by income. So when you propose a tax cut for these pass-
through entities, we are talking about a tax cut for the people in the 
top 1 percent of this country. We are not talking about a tax cut that 
benefits middle class, working families.
  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities provided a specific 
example where a lawyer making $1 million a year could funnel their 
income through that pass-through and could actually save $180,000 a 
year. There is no doubt that this President would himself benefit from 
this tax plan, although we can't say exactly how much, because we 
haven't seen the tax returns and we don't know exactly which financial 
interests he has and how much he would benefit.
  However, his own lawyers reported that nearly all of his 500 or so 
businesses are--don't be surprised--pass-throughs. If we accept this 
assertion from his lawyers that his assets are worth more than $10 
billion, then this tax plan or tax ploy, depending on how you want to 
see it, would actually save the President of the United States millions 
of dollars, but it would not benefit millions of working families 
across this country who actually need to see our tax system reform so 
that it is more fair.
  When asked how these tax cuts were paid for, Secretary Mnuchin said 
they would be so effective at bolstering the economy that it would pay 
for itself. Now, we have seen trickle-down economics before in this 
country, and it is a nonsensical idea that this tax plan would bolster 
the economy. We have seen the disastrous effects of trickle-down 
economics specifically on low-income and middle-income families.
  The Tax Foundation estimates that reducing the business rate for 
companies and pass-throughs to 15 percent would actually reduce revenue 
in this country by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. They also found that, 
at the very best, the plan would only spur enough growth to pay for 
less than half the cost of the tax cuts. Low-and middle-income 
Americans would ultimately pay the price, not Big Business.
  Now, this is similar to what we saw in the healthcare plan. In the 
healthcare plan, if you remember, what we saw was a proposal to cut 
$880 billion from Medicaid and take that money and essentially give a 
trillion dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest. So if you were in the 
top 4 percent of income earners in this country, you would have gotten 
a tax cut of about $200,000 a year. But if you were in that age that we 
like to call seniors, between 50 and 64, you would have an age tax and 
you would have to pay up to $15,000 more on your premiums. So that is 
why some of my colleagues across the aisle actually called that 
healthcare plan a downpayment on a tax plan. It was supposed to be the 
beginning of a tax reform plan that, again, moved more money to the 
wealthiest in our country.
  We are seeing a State-level microcosm of this playing out right now 
in the State of Kansas where the State passed massive tax cuts, 
including exempting pass-throughs from State taxes.
  The result?
  More than 333,000 residents changed their income to funnel through 
pass-throughs in the first year alone.
  What happened in Kansas when this was pushed through?
  State revenue went down by an additional almost 2 percent, costing 
$206 million in 2013 and $472 million the following year.
  Today, the State faces a $1.1 billion shortfall, and residents are 
paying the price in lost programming and services. But the promise that 
was made at the time that this plan was pushed through in Kansas--the 
same kind of plan that is being proposed today at the Federal level--
the promise that was made was that it would kick-start the economy. 
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, that hasn't happened either. 
Economic growth in Kansas is happening at just half the national 
average.
  Because here is the thing: tax cuts don't just pay for themselves, 
and there are plenty of experts on both sides of the aisle that will 
attest to that. A sheet of paper is not a plan, and everyone knows it.
  When reporters pressed Secretary Mnuchin and the National Economic 
Council Director Gary Cohn for details, they failed to provide anything 
of substance. A reporter asked Cohn three times what the tax cut would 
look like for a family of four making $60,000 per year.

