[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 181 (Tuesday, November 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8590-H8594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX POLICY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I came here to talk about tax policy, and
I will; however, having listened for the last 60 minutes to the most
remarkable admission that Russia is meddling in America in many, many
ways, even an admission that Russia somehow wants to influence
America's elections--in this case, America's elections for the last
year--I am pleased that my Republican colleagues are so adamant in
pursuing Russian influence and, perhaps, controversial influence in the
United States. I am pleased that they are doing that.
I am also pleased that Mr. Mueller is continuing his investigations.
I will note that there have been two indictments and one guilty plea
that have already come forth from his investigation having to do with
people that are very, very close to President Trump's administration.
More will come of that, and I certainly hope our Republican friends
will continue to focus on the fact that Russia is playing very serious
and, quite possibly, illegal games or activities here in the United
States.
We will carry on. I firmly believe that Mr. Mueller is not about to
resign or be fired. If he were to be fired, I would suspect that there
would be far more serious consequences than the kind of yapping we just
heard for the last hour here on the floor.
Let me go back to my original point, which has to do with tax policy.
As interesting as Russia might be, tax policy is going to be far, far
more consequential in the long term. Whatever comes of the Russian
situation in the election and conspiracies or other kinds of conflicts
will bear themselves out over the next several years or months. Tax
policy, however, is something that America is going to live with for a
long, long time, were it to pass.
There are many things we could say about it. One is that, yes, the
top 1 percent of America's wealthiest people--you take 360 million of
us Americans and take the top 1 percent--are going to get 50 percent of
all of the tax cuts that are in this multitrillion-dollar tax cut
legislation.
So a trillion and a half dollars over the next 10 years to the top 1
percent ought to really drive up that problem that we call income
disparity in the United States, you know, what we used to talk about:
the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, or that America has a real
problem with the superwealthy controlling most of the wealth and the
rest of Americans really left behind.
So this tax bill is going to make it even worse. Now, that is really
good. How does it do that?
Well, let's see. By eliminating the estate tax. Yes, five members of
President Trump's Cabinet, including the President, would benefit in
the billions. You see, the estate tax would be eliminated in just 4
years, about the same time they would be leaving the administration.
What does that mean?
Well, if you have a billion-dollar estate and there is a tax on that,
you can eliminate the first $10 million, $11 million of that, but you
have a 40 percent tax on the remainder. Well, that is about $400
million in estate tax.
Who would have a billion-dollar estate?
The President, Mr. Ross, the Treasury Secretary, maybe the Education
Secretary, maybe others.
So who is going to benefit from this?
The superwealthy, to the tune of millions upon millions or hundreds
of millions of dollars of the estate tax itself.
There is much more to that. American corporations would see their top
rating from 39 down to 20. Who is going to benefit from that?
Well, we heard the Treasury Secretary say the American workers will.
Where is the evidence for that?
There is no evidence for that, none at all; in fact, quite the
contrary. The Treasury Department's own tax analysis section says that
70 percent of the after-profit taxes now go to, guess who. Stockholders
and executives, not to the workers.
It used to be that way back in the sixties and seventies. Maybe 70
percent went to the workers, went to increasing plants and equipment,
investments in the United States. It is not that way anymore. Quite the
contrary. The American workers will be left behind once again by those
tax reductions.
That is not to say we shouldn't reduce the nominal tax rate for
corporations. Yes, we should, but we should do it in a way that
actually helps American workers. It keeps investments in the United
States. But, no, not this tax proposal. This one actually creates what
is called territorial accounting for international corporations.
Let's suppose that you have an international corporation located in
Silicon Valley. We have some really big ones there. Territorial taxes
would be that all of the earnings that that corporation has outside of
the United States would be beyond being taxed by the United States,
even though it is an American corporation that can manipulate the price
of its goods and services to actually push, overseas, its profits.
Brilliant.
You want to bring jobs back to America? Don't do territorial tax
reform. It doesn't work for the American worker. It works for the
stockholders. Their stocks and stock prices will go up. They will be
able to receive even more benefits.
That is only $3 trillion over 10 years of reduction for corporation
taxes.
Who benefits?
Wall Street corporate executives.
Who loses?
The American worker loses.
