[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.

                          ____________________