[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 188 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9381-H9405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 1) to provide for reconciliation
pursuant to title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2018, will now resume.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on
Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 1 hour 58\1/2\ minutes of debate remained
on the bill.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) has 61 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) has 57\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Nunes), a key architect of the tax reform plan, a
leader and a champion for new business investment.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act.
Mr. Speaker, for years, the middle class has been saddled with a
broken Tax Code and low wages. Small businesses have been crushed by
overly complicated rules and a higher tax burden than corporations.
As a result, America has suffered from a self-inflicted uncompetitive
Tax Code, lagging behind the rest of the world both in economic growth
and job creation. Companies have fled for lower tax jurisdictions and
more competitive business environments.
Since the 1986 Tax Reform Act was passed, Washington has continued to
make the Tax Code longer and more complicated, adding special interest
loopholes and industry-specific carve-outs back into the Code year
after year.
This has allowed the Tax Code to dictate business decisions instead
of letting businesses dictate business decisions.
For the first time in 31 years, we are wiping the Tax Code clean and
replacing it with one that is fair and simpler for everyone.
For the better part of my career, I have advocated for a cash-flow
tax system that would allow small businesses to expense 100 percent of
their costs immediately. H.R. 1 contains an expensing provision that
would give businesses the tremendous opportunity to reinvest, allowing
them to grow their businesses and create jobs.
The impacts for the American economy would be huge. Small businesses
across rural California, from the small family-owned farm to the
neighborhood restaurant and any other entrepreneur, deserve a type of
tax system that allows them to create jobs and be able to compete on an
equal footing globally.
Mr. Speaker, before I close, I want to just point out to those in the
audience, those who are watching this, that today you are going to hear
a lot about how Republicans are giving tax breaks to millionaires and
billionaires.
Mr. Speaker, that is always what the left says about the Republicans.
However, you will also hear a lot of talk about people who itemize and
SALT deductions and how those are somehow increasing taxes on the
middle class.
The reality of this, Mr. Speaker, is these deductions go to
millionaires and billionaires. So for my friends on the left, you can't
have it both ways. You can't claim that Republicans are giving tax cuts
to millionaires and billionaires when you are attempting to keep the
very tax cuts called SALT, State and local tax deductions, that go to
millionaires and billionaires.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to take this opportunity to thank
Chairman Brady and all my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee.
For years, we have been working on this legislation, but this is a
historic moment. Congress has the opportunity to positively impact
every American by reforming our Tax Code, and I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes.''
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment, but, most importantly, it is
a missed opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, we are taking the proposal of the Republican Party today
and the financial architecture of our revenue system, based on their
request, to the casino.
Their argument is premised on one thing today, and one thing only.
Maybe. But what about maybe not?
This could have been done between the two parties, as we requested
and wanted to do.
In 1986, 450 witnesses offered testimony on tax reform, thirty
hearings were held, and the Secretary of the Treasury attended most of
them. The two parties found commonality in reaching an accord that was
well received by the American people.
What we are being asked to do here today is to raise taxes on 36
million middle class Americans. The previous speaker, my friend from
California, a quarter of the households in his district claim the State
and local tax deduction, with an average of $10,000 per family.
$10,000. So they are going to tell you today that they are giving you
this and they are giving you that.
Take a look at the distribution tables. That is the most certain
opportunity for people to examine precisely what is in this
legislation.
A gentleman earlier this morning was heralding Alzheimer's month.
They give Alzheimer's a tax during Alzheimer's month. For those who
stay together with loved ones for as long as they can, they need that
deduction that is so important to keeping that family together.
This is the same old, same old. In 2001, tax cuts of $1.3 trillion
all premised on maybe we will have economic growth.
Remember the argument that tax cuts pay for themselves?
Well, they, today, call it dynamic scoring. Now we are being asked
again to premise the argument on maybe there will be enough growth to
generate some return on revenue.
In 2003, another $1.3 trillion in terms of a tax cut was offered with
no or slow economic growth.
And the granddaddy of them all, in 2005, how about repatriation?
Foreign earnings were brought back at 5\1/4\ percent, all based upon
the idea that there was going to be widespread broad-based hiring.
[[Page H9382]]
What did we discover in the aftermath of that?
Almost 20,000 layoffs in the weeks after it. The money was used for
stock buybacks and dividends with no employment gains across the
country.
They keep telling us: Well, you are going to get 3 percent, 4
percent, 5 percent, and the President says 6 percent growth.
I want to find that economist who says we are going to get 6 percent
growth.
Most projections are that we are being asked here today to
participate in the following, because this is the context of the
argument this morning: They are borrowing $2.3 trillion over 10 years
for the purpose of giving a tax cut to people at the very top of our
economic system.
We should be investing in human capital, community colleges,
vocational education, internship programs, and aligning the American
people with the skill sets that are necessary, as the Department of
Labor reported this week, for the 6 million jobs that are available.
That is the most gainful way to do long-term investment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would note that a family of four
in Massachusetts' First District will see a tax cut of nearly $2,000
under this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms.
Jenkins), one of our key leaders on the Ways and Means Committee who is
really all in on growth and savings for America.
Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Mr. Speaker, as a CPA and a member of the House Ways and Means
Committee, reforming our Tax Code has been a priority of mine during my
entire service here in Congress.
Our current Tax Code is broken, and I have heard from thousands of
Kansans in my district who are frustrated with the status quo.
This legislation will not only reform our broken Tax Code, but it
will permanently lower rates for hardworking individuals, families, and
businesses while retaining or expanding many popular provisions, such
as the dependent care assistance program. It also includes strong
safeguards that keep the wealthy from gaming the system in an effort to
pay less than their fair share.
On average, this legislation will help provide tax relief for all
income groups across the board. If you don't believe me, read the
analysis from the Tax Foundation and the Joint Committee on Taxation.
They agree.
While individuals and families receive a much-needed tax break, they
will also notice that their wages are going up and more jobs are being
created.
Just the other day, AT&T announced they will be making a substantial
investment in the United States once we enact tax reform.
Folks are tired of the status quo. They are tired of a Tax Code that
is confusing. Once figured out, you realize that it actually penalizes
hard work and success.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act accomplishes our goals of ensuring that
rates are cut for low- and middle-income Americans, simplifying the tax
system and expanding American competition within the global economy.
This is a rare opportunity to enact the kind of legislation that our
constituents need and deserve to grow the economy and put more money in
the pockets of hardworking Kansans.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the entire committee for their
good work on this important legislation.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), who has a long and distinguished history in this
Congress and as a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
{time} 0930
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
all of his work he has done over the years.
The Republican tax bill is built on massive deception. The deception
is that, as the Speaker put it: ``The focus is on middle class tax
relief.'' That is simply not true.
As the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said, roughly one out
of every four Americans with income between $50,000 and $100,000 would
pay higher taxes in 2023, far overshadowing the $1,000 or so for other
families. In 2019, those earning over $1 million would get an average
tax cut of $73,000.
Even as modified in last-minute desperation, the wealthiest would
receive 90 percent of the new tax break for so-called passthrough
income.
Another deception is that tax breaks pay for themselves. On this,
some people may have been in the past fooled once, fewer twice, but
none thrice.
A further deception is that exploding the deficit and national debt
to $1.7 trillion will disappear as it promotes growth. Not only is this
a 180-degree Republican turn, but it threatens Medicare and other
critical programs and will worsen the vast inequalities in income and
wealth in America.
It is said that necessity is the mother of invention. In this case,
Republican political necessity is the mother of desperation and
deception.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a note that the average
family of four in Michigan's Ninth District will receive a tax cut of
over $1,700.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Holding), one of our key leaders on the Ways and Means Committee,
who serves on the Tax Policy Subcommittee.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today to support this
historic bill that will put our economy back on the path to stable and
sustained growth.