One more thing that is on my mind is that I used to hear last year,
the year before last, the year before that--in fact, for the last two
decades--a lot of talk from about more than half of the Members of this
House of Representatives who would talk about the horrible impact of
the American deficit and that it would lead to ruin for the American
economy, our grandchildren would be left to pay it off, and all the
horrible things that the deficit would bring to the United States,
ultimately leading to the collapse of the American economy.
[[Page H8591]]
Well, there is some truth in that. The hyperbole was a little bit
more than necessary, but, indeed, it is a problem to see our deficit
ever increasing.
Every now and then, we come up against the debt limit, and, oh, my
goodness, the debate that took place here: We have got to stop it. We
have got to stop deficit financing. We have got to bring our budget
back into balance.
Not a bad idea. In fact, it is the right thing to do. And, by the
way, it was actually done during the Clinton administration.
For 2 years, almost 3 years, the American Federal Government ran a
surplus, and it was estimated that in the 2000 to 2010 period, if that
surplus were to continue, it might lead to a significant and
troublesome reduction in the American debt. That is a complex question
as to why that would be troublesome, but, nonetheless, it was said.
{time} 2000
So what happened?
George W. Bush came in, cut taxes, decided we would go to war, first
war ever in America's history that was not financed by taxes but by
borrowing, mostly from China, and the deficit began to explode. And
then there was the great collapse in 2008, and the deficit went right
through the roof.
So we have been living, since that time of the George W. Bush tax
cuts with a deficit, a structural deficit that has not been solved
despite all the rhetoric from the deficit hawks.
Now, I guess the deficit hawks, like the Canadian geese, have somehow
migrated to the far south of Washington, D.C., because I don't hear any
around here today. They have migrated somewhere far away from
Washington. But what I hear from those previous folks that called
themselves deficit hawks is that they want to drive up the American
deficit, that they have a proposal to actually increase the American
deficit.
Oh, wonderful, they say, not to worry. We can increase the deficit by
well over $1.5 trillion in the next decade and it will be lovely. We
will create more jobs.
I am going: Excuse me. I must have missed something in this debate.
You just said a year ago that those deficits would somehow create a
calamity for the American economy, that we would lose jobs, we would
lose our competitiveness, that we would come to ruin, and now you are
telling me I shouldn't worry about a $1.5 trillion increase in the
deficit over the next decade?
Wow, how does that work? How does that happen?
I want to share something with you. I became--trying to understand
what this was all about, how could it be 6 months ago or a year ago
they were deficit hawks and they had to do away with the deficit and
now they want to increase the deficit? What is this all about?
So I asked my staff: Give me some numbers. Don't we have what we know
as a structural deficit built into the budget of the United States tax
revenues significantly lower than the expenditures, and therefore we
have this structural deficit? Show me what those numbers are.
So they did, and here they are.
Structural deficit, 2018, the structural deficit is $567 billion.
That is half a trillion. That is the structural deficit that exists
today without any of this discussion about tax cuts.
Next year, 2019, it is expected to be $689 billion, two-thirds of $1
trillion in 1 year--in 1 year.
And it goes on.
The structural deficit in 2020, $775 billion. That is the ongoing
structural deficit in the Federal budget: revenue received,
expenditures--expenditures $775 billion more than the revenue in 2020.
This isn't talking about the new tax cuts that are being discussed
now here in Congress.
And so it goes.
In 2022, it is $1 trillion annual structural deficit.
So what does this tax cut mean?
Oh, it is only $1.4 trillion or $1.5 trillion over a 10-year period,
but that is on top of the existing structural deficit.
So here you have it. This year, the existing structural deficit
before any tax cuts, we are talking about $563 billion. Added to that,
as a result of the Republican Ryan-McConnell-Trump tax cuts, we are
adding $114 billion on top of $563 billion so that the structural
deficit, should this new tax cut ever come into place, will be $677
billion--not millions, billions.
Over the next 10 years, by the end of the 10-year period, as that tax
cut, this new tax cut goes into effect, with the addition adding to the
existing structural deficit, in the year 2027, 10 years from now, you
can expect a $1.6 trillion structural deficit.