  I have a lot of those families, Mr. Speaker, in my district. I 
believe we have those families in red States and blue States, working 
people across this country who believe that America should be and must 
be a land of opportunity for people who work hard. Maybe they are not 
the richest people in the world. Maybe they are not the richest top 1 
percent in this country. But they work hard, they earn a good living, 
and they deserve to have fairness in our tax plan.
  Now, when Mr. Cohn was asked three times by this reporter what the 
tax cut would look like for a family of four making $60,000 a year, he 
replied it is ``gonna mean a tax cut'' three times in a row. Instead of 
getting answers, though, and when he was pressed, reporters were told 
over and over again that they would get more information later and that 
the administration is in ``robust talks.''
  Well, I am a Member of the House, and supposedly those robust talks 
are happening with the House and the Senate. We all represent the 
people of the United States. We want to all be a part

[[Page H2932]]

of the conversation, and we demand to know specifically, as we look at 
this plan, how this President, his family, and his Cabinet will benefit 
from the tax plan. That is only fair, Mr. Speaker, that we understand 
exactly how this tax plan would benefit the person who is proposing the 
tax plan.
  Is this tax plan for the American people to see relief, or is it for 
the President and his best friends to see relief?
  The reality is that this is about an issue of trust. The American 
people deserve to know whether they can trust this President and this 
administration to act on their behalf. So far, unfortunately, this 
administration has continued to throw the middle class under the bus, 
whether it is threatening to cut funding for Meals on Wheels, which is 
part of the budget proposal in cutting the CDBG programs, or whether it 
is in proposing a healthcare plan that cuts vital health care from 
millions of Americans. So we are intent to stay extremely vigilant.
  I see that we have a couple of colleagues from the Progressive 
Caucus.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee), a colleague on the Judiciary Committee, a strong champion 
for working people in Texas and across our country.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Jayapal) for yielding and for her leadership on this Special 
Order.
  I will take just a moment of the gentlewoman's time because I think 
she has captured the essence of the frustration, not that Members of 
Congress have, but that the American people have. So I wanted to make 
sure that I shared some of the contrasts that we have between what has 
happened yesterday and the announcement of the administration of Mr. 
Trump's tax proposal, which, in essence, is really a bowl of horror. It 
is a continuation of an ineffective 100 days, and the fear that I have 
is that it was rushed and put together to meet this really unnecessary 
standard or unnecessary test of 100 days, one that was so pronounced 
during Mr. Trump's campaign in contrast to Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush, and 
Mr. Obama, the last three Presidents that we have as examples.
  What is in the first 100 days?
  The first 100 days should be working. You should be working every day 
and you should have to account or you should be able to account for the 
successes that you have done in the normal course of work. 
Methodically, you can check off the good that you have done for the 
American people; that it comes naturally, that you have been 
methodical, that you have worked with Congress, that you worked with 
your executives, that you have looked to see what can be improved.
  All that we can see is what has been destroyed or dismantled or taxed 
or ridiculed. There is nothing that advantages the American people.
  Certainly, the healthcare bill was ridiculing the American people. It 
was ridiculous. $880 billion was taken from Medicaid; $600 billion was 
to be used for tax cuts, which they do not have at this point. We fear 
that they will be rushing through such a bill in the next couple of 
days.
  More importantly, where was the commitment to all of the promises?
  So let me just speak to two particular points.
  The economic security of women, what has happened under this 
administration?
  Blocking expanded overtime pay, which disproportionately benefits 
women workers. Failing to advance equal pay, paid family leave, and 
affordable childcare legislation, talking about it but doing nothing.
  Endangering retirement security by blocking a rule requiring 
retirement advisers to put clients first.
  Can you imagine?
  Senior citizens have helped build this country, and you would deny 
them adequate counsel on their retirement. That has happened.
  All of these have happened under the Trump administration: proposing 
severe cuts to the Department of Labor, which would hinder enforcement 
of family and medical leave. Of course, cutting Meals on Wheels, as has 
been indicated. Cutting the National Institutes of Health. Major 
lifesaving research down the drain. Scientists looking for other 
countries to go to because they have no room at the inn.
  And then making student debt harder to pay off by rescinding a rule 
that limits the fees that loan companies can charge its borrowers. 
Remember, those borrowers are 18, 19, 20, 21 years old. They are the 
next generation or the current generation of the builders of this 
economy and this society.
  Then to add insult to injury, if I might say, yesterday a big 
pronouncement announced over the weekend the biggest, fattest tax cut 
you could ever have or tax reform that you would ever have. Of course, 
everyone knows in America this is not tax reform. This is a simple 
bunch of tax cuts that will have a competition between debt and 
deficit. This will be a spiraling downward trend digging America into 
the deepest hole of debt and deficit in the history of the United 
States.