This bill finally levels the playing field and restores the global
competitiveness of American businesses by moving to a territorial
system. This key aspect of our bill removes the punitive barriers of
the current worldwide system and allows companies to reinvest their
overseas profits in America, without fear of getting hit with an
excessive tax burden. This important change ensures that America
remains the best place to start, grow, or invest in a business.
As companies begin to see the benefits of this new territorial
system, I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman to
explore ways to move toward a residency-based taxation system to ensure
that American citizens have a level playing field around the global as
well.
I have heard from companies, American companies, that say as they
expand their operations overseas, the Tax Code has made it prohibitive
for them to hire Americans for these jobs. In fact, our current system
of citizenship-based taxation makes Americans nearly 40 percent more
expensive to employ overseas than their foreign counterparts.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for his understanding of
this issue and look forward to our continued work to ensure that
talent, not tax burden, is the driving factor in the hiring decisions
of multinational companies.
I am proud to support this bill. I look forward to it growing the
economy and ensuring businesses of all sizes have the capital necessary
to hire more employees, grow their operation, and give Americans the
raise they deserve.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Holding) for his leadership on this issue, in particular,
about international competitiveness for our workers. Residence-based
taxation is an idea we should continue to explore. We will continue to
work on this issue with him as leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who has the highest professional and personal
esteem of every Member of this institution.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr.
Neal, for yielding.
I rise with a heavy heart to join him in opposing this mean-spirited,
reckless bill.
Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago, I was elected to fight for and to serve
the people of my district. Today, they are calling and begging for us
to slow down and to do this the right way. In their heart of hearts,
the public knows that the safety net will be used to pay for this
reckless corporate tax cut.
Taxpayers know that this shameful deal destroys the hopes and dreams
of
[[Page H9383]]
too many as it robs poor Peter to pay wealthy Paul. That is not right.
That is not fair. That is not just.
Mr. Speaker, you cannot hide the truth from the sick, the elderly,
the disabled for whom this bill may mean life or death. You cannot hide
the truth from the middle class, working, and immigrant families who
need every penny to make ends meet. You cannot hide the truth from
teachers who try to lend a helping hand to students who struggle to get
an education.
I, for one, refuse to hide the truth about this bill's attack on the
separation of church and State.
Mr. Speaker, as we abandon our constitutional duty and sacrifice our
moral authority, I fear that history will not be kind to any of us.
In another time, in another period, Members of Congress came together
in a bipartisan fashion. They met, debated, and passed a tax bill that
served the best interest of all people--not just a select few. They
took their time. They did it right, and we should be doing it right.
Today, the Record must reflect the sad truth of this missed
opportunity. H.R. 1 steals from our veterans, our seniors, our
children, and from generations yet unborn All taxpayers expect, demand,
and deserve better--much better--than legislation which would put
politics before the good of the people.
This bill is a shame, a disgrace, and honestly, Mr. Speaker, it
breaks my heart. I urge each and every one of my colleagues to vote
``no.''
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the
average family of four in the Fifth District of Georgia will see a tax
cut of $1,484.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Bishop), one of the new members of the Ways and Means Committee who has
really been a leader for families, small businesses, and industry.
Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for
yielding, for his steadfast leadership, and for giving me the
opportunity to be a part of this incredible opportunity on behalf of
this great country.
Tax reform is about giving hardworking Americans of all walks of life
the confidence they need to make their dreams a reality. So the
question that needs to be asked is whether or not the current Tax Code,
and all of its targeted tax credits, really increases people's
paychecks. Does it treat people fairly? Does it put American workers
first?
What about fostering economic growth? Does it help create more good-
paying jobs? On that subject, I think Michigan is a great case study,
my home State of Michigan. You see, I am from the Motor City where we
are known for our blue-collar work ethic. Our families come from humble
beginnings. They get up every morning and go to work to make ends meet
to build a better life for their family and for their kids. We
persevered through some pretty serious economic death spirals, I must
say, and I would refer back to 2008 as an example.
More than 8,000 people left our State. Just think about that. We are
the only State in the Union to lose population--and more would have
left if they had a chance to sell their homes.
At the time, I was the Senate majority leader in Michigan under the
last administration, overseeing the only Republican branch of
government. I saw firsthand how the administration pursued targeted tax
credits, one after the other, that favored one industry over the other.
It was a classic example of government picking winners over losers, and
as expected, it failed miserably.
As we see at the Federal level today, in Michigan, these targeted tax
benefits were paid for by everyone else in the form of tax increases,
and not only did it fail to attract growth in emerging sectors as they
had hoped, but it caused our economy to go into a tailspin, a very
serious tailspin.
Michigan quickly became the only State in the country experiencing
zero economic growth. Per capita income fell for the first time. It was
one of the highest to begin with, and just a few years later, it was
one of the lowest. By 2009, unemployment hit a record high of 15
percent. Neighboring States that had more hospitable environments for
good job growth attracted our families and our neighbors.
As I said, we are the only State in the Union to lose population. But
as Senate majority leader at that time of the only Republican branch of
government, we didn't just say no to the government's failed policies.
We offered solutions and loaded up the pipeline with legislation to
help the newly elected Republican legislature and Governor Rick Snyder
get the job done.
What did we do? We did exactly what we are doing here today. We
started with tax reform. While balancing budgets, we found ways to
lower rates on individuals, reduce baseline rates for job creators, and
eliminate tax credits that favored certain industries over others.
Michigan created an environment that grew the economy and helped
families get ahead. Sure enough, just 2 months after these reforms
happened, job growth turned positive again in Michigan.
Today, in Michigan, we are a top 10 probusiness State and ranked 12th
among all States for overall business climate. Unemployment is the
lowest it has been in my home district of 3.3 percent, in Livingston
County.
Detroit is re-emerging again as an economic powerhouse. The streets
are alive with entrepreneurs and young people finally living downtown.
The future looks great for the comeback city.
The moral of this story is tax reform, but it is not just about tax
cuts. It is about real reform to a broken system. Getting tax reform
done right means delivering real relief, and I have seen it firsthand
in Michigan.
I know it can happen at the national level. It is not rocket science.
It is about giving people back more that is rightfully theirs. It is
about freeing up more capital to create more jobs, increase wages, and
compete at the global level. This is how you grow an economy from the
ground up.
Mr. Speaker, let's vote for our constituents today. Do it for the
middle-income family of four or the struggling mom. Let's pass this
bill today. It has been 31 years. It is time for relief. It is long
overdue.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, under the Republican tax bill, 570,000
Michigan households earning less than $160,000 a year will see a tax
hike.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson), a thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee, whose
admonitions to all of us should be something we could all rally around.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
reckless and fiscally irresponsible bill that is going to add $2.3
trillion to our national debt.
There is a reason why airports, universities, the Fraternal Order of
Police, home builders, and veterans groups are opposed to this bill. It
is because it will increase taxes on tens of millions of middle class
families. That is according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
One of the most heartless provisions would make it harder for middle
class families to rebuild after disaster. When you vote today, you are
telling the survivors of the California fires that you don't care about
them or about the middle class families in your district who one day
may face a tornado or a hurricane--all to save a few dollars so that we
can give a tax break to corporations.
We have a chance today to reject this bill, to come together, hold
hearings, and hear from experts--something that wasn't done when the
Republicans wrote this bill.
We can take ideas from both side of the aisle and write a tax bill
that helps middle class working families. Let's reject this bill and
work on real tax reform that will not raise taxes on the middle class
and won't add $2.3 trillion--that is with a T--to our national debt.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the average family
of four in California's Fifth District will see a tax cut of $2,300.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Curbelo), who has been an advocate not only for Floridians but Puerto
Rico and a number of our families and communities around the country.
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
This crucial legislation before us today marks the first time in 31
years that Congress has considered a major overhaul to the current Tax
Code that
[[Page H9384]]
is overly cumbersome, wildly outdated, and riddled with special-
interest loopholes.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious there is a great deal of frustration and
anxiety in our country. I truly believe it is due to the fact that the
economic recovery has not reached every household. Throughout south
Florida, I hear from families and small businesses who are worried
about saving for their kids' college or making payroll.