This is a problem. It is a problem that is made even worse--even
worse--by the fact that the benefit of the tax cut does not go to
economic growth, but quite the contrary. It does not go to the working
men and women, the middle class of America who really do need to have a
better way, better wages, more money in their pockets, a better living,
a better ability to take care of their family and their children, a
better education, a better opportunity, and a better infrastructure.
No. No. None of that will happen. Instead, what will happen as a result
of the Republican tax cut is that the wealthy will get wealthier.
Remember this: 50 percent of all of the tax cut benefits--and we are
talking trillions here, as much as $3 trillion over a 10-year period.
Fifty percent of that will go to the top 1 percent of Americans. We are
talking the superwealthy here.
That is not a better way. That is an awful way to run a government.
That is an awful thing for an economy when you continue to skew the
American economy to the superwealthy and leave behind the American
worker, the American family struggling to do better, struggling to have
a better opportunity for their children in school, a better road or a
better bus or a better train on which to travel, a better
transportation system.
So here we are. Here we are in the House of Representatives debating
in committee today how to make the deficit worse, how to increase the
structural deficit over the next 10 years, how to literally run this
country into bankruptcy.
No, we are not going to go bankrupt, but what we will do, we will
terminate key programs as we struggle to find ways of balancing the
budget with so little Federal revenue available to us as a result of
these tax cuts. I could probably go on for an hour and just work myself
into a rage about the lost opportunity.
We Democrats have proposed a better solution, a better way to deal
with the tax policies, one that actually provides benefits to the
working families of America, who, as our Republican friends like to
say, sit around the kitchen table and worry about their debts. Yes,
indeed, they do. They worry about it. We have a better way of providing
for the infrastructure, a better way of providing for our national
security, our education, and on and on.
The architect of those programs that lay out a better way for the
American economy and the American worker and the American family is
with us here tonight, our minority leader, Ms. Pelosi.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I accept his compliment on behalf of the House Democratic Caucus,
which really developed the better deal. It sprang from our membership,
with consensus based on our values that keep us united for America's
working families. That is the unifying factor in our Democratic Caucus
in the House.
Mr. Garamendi, I thank you for your diligence in always coming to the
floor and speaking truth about the numbers, about what they mean to
America's future, and also about making it in America. So much of that
is violated by what the Republicans have put forth.
I thank you for starting with the budget, because a budget should be
a statement of national values. What is important to us as a nation
should be reflected in how we allocate our resources. That is how we
Democrats have always thought of it and acted upon it.
That is not what is present in the Republican budget on which these
taxes are predicated.
Would it be a statement of your values to take $1.5 trillion from
Medicare and Medicaid and give a $1.5 trillion tax cut to corporate
America while, at
[[Page H8592]]
the same time, saying to working families you are going to have to pay
what little--hit them on their deduction on SALT, the State and local
taxes, and rubbing salt in the wound by saying that corporations don't
have that deduction taken away from them and, at the same time, in this
tax plan, making it advantageous for corporations to send jobs overseas
by having them pay a lower tax for a factory they set up abroad than
they would pay in the United States?
It is just not right. It is just not fair.
You have been a champion, along with Mr. Hoyer, on making it in
America. Again, this tax proposal that the Republicans are putting
forth does violence to all of that.
And thank you for pointing out the structural nature of what they are
doing to the budget. The Republicans, our colleagues, are supposed to
be deficit hawks. We agree that we must pay as you go. That has been
our modus operandi until the Republicans came along and removed that:
You want something? Pay as you go.
Republicans contend to be deficit hawks, but that must be an
endangered species because none of them seem to recognize or
acknowledge the damage they are doing to our fiscal soundness as we go
out not just in the first 10 years, which is damaging enough and
structurally horrible enough, but in the following 10 years. And we in
Congress, when we make proposals that have a budget impact, have to
account for not only the first 10 years, but the second 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, in the second 10 years, the horror of what the
Republican tax bill does to the budget is a hemorrhaging--a
hemorrhaging. This tax bill, when Members vote for it, if they do, will
be an assault on our children's future. It is not only fiscally
unsound, it is morally ungrounded because it says to our children and,
in my case, our grandchildren: You are going to have to pay the bill.
