[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.
____________________