While the stock market is humming and unemployment is low, wages have
been stagnant, and the so-called recovery has left way too many people
behind.
{time} 0945
That is why this bill is so important.
This legislation will collapse and lower current tax rates to ensure
a typical middle-income family in south Florida will receive about
$1,500 in tax relief. For married couples, it doubles the standard
deduction from $12,000 to $24,000, drastically simplifying the process
of filing taxes each year for over 90 percent of Americans while
allowing taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned money.
The bill also expands the child tax credit from $1,000 to $1,600 per
child, a benefit that will be seen by 43,768 taxpayers in Florida's
26th District, while we are also making it easier to save for college
by expanding 529 plans to cover more expenses, including apprenticeship
programs. All these benefits will directly help alleviate the
increasing cost of raising a family.
On the business side, this bill gives American companies of all
sizes, especially our smaller enterprises and entrepreneurs, a chance
to compete and win in the new globalized economy. By providing
businesses with lower tax rates, we will make it easier for job
creators to invest here at home and increase paychecks for American
workers.
Mr. Speaker, as a proud Member of the Ways and Means Committee, I
commend Chairman Brady, his staff, and the Members of this House who
will soon support this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure we
provide all Americans, especially the most vulnerable, the opportunity
to find their economic success.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Brady for working with me to
begin addressing the important issue of helping our fellow American
citizens in Puerto Rico. After the devastating effects of Hurricanes
Irma and Maria, our committee delivered immediate results for the
island through a disaster tax relief package targeted to help people
get back on their feet.
While it will take at least months for the island to fully recover,
we are providing even more assistance to Puerto Rico with the
legislation being considered today.
I want to thank Chairman Brady for helping us extend the rum cover-
over to $13.25 per proof gallon to be paid back to the treasuries of
both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands through 2023. I am also
grateful that under this bill, companies operating in Puerto Rico can
deduct income attributable to domestic production activities
retroactively for the year 2017.
Moving forward, I am hopeful we can work together to find creative
solutions to better target the child tax credit to serve more Puerto
Rico families and study the expanded use of the earned income tax
credit for the Commonwealth. In addition, I look forward to continuing
to work on solutions to ensure the businesses operating on the island
have the certainty they need in terms of tax planning to hire more
workers and strengthen Puerto Rico's economy.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, 22,000 constituents of the gentleman from
Miami's district will eventually face the Alzheimer's tax increase that
is included in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Larson), who is a neighbor, a really nice guy, and a very thoughtful
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I include in
the Record, first a letter from the Commissioner of Revenue Services in
the State of Connecticut, who has detailed out the impact of this tax
on Connecticut residents.
November 8, 2017.
Hon. John B. Larson,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Larson: Thank you for opportunity to
comment on the federal tax changes being considered in H.R.
1. We appreciate your leadership in trying to set the record
straight as this partisan effort is rushed to judgment with
no real input and much fiscal uncertainty.
Unfortunately, what we see so far from a national and state
perspective is very troubling. Some of the proposals to
reduce taxes on corporate and pass-through business income
could provide needed economic stimulus nationally and for
states like Connecticut. Unfortunately, on balance, H.R. 1 is
fundamentally flawed:
Even the low estimate of a $1.5 trillion cost is not paid
for and is really massive federal tax deficit spending. The
nation has been down this road before and surely we should
have learned something from the worst economic recession in
modern times.
Otherwise unaffordable tax cuts have long been part of a
political strategy to ``starve the beast.'' Due to its long
term unfunded cost, this Republican tax plan will compel big
cuts in federal funding, such as Medicaid, that are important
to states like Connecticut.
Contrary to all the talk of a ``middle income tax cut,''
the plan actually represents a huge windfall to the very
wealthiest federal taxpayers and is truly regressive. For our
own state of Connecticut, over 75% of the tax cut goes to the
top 1% who would pay 8.5% less on average. Everyone else
would see a trivial 1.2% reduction in federal tax liability
and many will actually owe much more in federal income taxes.
As discussed more specifically below, the proposed plan
shifts most of the tax cost and the least of any tax benefit
to states in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast
regions of the country. Thus, Connecticut and similar states
will even more disproportionately pay in federal taxes far
more than is received in federal benefits--further
subsidizing regions of the country where states make far less
of a state and local tax effort.
Drilling down a bit further, several aspects of this
partisan plan will hit especially hard:
Eliminating deductibility of state income tax paid is worth
an estimated $8.7 billion to mostly middle income Connecticut
taxpayers.
Capping deductibility of local property tax paid at $10,000
will increase federal income taxes for a significant
proportion of Connecticut taxpayers who claim $4.9 billion.
Any benefit to lower and lower moderate income taxpayers
from higher standard deductions and child care credits will
likely be more than offset by the shell game of imposing a
higher lowest rate bracket of 12% and replacing the current
$4,050 personal exemption with a $300 deduction that is
proposed to end in 5 years.
Eliminating deductibility of medical/dental expenses will
be $1.6 billion hardship for Connecticut taxpayers at all
levels who are out of work and have catastrophic medical
costs.
Eliminating deductibility of student loan interest only
adds a further financial burden for primarily younger
taxpayers and their families already struggling with
educational indebtedness.
Sadly, these and many other significant issues of fiscal
irresponsibility and tax unfairness seem to be of no concern
in the partisan rush to pass legislation before taxpayers see
through the slogans and realize the costs. Indeed, glimpses
of what may be in the Republican Senate version suggests that
it will only get worse. Thank you for your efforts to speak
out for our Connecticut taxpayers and set the record
straight.
Sincerely,
Kevin B. Sullivan,
Commissioner.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Second, Mr. Speaker, I include in the
Record a letter out of a cross section of constituents who are directly
and adversely impacted by this tax increase.
MIDDLE CLASS CUTS
Ms. Diane Hebenstreit--West Hartford, CT 06107
I am a lifetime resident of Connecticut, and I ask that you
do not vote for the proposed Federal Tax plan. From what I
see, it's providing large tax breaks that benefit the rich
and the corporations.
The estate tax benefit we have now is more than generous,
only the very wealthy will benefit from repealing the estate
tax.
The proposed caps on state and property tax deductions
combined with the increased standard deduction, will cause
myself as well as others to use the standard deduction
instead of itemizing. This will eliminate the financial
benefit of owning my home, and I am concerned it will
negatively affect its value.
The personal exemption of $4,050 is going away. This is not
something that's been highlighted in the news. So as a single
payer, I'll receive a $12,000 standard deduction, but loose
the $4,050 personal exemption resulting in more of my income
being taxed than under the current plan.
And at a higher rate! I am currently in the 10% tax
bracket. Under this new plan it will increase to 12%.
This is not a tax plan that benefits me, or I expect any
other middle income resident. Vote No.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a
[[Page H9385]]
transcript of an interview with our esteemed chairman, Kevin Brady, and
Heidi Przybyla that appeared on ``Morning Joe.''
Kevin Brady-Morning Joe Transcript--Friday, November 3
Heidi Przybyla, USA Today: This economic growth that you
all are promising, it cannot happen unless the cuts occur at
the same time. In fact the Joint Committee on Taxation's
economic model assumes that the type of tax cuts that you're
doing now that are not paid for could actually be a drag on
economic growth. Can you please speak to that?
Brady: The reason we moved back towards a balanced budget
is one, there is substantial growth, miss, but again, that
won't do it. You have to simplify the code, eliminate so much
of these special breaks on the business and the individual
side as well. It's the combination of both of those that gets
you back to a balanced budget over time. That's why people
complain `Look you're really simplifying the code
dramatically, there's a lot of things that go'. Not everyone
is happy about that but that is what, sort of the tough
choices you have to make, along with growth, to make sure
this moves us toward a balanced budget.