The sad part of it is it has an impact on the budget. It comes back
and says, well, we have so much deficit and so much debt service, so
much interest on the national debt, we are now going to have to make
further cuts in education, in research and development, in all of the
initiatives that produce innovation.
Innovation begins in the classroom. They make an assault on the
classroom in this tax bill. It is going to get worse when they try to
pay for it.
Then, of course, it is fiscal engineering so that they can go after
Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security once again. They have never
really believed in Medicare. They say it should wither on the vine, and
in this bill, they do violence to it.
But let's just talk about what this does to the State of California,
my colleague, because our Golden State, which we are proud to
represent, is a great economic resource to the Nation--to the Nation.
It contributes enormously to our balance in trade, whether it is
agriculture from your area, innovation, entertainment, whatever it is.
California is a big producer of favorable balance of trade for America.
Without California and without the industries that it has spread
throughout the country, we would be in an even worse trade situation
than we are now for all the giveaways that the Republicans are giving
in the trade issue.
But let me just talk about this and what it means to people in their
homes at their kitchen table when they are trying to pay the bills,
establish their own priorities, make ends meet.
It is shocking, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely shocking that 14 of our
colleagues from California voted for a budget, and now many of them are
proposing to vote for a tax bill, that will hurt their constituents to
the tune of tens of thousands of their constituents.
Doug LaMalfa, the First District of California, around 100,000
households in his district claim the SALT deduction to the tune of
thousands of dollars, and they will lose that.
Tom McClintock, around 100,000 or more claimed the deduction, and
that is 36 percent of the households in his district, and they will
lose thousands of dollars.
How does Paul Cook explain to his constituents, 57,000 of them who
have claimed the deduction, that he is going to cost them thousands of
dollars by increasing their tax bill?
{time} 2015
Jeff Denham, he is really going to have to explain it very hard to a
large percentage of his constituents as to how he is increasing their
tax bill by thousands of dollars.
David Valadao, tens of thousands of his constituents will get the bad
news if he insists on voting for this bill, which will cost them
thousands of dollars.
Devin Nunes, tens of thousands of his constituents will pay the price
for his lack of courage in a vote to go down the line with the
Republicans to give a tax break to the wealthiest corporate America at
the expense of their constituents, a direct expense and cost to their
constituents.
Kevin McCarthy says to corporate America: We will give you $1.5
trillion tax cut, and guess who is paying for it? Around over 100,000
of my constituents to the tune of thousands of dollars.
Steve Knight: Don't worry, my constituents, we are giving the tax cut
to corporate America, $1.5 trillion, and we are taking it out of your
pocket, you are paying more.
Sadly, Ed Royce has the largest number of people who will be
affected, close to 100,000 people, and they will be spending thousands
of dollars more in the taxes that they pay because of SALT.
Ken Calvert, the same thing, tens of thousands paying thousands of
dollars more.
Mimi Walters, how does she explain to her constituents, tens of
thousands of them, that they will be paying thousands of dollars more
in taxes? Why? To give a tax break to the top 2 percent: 80 percent of
the tax break goes to the top 2 percent, 50 percent of it goes to the
top 1 percent, $1.5 trillion goes to corporate America.
Dana Rohrabacher, the same thing, tens of thousands of people will be
paying thousands of dollars more.
Darrell Issa. Hopefully Darrell won't vote for this. Hopefully some
of these constituents will make sure that their Member of Congress
knows that they see what is happening. Darrell Issa, well over 100,000
constituents paying thousands of dollars more.
Duncan Hunter, the same thing, around the same number. Well over
100,000--well over 150,000 paying thousands of dollars more. That
represents about a third of his district.
But, as I said before, to rub salt in the wounds, while they are
saying to their constituents, ``You are going to pay more because we
are taking away your deduction,'' they are saying to corporate America,
``Your deductions for State and local taxes you keep.'' It is just
remarkable.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Leader, if I might, you said SALT. It is like
really pouring salt on a wound. But SALT is State and local taxes.
So for California, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, and other States
that have big populations, they collect this revenue, and it cannot be
deducted. The numbers you have, I understand those came from the
Department of the Treasury and the IRS.
Ms. PELOSI. And I underestimated them because I know they would
question them, so I gave a conservative view. It is worse.