  Trillions of dollars spent on individuals and corporations that do 
not need it.
  How do I know?
  I have spoken to them, and there is a whole litany of corporate 
issues that are not being answered.
  For example, the idea of being able to deduct interest payments is 
nowhere to be found. That might help middle class working families, as 
well as corporations and small businesses.
  What you have is trickle-down economics. President Trump's tax plan 
is built on the same trickle-down economics that withered inequality 
and undermined working families.
  There are massive tax breaks for Trump himself. In the course of his 
days that he may have paid taxes--and let me be very clear that we 
don't know what impact this tax bill would have on him because we do 
not have his tax returns. But we do know, in the last time we have 
records, he had to pay $39 million in taxes because of the alternative 
minimum tax put in place in 1986 by President Reagan.
  Can you imagine?
  If there was not the AMT--alternative minimum tax--he would be paying 
$5 million.

                              {time}  1645

  Well, ladies and gentlemen, my dear colleagues, they have eliminated 
in this tax bill the AMT. That sounds suspicious, and it shouldn't 
sound suspicious. It is suspicious, and the reality of it is it is 
self-promoting and self-happening.
  Then, of course, these tax cuts are moving the corporate rate from 35 
to 15. Let me make a breaking news announcement. Most corporations pay 
about 14, but with the 35 moved to 15, maybe they will pay zero.
  Who is going to be part of the overall supporting and investment in 
this Nation, to build our infrastructure, to create jobs, to build the 
new level of energy, new technology, to ensure that health care is 
provided for those who need it, to make sure that the Affordable Care 
Act continues to cover the millions of people that need it instead of 
cutting 24 million people?
  Well, with the tax cuts in place, there is a rush to judgment. That 
judgment is a pronouncement of a complete deficit hole for the American 
people. That is what this tax cut does. There are no benefits for 
working class Americans or middle class Americans. There is no 
incentive to create jobs. In fact, I have no idea what the thinking or 
planning was that went into the President's tax plan.
  All I know is that the American people who get up every day and go to 
work, or those who get up every day and get three or four buses to go 
to work--and part of the time that they are going to work, they have to 
drop off their children at a school that may not be in their 
neighborhood because there is a need for more investment in education. 
All I know is that those people whom I am so proud to be able to 
represent, as well as large businesses and small businesses that, I 
believe, as I have listened to corporate leaders just a few hours ago 
saying, ``We are with you all. We want what is best for America. This 
is not what we desire, not to give all to us or the top 1 percent. We 
want to help America grow because, as America grows, our companies 
thrive, our shareholders thrive,'' that is not the message of this 
administration.
  So I am delighted to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus to ask 
the question of the Trump administration: Are you so worried about the 
100

[[Page H2933]]