Przybyla: But that is not what's happening here. This is
still, regardless of these loopholes that you're closing,
it's still a big blowhole in the deficit and that is not what
the model was in '86 for instance when Reagan did it. This
model that I'm speaking of still assumes that this could be a
drag on economic growth because you're not doing the type of
spending cuts, not just simplification in the code, but
spending cuts.
Brady: Here, one, there are a number of models on growth
and I'm sure there will be a healthy debate, that's a good
thing. What we know is this dramatically grows the economy in
revenues not just here in Washington, but state and local
levels as well. But you make a great point: tax reform alone,
alone won't get us to a balanced budget, we have to have
spending constraints along with that. As I know, as House
Republicans, we are turning toward welfare reform and how we
tackle our entitlements in a way to save them. That's all
part of the steps it takes to get us back to a fiscally
responsible area. But I do know this, is you want to see
continued deficits and debts, just stay with a slow growth
economy like we saw the last ten years. We know what that
produced.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record
a letter from AARP, who is in opposition to this bill.
AARP,
November 15, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and all
Americans age 50 and older, AARP is writing to express our
views on H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. AARP, with its
nearly 38 million members in all 50 States and the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, represents
individuals affected by H.R. 1 in myriad ways. As we did with
the last major effort at tax reform a generation ago, AARP is
prepared to support tax legislation that makes the tax code
more equitable and efficient, promotes growth, and produces
sufficient revenue to pay for critical national programs,
including Medicare and Medicaid. However, H.R. 1 in its
current form does not meet these criteria.
Efforts to restructure all or part of the federal tax
system should in particular recognize the importance of--and
therefore maintain--incentives for health and retirement
security. Such incentives are not only important to assist
individuals in attaining the security they deserve, but are
vital to our nation's future economic well-being AARP is
dedicated to enhancing retirement security, including
retention of the extra standard deduction for those ages 65
or older; improving access to, and targeted incentives for,
work-place retirement saving plans, and protection of earned
pensions for vulnerable retirees and their families. We
greatly appreciate that H.R. 1 rejects proposals to make
significant changes to the tax treatment of retirement
contributions, which would have affected the ability or
commitment of many tax filers to save for their retirement.
AARP also remains committed to advocating for affordable,
meaningful health care, including retention of the medical
expense itemized deduction at 7.5%, preservation of tax
exempt status of employer sponsored insurance coverage;
maintenance of tax subsidies for lower- and moderate-income
Americans to purchase health insurance coverage in health
care marketplaces; and the creation of a new, non-refundable
tax credit for working family caregivers.
As tax legislation advances, changes to the tax code should
not result in a disproportionate, adverse impact on older
Americans According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT),
H.R. 1 will reduce taxes for millions of taxpayers beginning
in 2019. We are concerned, however, that in 2027, also
according to JCT, the 73 million taxpayers with incomes
between $10,000 and $50,000 would collectively pay $2.9
billion more in individual income taxes AARP has estimated
that H.R. 1 will increase taxes on 1.2 million taxpayers age
65 and older in 2018, and by 2027, 4.9 million older
taxpayers will experience higher taxes In addition, H.R. 1
will provide no tax relief for 5.1 million older taxpayers in
2018 and 5.3 million taxpayers by 2027.
The impact on older tax filers is the cumulative result of
many policy changes made in H.R. 1, but a number of specific
provisions disproportionately affect older Americans. Nearly
three-quarters of tax filers who claim the medical expense
deduction are age 50 or older and live with a chronic
condition or illness. Seventy percent of filers who claim
this deduction have income below $75,000. H.R. 1 also
eliminates the additional standard deduction for filers who
are 65 and older, while at the same time increasing the
lowest tax rate. These provisions, along with other proposals
that more broadly affect the tax liability of millions of
filers, such as the expiration of the new Family Flexibility
Credit in 2023, and the partial repeal of the state and local
tax deduction, result in little tax benefit to many older tax
filers, and for others, a tax increase.
Also troubling is the negative effect H.R. 1 will have on
the nation's ability to fund critical priorities. H.R. 1 will
increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next ten
years, and an unknown amount beyond 2027. The large increase
in the deficit will inevitably lead to calls for greater
spending cuts, which are likely to include dramatic cuts to
Medicare, Medicaid and other critical programs serving older
Americans. The Congressional Budget Office has now published
a letter stating that unless Congress takes action, H.R. 1
will result in automatic federal funding cuts of $136 billion
in fiscal year 2018, $25 billion of which must come from
Medicare.
We urge Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to enact
tax legislation that better meets the needs of older
Americans and the nation, and we stand ready to work with you
toward that end.
Sincerely,
Nancy A. LeaMond,
Executive Vice President and
Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I include in the
Record a letter from the Congressional Budget Office, which details out
the other shoe to fall in this legislation.
Congressional Budget Office,
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, November 13, 2017.
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
Democratic Whip, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman: This letter responds to your request for
information about the effects of legislation that would raise
deficits by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the 2018-2027
period, specifically with respect to a sequestration--or
cancellation of budgetary resources--in accordance with the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO; Public Law 111-
139).
The PAYGO law requires that new legislation enacted during
a term of Congress does not collectively increase estimated
deficits. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is
required to maintain two so-called PAYGO scorecards to report
the cumulative changes generated by new legislation in
estimated revenues and outlays over the next five years and
ten years. If either scorecard indicates a net increase in
the deficit, OMB is required to order a sequestration to
eliminate the overage. The authority to determine whether a
sequestration is required (and if so, exactly how to make the
necessary cuts in budget authority) rests solely with OMB.
CBO has analyzed the implications of enacting a bill that
would increase deficits by $1.5 trillion over a 10-year
window, without enacting any further legislation to offset
that increase. In accordance with the PAYGO law, OMB would
record the average annual deficit on its PAYGO scorecard,
showing deficit increases of, in the example provided, $150
billion per year. If the bill were enacted before the end of
the calendar year, that amount would be added to the current
balances on the PAYGO scorecard, which for 2018, show a
positive balance of $14 billion. (For years after 2018, the
balances range from a $14 billion credit to a $1 billion
debit.)
Without enacting subsequent legislation to either offset
that deficit increase, waive the recordation of the bill's
impact on the scorecard, or otherwise mitigate or eliminate
the requirements of the PAYGO law, OMB would be required to
issue a sequestration order within 15 days of the end of the
session of Congress to reduce spending in fiscal year 2018 by
the resultant total of $136 billion. However, the PAYGO law
limits reductions to Medicare to four percentage points (or
roughly $25 billion for that year), leaving about $111
billion to be sequestered from the remaining mandatory
accounts. Because the law entirely exempts many large
accounts including low-income programs and social security,
the annual resources available from which OMB must draw is,
in CBO's estimation, only between $85 billion to $90 billion,
significantly less than the amount that would be required to
be sequestered. (For a full list of accounts subject to
automatic reductions, see OMB Report to the Congress on the
Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2018, https://
go.usa.gov/xnZ3U.)
Given that the required reduction in spending exceeds the
estimated amount of available resources in each year over the
next 10 years, in the absence of further legislation, OMB
would be unable to implement the full extent of outlay
reductions required by the PAYGO law.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by preempting
[[Page H9386]]
our distinguished chairman and, for the Record, state that a middle
class family in the State of Connecticut, from West Hartford, with a
combined income of $125,000, with a mortgage and a kid in college,
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and to the Department of
Revenue Services in the State of Connecticut, will see a tax increase
of $767 next year.
Then with the clever clawback provision--that Grover Norquist kind of
clawback provision that gives with one hand and takes away with the
other--in 2023, that hardworking family in the middle class will see a
$1,667 increase.
So why are we here?
It is pretty easy to figure out this. These are honorable people, but
sometimes they are called upon to do a political task, or as Mr.