But you bring up the State and local, what SALT means, State and
local taxes. The State and localities, did you see there is a letter--I
don't have it right here--from the mayors of scores of cities in
California asking the Members of Congress not to vote for this because
of the provision that is in there that undermines their ability to
address the education needs of their constituents, of the people in
those towns and cities, the public safety issues? We had a firefighter
come testify as to what it means to public safety, to law enforcement,
to meeting the needs of people so that they can learn, that they can
work, that they can raise their families, and to do so in a way that
everyone pays his or her fair share. That is not the case here.
So, again, it is a boon to the megarich corporate special interest
and a bust to the middle class. It also is very harmful to small
business.
While the Republicans will say this is good for the middle class, it
is not. They give with one hand something and take with another, so
they can set the banquet table for the superrich corporate America and
throw some crumbs to the middle class and say:
[[Page H8593]]
Sucker. I am just telling it the way it is.
Instead, Democrats say: Let's go to the table, let's be respectful of
each other's views, let's have a clear objective debate on putting
growth in the middle table--what creates growth for our economy,
generating good-paying jobs, not stagnated wages, good-paying jobs, and
reduces the deficit, instead of taking us into a hemorrhaging state of
deficit in the years to come.
That is part of what is now. If time allows, and after the gentleman
says his remarks, I will go into some of the specific ways in which
cruelty is demonstrated in this budget. But right now, I just want to
say this is a letter to the California delegation from 24 cities with
their seals at the top and the signature of their mayors, some of them
Republican, who have asked not to pass a bill that has this provision
in it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Leader, you raised a very important point early
on here about the way in which--I just heard you ask to reach out to
Republicans to sit down and talk about how to structure a decent tax
reform, not just a tax cut for the wealthy.
My understanding is the Republicans have not even offered a moment--a
second--to discuss these tax bills with any of us, nor have they had
even one hearing on the most consequential economic policy that this
Nation could put forward. Not a hearing at all, but rushing out
secretly. Today, I understand they had a markup, but no witnesses,
other than someone to answer questions as to the impact.
And there has been discussion about the past major tax cut of Ronald
Reagan's in 1986, in which we heard that there were 2 years of hearings
all around the Nation and, I guess, more than 30 hearings in Congress
before that major tax bill passed in 1986. But now here we are rushing
this huge monumental and very detrimental tax bill through.
Now, that is what I have heard, and I am not in the leadership, but,
as far as I know, they haven't talked to you.
Ms. PELOSI. No. Well, what you see is they haven't really talked to
the American people because they don't want the American people to know
what is in this bill.
You would think that at the time when the bill is being marked up in
committee, when they came to the floor instead of engaging in their
conspiracy theories, they would, instead, brag about what they are
doing if they think it is right, but they are not. And the reason is
they are going so fast. This is the speed of light, in the dark of
night, so that nobody knows until it is too late, but we are going to
make sure that everyone does.
Let me correct my statement. I am not sure if any of the Republican
mayors signed this letter, but 24 mayors did. I see two prominent
mayors lacking on here, and I guess the discipline of the Republican
Party is extended to the mayors. But their cities will suffer, and they
know it.
Just another point, because you brought up process. I am not into
process. This is about what does this mean to America's families. But
because you brought it up, it is important to know that they don't want
people to know, and that is why their process is so behind closed
doors. Their members didn't even know what was in this until a couple
of days ago.
Mr. GARAMENDI. You said it. I was astounded that, during the first
Special Order hour, there were about 12 members of the Republican Party
who came down here on some weird conspiracy theory, and I am going:
Wait a minute, guys, why don't you talk about your tax bill; why don't
you sit up here and brag about all of the good things you are doing on
the tax bill?
Apparently they want to hide.
Ms. PELOSI. Every single one of them is voting to raise the taxes of
their constituents.
And in California--not that they were from California--but the
nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that
5.5 million California taxpayers--that is about a third of our
taxpayers, and that is families, so that is many people--will see an
average tax increase of $4,180; 2.2 million of those receiving a tax
increase will have incomes of less than $110,000.
Mr. GARAMENDI. That is middle-income.
Ms. PELOSI. So how can they say to the middle class, this is for you?