days that you cannot worry about the American people? Is 100 days more 
important than the mother who is traveling to work 3 and 4 hours? Is 
100 days more important than the traveling salesmen who need the kind 
of infrastructure and roads that work? or those in southern America 
that need the kind of rural electric system that helps them? or those 
that need clean energy? or those that need research for the next cure 
for sickle cell anemia?
  Is your 100 days so important that you cannot provide resources for 
law enforcement and firefighters and first responders, that you cannot 
provide help for the national parks, the National Endowment for the 
Arts, and you cannot provide direction to the Department of Justice, 
which has turned itself into the injustice, unjust department, 
exploring ideas of taking away civil rights, denying individuals their 
rights as citizens in the United States in terms of discrimination and 
equality, opportunity or, in actuality, creating the one thing that you 
can be proud of, and that is the deportation task force that is 
demonizing hardworking individuals who simply want an opportunity for 
their families?
  So I would only say that I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, 
and I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), as well, for his 
presence here and others that will come and ask the question: Are all 
these people that we have listed less important than your 100 days? I 
am saddened if the answer is yes.
  Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and 
who is leading tonight ``Congressional Progressive Caucus Special Order 
the impact of President Trump's Tax Cut Plan.''
  As a member of the House Budget Committee, I would participate in any 
Committee's markup of a tax reform bill.
  President Trump's much anticipated tax plan is another 
disappointment; a poor work product; something he should have been 
ashamed to put his name on; and it reveals yet again what many warned 
about before the election.
  This President is unprepared for his office, and he shows either no 
capacity or interest in on the job training.
  This tax plan in any school of business would get a failing grade.
  A one page federal tax cut plan--really is an insult to the American 
People.
  This plan shows no command of the facts regarding our nation's very 
complex tax system.
  President Trump's tax plan, just as his healthcare reform proposal, 
and immigration reform proposal would hurt working families and 
disproportionately favor the wealthy and large corporations at the 
expense of the nation's middle class.
  Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin set out a test for tax reform that, 
``there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class.''
  But the president's tax plan has failed this test miserably by 
providing a huge tax cut for the wealthy while middle income families 
would receive very little benefit.
  In fact, Trump's tax plan provides a huge tax benefit for him 
personally. Using his 2005 tax return numbers, President Trump would 
save about $28.6 million in taxes under his plan.
  About $27 million of those savings is due to the reduction of the 
pass through income rate to 15%.
  President Trump's tax proposal blows a hole in the nation's deficit.
  It's become painfully obvious that the deficit only matters when a 
Democrat is President.
  The plan is not revenue neutral. In fact, early press reports 
indicate that the Trump proposal is likely to add several trillions of 
dollars to our deficit.
  Busting the deficit the way the Trump tax plan would do puts 
immediate pressure on our other obligations--including guaranteed 
Medicare benefits.
  The President can't pretend to protect Medicare, then leave 
beneficiaries completely exposed by draining our coffers.
  For some context, these tax cuts could fund Medicare for the next 75 
years or more.
  You have to question the priorities of the President--is he working 
to keep his promises to hardworking Americans, or is he abandoning 
those promises in favor of enriching the wealthy.
  President Trump's tax proposal is a return to Reagan's failed supply 
side economics.
  The evidence is clear: large tax cuts like this don't pay for 
themselves, despite the rhetoric we hear from this Administration. Just 
ask the conservative leaning Tax Foundation.
  This broad outline--which lacks any kind of real detail--seems to 
simply be a repeat of the mistakes we made with President George W. 
Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, which cost us trillions of dollars, 
did nothing to help working families, and, in part, contributed to the 
Great Recession.
  Democrats know that the Middle Class deserves the tax cut, not Donald 
Trump and his Cabinet.
  We would focus on growing our economy from the middle out, instead of 
trickle-down economics from the top down.
  The middle class does not need to lose their healthcare coverage 
provided by the Affordable Care Act.
  The middle class does not need to deal with the consequence of a 
massive tax cut for the wealthy.
  Any tax cut must be paid for by getting funding from somewhere else 
in the federal budget.
  The source of funding to pay for the tax cuts under the failed repeal 
of the Affordable Care Act would have come from Medicare and Medicaid--
hurting millions of people who would have lost access to health 
insurance coverage.
  I am joining my colleagues this evening in strong opposition to this 
Administration's attempt to diminish the quality of life of working 
families by creating unfair burdens like funding ill-conceived tax cut 
plans.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for 
eloquently articulating so many of the issues that are in front of us 
right now, including, once again: What exactly is this administration 
doing for people across this country, both those who voted for him and 
those who didn't, but middle class Americans who are trying to make 
sure that this country stays a land of opportunity?
  Mr. Speaker, so the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my 
distinguished vice chair and co-chair of this Special Order hour, may 
control the remainder of this hour, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                          ____________________