Collins put it: My donors are basically saying, ``Get it done or don't
ever call me again.''
Speaking of New York, my colleagues in New York and New Jersey,
because we are donor States and because we make itemized deductions, we
find ourselves in the situation where we are paying double taxation.
Don't take our word for it. Just ask a member of your own caucus. Ask
Peter King, who describes this as the most massive redistribution of
wealth at the expense of teachers, machinists, and people who are of
the professional class whom you have found that you want to tax their
success.
But what adds insult to injury above all else, aside from being a
donor State and double taxation, is the cruelest cut. We take a Pledge
of Allegiance. We pledge allegiance to the Constitution. But some of
you pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist. In doing so, you want to make
sure that you can shrink Social Security and Medicare up so small you
can drown it in the bathtub.
That is what this does: $25 billion will come out of that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would
note that families in Connecticut's First District will see an average
tax cut of $3,858 and grow jobs by 11,000 jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
Mr. Curbelo, you and Resident Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon have been
tireless advocates for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. I appreciate
the hard work you have done to help our fellow citizens on the island.
I agree, this tax reform bill is a good first step, and I look forward
to working with you on ideas to best serve the people on this island.
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady for that.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer), who is one of the most thoughtful Members of
Congress, a leader in the field of renewable energy, and my friend
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 17
environmental organizations opposing this legislation.
November 8, 2017.
Dear Representative, on behalf of our millions of members
and activists, we write to urge you to oppose the Republican
leadership's tax legislation, the misnamed Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act (H.R. 1). This plan would lavish huge and permanent tax
cuts to the richest 1% and corporate polluters that are
destined to be paid for by the health and environmental well-
being of communities across the country. The bill's debt-
busting tax cuts for the wealthiest are sure to mean deep
cuts to federal and state programs and safeguards that
protect our air, water, lands, and wildlife that benefit
people across this country every day. The plan puts at risk
our clean energy future by preserving tax breaks for dirty
energy sources while slashing them for cleaner forms of
energy. And if the tax plan itself weren't harmful enough, it
is also being packaged in the Senate with unrelated,
controversial legislation that hands over the pristine and
sacred Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploitation by Big
Oil.
This plan steers most of its tax breaks to the wealthiest
people in this country and corporations and adds at least
$1.5 trillion to the deficit. Americans across the country
will suffer because those tax cuts are likely to be paid for
by slashing services and safeguards that our government
provides, from healthcare to education to environmental
protection. The health of communities across the nation will
suffer if the Environmental Protection Agency is further
hampered in its mission to protect public health and hold
polluters accountable for violating laws like the Clean Air
Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. The people who work in and
benefit from America's thriving outdoor recreational economy
will take a hit if the national parks and other lands
stewarded by the Department of the Interior are forced to
suffer further cuts because of this reckless tax plan.
This tax plan also steers our nation's energy policy in the
wrong direction by leaving in place the vast majority of
existing tax preferences for polluting industries like oil,
gas, coal and nuclear and reducing, phasing-out, and
eliminating incentives for cleaner sources of energy.
Permanent tax breaks for fossil fuels dwarf those for
renewables by a margin of 7:1, yet this bill would suddenly
eliminate the tax credit for purchasing an electric vehicle,
disrupt the wind industry by reducing the credit for future
projects by a third and placing into jeopardy the eligibility
of existing projects, and eliminate the commercial solar
investment credit. While some clean energy technology credits
are reintroduced, they, too, are set to phase out. Meanwhile,
oil companies will receive a new billion dollar hand out
while only the smallest of existing preferences for fossil
fuels are eliminated--leaving more than $14 billion in
permanent annual federal subsidies untouched. Despite
rhetoric from GOP leaders that the tax code shouldn't pick
winners and losers, this bill very clearly picks polluting
energy sectors as winners yet again, putting at risk the
impressive growth of clean energy and robbing us and our
children of a cleaner future.
The GOP leadership's plan is to package this tax
legislation in the Senate with unrelated, controversial
legislation that would open up the iconic Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to drilling. This legislation would
irreversibly damage one of America's greatest wild places and
is only being included in a desperate attempt to secure
enough votes in the Senate for tax cuts for corporations and
the wealthiest Americans. The Arctic Refuge's spectacular
landscape of rugged mountains, boreal forests, and wild
rivers supports more than 250 species including polar and
brown bears, musk oxen, and birds that migrate from all 50
states and 6 continents each year. The indigenous Gwich'in
people call the refuge's coastal plain ``The Sacred Place
Where Life Begins,'' an area that serves as the calving
grounds for the Porcupine Caribou Herd which they rely on as
a primary source of food, and for cultural and spiritual
needs. This provision is being included in an attempt to
generate $1 billion in government revenue to pay for the
package's tax cuts for the wealthy, but multiple analyses
show that it is unlikely to raise anywhere close to that
amount. In short, including drilling in the Arctic Refuge in
the tax legislation is both environmentally and fiscally
irresponsible.
For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 1 and instead
work together on legislation that will truly benefit our
communities, power our economy with clean, renewable energy,
and protect the environment that we all depend upon for our
health and well-being.
Sincerely,
350.org, Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological
Diversity, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice,
Environment America, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace,
Hip Hop Caucus, League of Conservation Voters, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Oil Change International,
Public Citizen, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society,
Union of Concerned Scientists, Voices for Progress.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump is going to be on Capitol
Hill rallying Republicans to vote for his tax bill perfectly designed
for his benefit: eliminating the alternative minimum tax, one of the
few ways he pays any tax at all; abolishing the inheritance tax,
allowing him to pass on tax-free hundreds of millions of dollars to his
family; and expanding access to the lower passthrough tax rates for
many large and profitable businesses. Donald Trump lists hundreds of
passthrough entities on his financial forms.
Donald Trump is the king of debt, and this monstrosity of a tax bill
is fueled by increasing the national debt $2.3 trillion and cutting
taxes for the wealthy financed by increased debt burden on our children
and grandchildren.
Of course, details are starting to leak out, such as special deals
for baseball teams. Breaking a bipartisan commitment to the wind energy
industry is already causing their stock prices to fall, jeopardizing
billions of dollars of projects and putting tens of thousands of jobs
at risk with the only retroactive provision in the bill breaking a
bipartisan commitment that many of us worked on with the energy
industry.
The Republican proposal showers riches on the wealthiest Americans
and most profitable corporations who are not going to create jobs and
raise wages. What they are going to do is buy things and make more
money. What is going to happen is that, in the years ahead, taxes are
going to rise for millions of Americans and even more in the future.
[[Page H9387]]
Now, this tax perhaps has the most cruel element--what I call the
Alzheimer's tax--repealing the medical expense deduction used by over 9
million middle class Americans who saved almost $90 billion in 2015--
gone.
This stunning action places additional burdens on many elderly and
vulnerable middle-income Americans trying to plan ahead for the
crushing financial burden dealing with Alzheimer's. We never had a
hearing on anything like this. It wouldn't stand the light of day. The
American public will be cranky about this.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that families
of four, the average family in Oregon's Third District, will see a tax
cut of $2,200.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling), who is the chairman of the Financial Services Committee
and a dear friend of mine.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, for almost a decade, Americans suffered
under Obamanomics. Their savings remain decimated, their paychecks were
stagnant, and their American dreams were diminished.
But, Mr. Speaker, a new day has dawned. Under the leadership of
President Trump, Speaker Ryan, and Chairman Brady, we are on the
precipice of passing a fairer, flatter, simpler, and more competitive
Tax Code, one built for 3-plus percent economic growth.
The American people can now imagine a Tax Code that brings jobs and
capital back to America. They can imagine a Tax Code that is simplified
from 70,000 pages to 500, where 90 percent of Americans can fill out
their return on a postcard. They can imagine a Tax Code swept of all
the special interest loopholes. They can imagine a Tax Code creating
lower rates for working Americans and small businesses, and they can
now imagine a Tax Code that is all about economic growth.