Mr. GARAMENDI. You were laying out, Madam Leader, our Republican
colleagues from California who seem to ignore or want to not even think
about the State and local tax deduction, and also the mortgage interest
deduction. Trying to find a house in California that is for less than
$500,000 or $700,000 is virtually impossible. Certainly in the bay
area, much of southern California, and in the Sacramento region, it is
almost impossible.
So by reducing that mortgage interest deduction, together with State
and local taxes, you are seriously increasing the tax burden on
homeowners and on working men and women in California.
You laid it out so very well. In the district directly to my south--
Mr. Denham's district--101,000 of his constituents currently have a
$7,982 average deduction for State and local taxes, and for the
mortgage interest. They will lose that, and they will wind up paying
somewhere between 25 to 30 percent on that lost deduction. So let's say
25 percent of $8,000 is what, $2,000? New taxes right there.
Ms. PELOSI. New taxes.
And we all want to encourage homeownership because it is putting down
roots. Building community is very important. But it is not just
California, it is across the country.
We are speaking from our experience. We are holding the California
Republicans accountable. But every one of the Members who votes here is
doing an injustice to the ability of States and local governments to do
their job. We are cutting taxes. Now you go raise them so you can get
the job done. So it makes matters even worse when you see what else is
there.
Some of the cruelties that are in the bill, I mean, macrowise we know
that this is a big transfer of wealth from middle class people to
corporate America and to the superrich. We know that it is unfair to
the middle class and will raise taxes on the middle class. It will
increase the deficit. It is a legacy assault on our children's future.
In addition, it deprives us opportunity cost to our budget in the near-
term.
But there are some things in here that maybe are illustrative of the
fact that this is not a statement of anybody's values that you know.
Let's talk about education for a moment. First of all, with all due
respect, Mr. Speaker, one of the dumbest moves in this bill, with stiff
competition, but one of the dumbest moves in this bill is the cut to
education. Nothing brings more money to the Treasury than investing in
education: early childhood, K-12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime
learning. And in this bill, they, of course, make an assault on
education.
For example, if you have a student loan, right now you have a $2,500
deduction for your interest payment on the loan. Not in this bill. Make
that zero.
What? What did the middle class ever do to the Republicans that they
are going to take away a deduction for interest on student loans when
it is hard enough to save up and pay for college?
Next, now let's just go down to grade school. You are a teacher and
you bring to school supplies for the classroom because your district is
too poor to afford all of the things that the children would like to
have. Right now, you get a tax deduction for what you bring to the
classroom, but not in this bill. They have to take that away so they
can give a tax break to the superrich so that schoolteacher isn't even
compensated adequately, is sacrificing her personal funds, gets a tax
break, but they take it away because the top 2 percent are desperate
for their tax cut. But I don't think they are. I have more faith in the
people of our country to say: Let us pay our fair share and let's do
what is right.
But the list goes on on the things about lifetime learning and
employers being able to provide for the training of workers: bye-bye.
Let me just tell you this one, since we are talking about education
and children. In the bill, right now you get a tax credit to help you
with adopting a child.
{time} 2030
Such a joy to a family. If you are adopting a child with special
needs, a tax credit. Not now. They have got to take that tax credit
away from you. You don't need it anymore because
[[Page H8594]]
they have got to give it to corporate America.
If your employer decides that their place of business wants to help
you with adoption, they get a deduction for helping you with your
adoption. Not under this bill. Say good-bye to that.
Tax credit to the family adopting, tax deduction to the employer all
gone so they can give the top 1 percent of our country 50 percent of
this benefit at the cost of America's working families.
If you have medical needs, since 1944, you could deduct medical
expenses for extraordinary medical needs. Very important to America's
families. Not anymore. Say good-bye to that because we have got to take
care of the superrich, so the pressure is on you.
The list goes on and on, but it gets personal. For families, it makes
a difference as to whether their children can go to college. It makes a
difference as to whether they can make ends meet with their medical
expenses. It makes a difference if they don't have their State and
local tax deduction. Again, this is across the country. We are speaking
from our California experience.
It would take all night to go through the sins in this tax bill. I
just wanted to give you a touch of some of those and how they directly
impact America's working families while they profess that they are
helping them. Not true.
Then they say: Oh, it is going to pay for itself.