All my friends on the other side of the aisle can offer is the
politics of division, envy, and class warfare.
I am proud to support the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act because it is all
about better jobs, fair taxes, and bigger paychecks.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, 17,000 people in Mr. Hensarling's district
will now pay higher interest on their student loan deductions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind), who is a great advocate for the heartland of America.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, of all the policy changes that are being
recommended in this legislation before us today, the one that scares me
the most is the repeal of the so-called Johnson amendment.
The Johnson amendment basically says: If you are a religious
organization or a nonprofit and if you engage in partisan political
activity, you lose your tax-exempt status.
Repealing that has the potential of politicizing the pulpit
nationwide. In fact, 103 religious organizations, 4,200 faith-based
leaders in this country, and 5,500 nonprofits have written a letter to
every Member of Congress telling us: Don't do this.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these letters.
Updated November 1, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Senate Majority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House Democratic Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Chuck Schumer,
Senate Democratic Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Neal,
Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Finance, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McConnell, Leader
Pelosi, Leader Schumer, Chairman Brady, Chairman Hatch,
Ranking Member Neal, and Ranking Member Wyden: We, the 103
undersigned religious and denominational organizations
strongly oppose any effort to weaken or eliminate protections
that prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, including houses of
worship, from endorsing or opposing political candidates.
Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity
of our charitable sector and campaign finance system.
Religious leaders often use their pulpits to address the
moral and political issues of the day. They also can, in
their personal capacities and without the resources of their
houses of worship, endorse and oppose political candidates.
Houses of worship can engage in public debate on any issue,
host candidate forums, engage in voter registration drives,
encourage people to vote, help transport people to the polls
and even, with a few boundaries, lobby on specific
legislation and invite candidates to speak. Tax-exempt houses
of worship may not, however, endorse or oppose candidates or
use their tax-exempt donations to contribute to candidates'
campaigns. Current law simply limits groups from being both a
tax-exempt ministry and a partisan political entity.
As religious organizations, we oppose any attempt to weaken
the current protections offered by the 501(c)(3) campaign
intervention prohibition because:
People of faith do not want partisan political fights
infiltrating their houses of worship. Houses of worship are
spaces for members of religious communities to come together,
not be divided along political lines; faith ought to be a
source of connection and community, not division and discord.
Indeed, the vast majority of Americans do not want houses of
worship to issue political endorsements. Particularly in
today's political climate, such endorsements would be highly
divisive and would have a detrimental impact on civil
discourse.
Current law protects the integrity of houses of worship. If
houses of worship endorse candidates, their prophetic voice,
their ability to speak truth to power as political outsiders,
is threatened. The credibility and integrity of congregations
would suffer with bad decisions of candidates they endorsed.
Tying America's houses of worship to partisan activity
demeans the institutions from which so many believers expect
unimpeachable decency.
Current law protects the independence of houses of worship.
Houses of worship often speak out on issues of justice and
morality and do good works within the community but may also
labor to adequately fund their ministries. Permitting
electioneering in churches would give partisan groups
incentive to use congregations as a conduit for political
activity and expenditures. Changing the law would also make
them vulnerable to individuals and corporations who could
offer large donations or a politician promising social
service contracts in exchange for taking a position on a
candidate. Even proposals that would permit an
``insubstantial'' standard or allow limited electioneering
only if it is in furtherance of an organization's mission
would actually invite increased government intrusion,
scrutiny, and oversight.
The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship,
should not become another cog in a political machine or
another loophole in campaign finance laws. We strongly urge
you to oppose any efforts to repeal or weaken protections in
the law for 501(c)(3) organizations, including houses of
worship.
Sincerely,
African American Ministers in Action; African Methodist
Episcopal Church--Social Action Commission; Alabama
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship; Alliance of Baptists;
American Baptist Churches USA; American Baptist Home
Mission Societies; American Friends Service Committee;
American Jewish Committee (AJC); Anti-Defamation League;
Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists; B'nai
B'rith International; Baptist Center for Ethics; Baptist
Fellowship Northeast; Baptist General Association of
Virginia; Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty;
Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America--Bautistas por
la Paz; Baptist Women in Ministry; Bend the Arc: A Jewish
Partnership for Justice; California Council of Churches
IMPACT; Catholics for Choice.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; Central
Conference of American Rabbis; Christian Life Commission;
Christian Methodist Episcopal (CME) Church; Churchnet, a
ministry of the Baptist General Convention of Missouri;
Colorado Council of Churches; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship;
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Heartland; Cooperative Baptist
Fellowship Kentucky; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of
Arkansas; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Florida;
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Georgia; Cooperative
Baptist Fellowship of Mississippi; Cooperative Baptist
Fellowship of North Carolina; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
of Oklahoma; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Texas;
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Virginia; Cooperative
Baptist Fellowship West; Disciples Center for Public Witness;
Ecumenical Catholic Communion.
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon; The Episcopal Church;
Equal Partners in Faith; Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America; Evergreen Association of American Baptist Churches;
Faith Action Network--Washington State; Faith in Public Life;
Faith Voices Arkansas; Faithful America; Florida Council of
Churches; Franciscan Action Network; Friends Committee on
National Legislation; Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America;
Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc.;
Hindu American Foundation; Hispanic Baptist Convention of
Texas; Interfaith Alliance; International Society for Krishna
Consciousness (ISKCON); Islamic Networks Group; Islamic
Society of North America.
[[Page H9388]]
Jewish Community Relations Council, Greater Boston; Jewish
Community Relations Council of Greater Washington; Jewish
Council for Public Affairs; The Jewish Federations of North
America; Jewish Women International; Kentucky Council of
Churches; Mid-Atlantic Cooperative Baptist Fellowship;
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd;
National Baptist Convention of America; National Council of
Churches; National Council of Jewish Women; National Sikh
Campaign; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; New
Baptist Covenant; North Carolina Council of Churches;
Oklahoma Conference of Churches; Pastors for Oklahoma Kids;
Pastors for Texas Children; Pax Christi, Montgomery County,
MD chapters; Pennsylvania Council of Churches.
Presbyterian Church USA, Washington Office of Public
Witness; Progressive National Baptist Convention;
Reconstructionist Rabbinical Assembly; Religions for Peace
USA; Religious Institute; Rhode Island State Council of
Churches; Seventh-day Adventist Church in North
America; South Carolina Christian Action Council; South
Dakota Faith in Public Life; T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for
Human Rights; Tennessee Cooperative Baptist Fellowship;
Texas Baptists Committed; Texas Faith Network; Texas
Impact; Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist
Association; Unitarian Universalist Service Committee;
Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice; United Church
of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; The United
Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society;
Virginia Council of Churches; Women of Reform Judaism;
Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER).
____
Faith Voices,
August 16, 2017.
Representative Ron Kind,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Kind: As a leader in my religious
community, I am strongly opposed to any effort to repeal or
weaken current law that protects houses of worship from
becoming centers of partisan politics. Changing the law would
threaten the integrity and independence of houses of worship.
We must not allow our sacred spaces to be transformed into
spaces used to endorse or oppose political candidates.
Faith leaders are called to speak truth to power, and we
cannot do so if we are merely cogs in partisan political
machines. The prophetic role of faith communities
necessitates that we retain our independent voice. Current
law respects this independence and strikes the right balance:
houses of worship that enjoy favored tax-exempt status may
engage in advocacy to address moral and political issues, but
they cannot tell people who to vote for or against. Nothing
in current law, however, prohibits me from endorsing or
opposing political candidates in my own personal capacity.
Changing the law to repeal or weaken the ``Johnson
Amendment''--the the section of the tax code that prevents
tax-exempt nonprofit organizations from endorsing or opposing
candidates--would harm houses of worship, which are not
identified or divided by partisan lines. Particularly in
today's political climate, engaging in partisan politics and
issuing endorsements would be highly divisive and have a
detrimental impact on congregational unity and civil
discourse.
I therefore urge you to oppose any repeal or weakening of the Johnson
Amendment, thereby protecting the independence and integrity of houses
of worship and other religious organizations in the charitable sector.
Respectfully,
Wisconsin--
Rabbi Jessica Barolsky, Rabbi, Reform Judaism, Milwaukee,
WI.
Pastor Kara Baylor, Director of the Center for Faith and
Spirituality, Carthage College, Kenosha, WI.
Rev. RaeAnn Beebe, Pastor, St. Paul's United Church of
Christ, Oshkosh, WI.
Rabbi Marc Berkson, Rabbi, Congregation Emanu-El B'ne
Jeshurun, Milwaukee, WI.
Ms. Andrea Bernstein, Section President, National Council
of Jewish Women--Milwaukee Section, Milwaukee, WI.
Rabbi Jonathan Biatch, Rabbi, Temple Beth El, Madison,
Madison, WI.
Rev. Mary Anne Biggs, Pastor, First Congregational United
Church of Christ, Eagle River, WI.
Coral Bishop, Treasurer, First Baptist Church, Madison, WI.
Sr. Barbara Brylka, Pastoral Care Services, Felician
Sisters--Villa St. Francis, Milwaukee, WI.
Sr. Rebecca Burke, Sister, Sisters of St. Francis of
Assisi, Saint Francis, WI.
Rabbi David Cohen, Rabbi, Congregation Sinai, Milwaukee,
WI.
Rev. Cindy Crane, Lutheran Office for Public Policy in
Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Rev. Michael Crosby, CR Agent, Province of St. Joseph of
the Capuchin Order, Milwaukee, WI.
Sr. Frances Cunningham, Senior Sister, School Sisters of
St. Francis, Roman Catholic, Shorewood, WI.
Rev. Glenn Danz, Pastor, St. Paul's United Church of
Christ, Colgate, WI.
Mr. Steven C. Davis, Certified Lay Speaker/Leader, United
Methodist Church of Whitefish Bay, Glendale, WI.
Dr. Beverly Davison, Lay Leader, Former President, American
Baptist Churches (U.S.A.), Madison, WI.
Rev. Dr. James Davison, First Baptist Church, Madison, WI.
____
Signers of the Community Letter
The Community Letter in Support of Nonpartisanship, signed
by more than 5,500 organizations from every state and every
segment of the charitable and foundation communities, makes a
strong statement in support of nonpartisanship and urges
those who have vowed to repeal or weaken this vital
protection to leave existing law in place for nonprofit
organizations and the people they serve.
ALABAMA
Alabama Asian Cultures Foundation, Birmingham; Alabama
Association of Nonprofits, Birmingham; Alabama Historic
Ironworks Foundation, McCalla; Black Warrior Riverkeeper,
Birmingham; Cahaba River Society, Birmingham; Cahaba
Riverkeeper, Birmingham; Cloverdale Playhouse, Montgomery;
Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham, Birmingham;
Community Grief Support Service, Birmingham; Coosa
Riverkeeper.
Empowered to Conquer, Birmingham; Family Promise of Coastal
Alabama, Mobile; First Light, Inc., Birmingham; Fraternal
Order of Eagles; Friends of Shades Creek, Inc., Homewood;
Gasp, Inc., Birmingham; Girls Inc. of Central Alabama,
Birmingham; Global Ties, Alabama, Huntsville; Greater
Birmingham Ministries, Birmingham; Heart Gallery of Alabama,
Inc.
Humane Society of Elmore County, Wetumpka; Huntsville Youth
Orchestra; John Stallworth Foundation; KB Consulting,
Hanceville; Prichard Boxing Academy, Prichard; Public
Education Foundation of Anniston, Inc., Anniston; Ruff Wilson
Youth Organization; Shelby Emergency Assistance, Inc.,
Montevallo; Society of Mayflower Descendants in Alabama,
Alexander City; St. Vincent's Health System, Birmingham;
Swell Fundraising, Birmingham.
The Arc of Shelby County, Pelham; The Dance Foundation,
Birmingham; The Epilepsy Foundation of Alabama, Mobile; The
Greater Huntsville Humane Society, Huntsville; The National
Center for Fire and Life Safety, Calera; Theatre Tuscaloosa,
Tuscaloosa; United Way of East Central Alabama, Anniston;
Village Creek Society, Birmingham; Virginia Samford Theatre,
Birmingham; Workshops, Inc., Birmingham.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, when I go to my church, South Beaver Creek
Lutheran Church, Sunday mornings with my family in rural western
Wisconsin by our family farm, I view that place as a sanctuary for my
soul; a place for us to congregate, to commune, to spend time in
fellowship with our fellow neighbors, and to check up on one another.
Yes, preach values and preach moral lessons to our children,
absolutely. But by repealing the Johnson amendment, you have the
potential of creating conflict in the pews. You could be creating
Republican and Democratic churches, mosques, and synagogues overnight.
This is one of the last refuges, one of the last institutions that we
still have as a country given how much we are self-segregating and
deciding whom we like to hang out with, what clubs we join, what people
we want to associate with, even our own family members, because of
political affiliation. Our places of worship are one of the last places
we can come regardless of political affiliation.
This will create unnecessary strife and unnecessary conflict, and it
has the potential of driving young people away from organized religion
because they won't put up with this. It could be a backdoor attempt for
a lot of political contributors now to get tax-exempt contributions to
these organizations for direct, partisan political campaigns. That is
why the Joint Committee on Taxation viewed this as a cost of over $2
billion.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to reconsider and reject this, and
let's prevent that conflict in our communities.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the
average family of four in the Third District of Wisconsin will see a
tax cut of over $2,000.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot), who is the chairman of the Small Business Committee and a
champion for small businesses.
{time} 1000
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act.
As a result of this bill, Ohio families will keep more of what they
earn. Additionally, it will create tens of thousands of jobs in Ohio
and in other States all across the country.
As chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I want to make
sure that the Tax Code works for our Nation's job creators so that we
can create jobs, not against them.
[[Page H9389]]
Seventy percent of the new jobs created in the American economy
nowadays are created by small businesses. Unfortunately, small
businesses are getting killed by the existing Tax Code.
This Tax Code will bring rates down from approximately 40 percent for
small-business owners to, in many cases, 25 percent and, in a lot of
cases, 9 percent. From 40 percent down to 9 percent. That means small
businesses can keep that money, invest and create more jobs for more
Americans.
The naysayers around here obviously can't say enough bad about this
bill, but it is going to be good for America. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, one-third of the gentleman's constituents
claim the State and local tax deduction, totalling $11,684 per family.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a great friend to all of us here in this
institution.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, before I start, I include in the Record
two articles. One is a letter from the National Fraternal Order of
Police, representing 330,000 police officers in this country coming out
against this bill because it will affect their members in a very, very
terrible way. The other is an article in The New York Times today:
``Republican Tax Plans Put Corporations Over People.''
National Fraternal
Order of Police,
Washington, DC, November 14, 2017.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker, Senator McConnell, Representative Pelosi
and Senator Schumer: I am writing on behalf of the members of
the Fraternal Order of Police to urge you to protect the
State and local tax (SALT) deduction in the current tax code.
Our members put their lives and safety at risk to protect our
homes, schools and communities. Their salaries and the
equipment they use are paid for by State and local taxes on
property, sales and income. These funds are then invested in
our law enforcement agencies and the men and women serving in
law enforcement.
The FOP is very concerned that the partial or total
elimination of the SALT deductions will endanger the ability
of our State and local governments to fund these agencies and
recruit the men and women we need to keep us safe. In
addition, our members are also citizens of these communities
who work and pay these State and local taxes. The elimination
of the SALT deductions, in whole or in part, will be deeply
harmful to them and their families, effectively raising their
taxes as much as $6,300 according to recent studies. The SALT
deduction has been part of the tax code since it was
originally drafted in 1913. Our members would certainly
oppose any effort of the Federal government to tax their
income twice by eliminating the SALT deduction.