Never has, never has. Don't take it from us. Bruce Bartlett, who is
part of this supply side economics leadership as well as the trickle-
down economics, said: We never said it would pay for itself. Anybody
who says it does, it is not true. It is nonsense.
He even went on to say it was BS, as I am allowed to say on the floor
of the House in its initial form.
These other things they say that just aren't true--oh, they take the
name of Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt in vain, and even President
Ronald Reagan: Oh, this is what they did.
No, this isn't what they did. They had over 400 people to testify, 30
hearings over a period of a couple of years, and worked in a bipartisan
way to iron out so that it would have sustainability. That is the only
way you get a good tax bill, is if it is bipartisan and sustainable.
So, in any event, this is a moment of truth for the American people,
and we want the truth to be known.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for calling the
Special Order.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Madam Leader for joining us
tonight.
I remember here on the floor, when the debate occurred over the
budget that did pass the House of Representatives a couple of weeks
ago, you spoke eloquently on the floor about what this budget would
mean, that it would open the door to some very bad public policies, in
fact, public policies that would harm individual Americans as well as
the American economy, and you were very passionate about it. You said
that about the budget, which passed the House only on Republican votes,
no Democrat votes.
Ms. PELOSI. And just barely. Just barely.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes. Jeff Denham, Mr. McClintock, and the other
Republicans from California included.
Ms. PELOSI. All 14 California Republicans, like lemmings to the sea,
betraying the economic security of their constituents' families.
Mr. GARAMENDI. You laid it out. You made it very, very clear that it
would lead to a tax bill that would be harmful. We had some ideas then
what it would be, but we had no idea that it would be such a horrendous
problem for the American economy and particularly for the American
workers and middle class. You laid that out very well.
You also laid out very, very clearly that in that budget was the
blueprint for the evisceration of programs that Americans depend upon.
You talked about Medicare and you talked about Medicaid, of which 60
percent of Medicaid goes to seniors in nursing homes across this
Nation, and the potential cut that would come to Medicare.
You also talked about how it would, as you just did, go after the
education system, after research that we need for medical research, and
economics, and all of the sciences. You talked about the
infrastructure.
You laid out that that budget bill was the template. We are now
seeing that template come to reality on the floor of the House first
with this tax cut. Probably within months, should this tax bill pass,
we are going to see the rest of what you told us to watch out for.
Watch out for the cuts coming to Medicare, watch out for the cuts
coming to Medicaid, to education, to infrastructure, to the things that
Americans depend upon in their daily lives, the Meals on Wheels
program, and then the supplemental nutrition programs.
Standing right here, I remember I was in the back of the room here,
and I heard you speak about what would happen if that budget bill
passed the House. It did. Now we are seeing the first step. There will
be another step. They will come back after the Affordable Care Act and
medical care and all of that. I wish you were wrong.
Ms. PELOSI. I do, too.
Mr. GARAMENDI. What you did standing here warning us, I wish you were
wrong, but you are not. You are absolutely correct. Now we are seeing
it play out here in secret without public hearings.
We are going to talk about this, and I hope the American people will
hold those accountable who vote for such a horrendous economic policy,
one that actually creates a structural deficit that will be virtually
impossible for America to get out of, and all of the harm that will
come by shifting enormous wealth to the men and women who already are
the wealthiest ever in the last 400 years. The wealthy in America have
accumulated more wealth in a smaller group than at any time in the last
4 centuries dating back to the Spanish Crown in 1500 and 1600. That is
bad economics, bad social policy. That is what they are doing.
Thank you so very much for joining us tonight.
Ms. PELOSI. It was my pleasure.
Mr. GARAMENDI. We are going to drive this and make sure the American
public knows what is coming down.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank you, because one thing that we must make sure
they know is that this is not tax reform. It is not a tax cut unless
you are in the top 2 percent or a corporation. But if you are a middle
class American or a working family in our country, you are susceptible
to an increase in what you pay in taxes. It is just not fair.
I thank Mr. Garamendi for his relentless leadership.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you, Madam Leader.
As I close, I will just say that this is not the last of this debate.
We are going to make sure that the American public knows what is
happening to them and what this Republican Congress is doing to the
American public.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________