On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal
Order of Police, I urge Congress to preserve the SALT
deductions, to reject any effort to eliminate, in whole or in
part, these deductions and oppose the final bill if these
deductions are included. I thank you in advance for your
consideration of our views. Please feel free to contact me or
my Senior Advisor Jim Pasco if I can provide any additional
information on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
National President.
____
[From the New York Times, Nov. 16, 2017]
Republican Tax Plans Put Corporations Over People
(By Jim Tankersley)
Washington.--There are tough choices at the heart of the
Republican tax bills speeding through Congress, and they make
clear what the party values most in economic policy right
now: deep and lasting tax cuts for corporations.
The bill set to pass the House on Thursday chooses to take
from high-tax Democratic states, particularly California and
New York, and give to lower-tax Republican states that
President Trump carried in 2016, particularly Florida and
Texas. It allows for tax increases on millions of families
several years from now, if a future Congress does not
intervene, but not for similar increases on corporations.
The version of the bill moving through the Senate Finance
Committee chooses to give peace of mind to corporate
executives planning their long-term investments. That comes
at the expense of added anxiety for individual taxpayers,
particularly those in the middle class, who could face stiff
tax increases on Jan. 1, 2026.
A consistent conservative philosophy underpins all those
decisions. So does a very large bet--economically and
politically--on the power of business tax cuts to deliver
rapid wage growth to United States workers.
There is also the appearance, to liberal critics in
particular, of Republicans seeking to reward their prized
constituencies first, while leaving others to bear the
consequences if their most optimistic scenarios do not play
out.
The tax plans have evolved rapidly since House leaders
first introduced their bill at the beginning of the month.
Amendments in the Ways and Means Committee restored some
cherished tax breaks that had been targeted for elimination,
including those for adoptive parents, and expanded the bill's
tax breaks for owners of businesses that are not organized as
traditional corporations.
The Senate bill differed from the House version when it was
introduced last week, and broke further away on Tuesday
night, with a package of amendments that included repealing
the Affordable Care Act's mandate that most individuals buy
health insurance. To comply with procedural rules that would
allow Republicans to pass the bill on a party-line vote in
the Senate, the amendment also set an expiration date--Dec.
25, 2025--on all the individual tax cuts in the legislation.
The plans also differ on their treatment of state and local
tax deductions. The Senate would kill them entirely. The
House would maintain them only for property taxes and cap the
deduction at $10,000 a year. Economists generally say that
those tax breaks are inefficient. But eliminating them, in
the context of the House bill, would add up to a large
geographic transfer of income, according to research by Carl
Davis, the research director of the Institute on Taxation and
Economic Policy in Washington.
The House bill would raise personal taxes on Californians
and New Yorkers by a combined $16 billion in 2027, Mr. Davis
found, while cutting personal taxes on Texans and Floridians
by more than $30 billion in total.
His analysis finds only one state that Mr. Trump carried in
2016 --Utah--would receive lower personal tax benefits under
the bill than would be expected, given its share of national
income, compared with 11 states won by his Democratic rival,
Hillary Clinton. The average Clinton state would receive 82
percent of its expected benefits, by share of national
income, under the plan. The average Trump state would receive
181 percent.
``It's not unusual for a tax bill to have varying impacts
in different parts of the country,'' Mr. Davis said. ``But
the degree to which this bill makes winners and losers out of
different states is remarkable.''
Curtailing state and local deductions helps finance a core
feature of both the House and Senate bills, which happens to
be one of the few provisions Mr. Trump has called
nonnegotiable in tax discussions: cutting the corporate
income tax to a flat 20 percent rate, down from a top rate of
35 percent today. Republicans have kept those cuts permanent,
even as the Senate applied an expiration date to the
individual cuts and to a key tax credit for families in the
House bill. The Senate bill also sets an expiration date on
breaks for so-called pass-through businesses, whose owners
pay taxes on profits through the tax code for individuals.
In Washington, Republicans have stressed that cutting
corporate taxes will supercharge economic growth,
accelerating job creation and raising wages in the process.
By that theory, making such cuts permanent is essential.
The gamble is apparent. Polls show that voters want
corporations to pay higher, not lower, taxes and that they
doubt corporate rate cuts will show up in their own
paychecks, as the White House has claimed. Perhaps not
coincidentally, Republican leaders have pitched their bills
largely as middle-class tax cuts, stressing the benefits for
the typical American family during television appearances and
news conferences.
``The policy expects that the corporate tax cuts will do
the most for growth,'' said Lanhee J. Chen, a research fellow
at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, who was the
policy director for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in
2012. ``On the other hand, they're the hardest to explain.''
It is an especially tricky explanation in the context of
the requests Republicans are making of individual taxpayers,
particularly the middle class, to trust that any benefits
they see from the bills will not vanish over a decade. The
Senate bill is scheduled to deliver an individual tax
increases on 137 million tax filers in 2027 if Congress does
not intervene first, according to calculations by Ernie
Tedeschi, an economist at Evercore ISI. Liberals warn the
shock would be huge for low- and middle-income families.
Republicans are ``making a choice as to which elements of
their plan are permanent,'' said Jacob Leibenluft, a senior
adviser at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a
former economic aide under President Barack Obama, ``and I
think it's worth starting with taking them at face value.''
Canceling those looming increases would further add to the
federal budget deficit, if the move is not paired with
spending cuts. Middle-class families planning ahead can
imagine two possible consequences from that decision: Either
an immediate increase in their taxes eight years from now, or
an explosion in federal budget deficits, which could
necessitate spending cuts to safety net programs like Social
Security and Medicare.
``The bill reflects talking out of both sides of your mouth
at the same time--neither of
[[Page H9390]]
which is leading to good policy,'' said Maya MacGuineas, the
president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Republican leaders in both chambers have said that they
will not allow individual tax breaks to expire--and that
their corporate cuts will yield enough growth and additional
tax revenue to pay for themselves, or at least come close.
Ms. MacGuineas and others fear the opposite could be even
more likely: that growth will fall far short of those
optimistic projections, and when the expiring tax provisions
come up for reauthorization, budget deficits will be
swelling. The result, they say, would be more hard choices--
and predictable ones.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised that editorial content
inserted within unanimous consent requests could result in Members'
time being charged.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, if it weren't bad enough, Mr. Speaker--and
I come over to this side for a reason: I have got many brothers and
sisters whom I love here--this is a terrible bill.
Unanimous consent here. The real price of this bill is hidden. $30
billion in interest on the debt every year. Who pays this?
If it weren't bad enough, the taxes that people have to pay today, as
well as our children and our grandchildren, but beyond that, the real
price of this bill is further hidden. The temporary family flexibility
credit expires after 5 years. The temporary exclusion for independent
care costs expires after 5 years.
Some have estimated that, if Republicans make these provisions
permanent, as they claim will happen in future Congresses, the costs of
the bill will increase to over $400 billion.
The Senate bill cuts off relief for families in 7 years. They are
hiding over $500 billion in costs.
I am particularly interested in the SALT exclusion as a deduction.
Folks in New Jersey, California, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, et
cetera, are going to be paying the costs of this deduction being
removed.
You can't make this up.
In fact, the increase mostly comes from eliminating the State and
local tax deduction for individuals, but corporations can continue to
deduct their State and local taxes. You can't, Mr. and Mrs. America.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, today is not just about tax reform. Today is
also about what we fundamentally believe as a nation. Today, we say
working class families, not the government, are best equipped to make
financial decisions.
Did we hear anything from our Democratic friends for nearly 8 years
about lowering taxes on middle and lower income families? We did not.
Now, for the first time since 1986, we are going to overhaul our
broken Tax Code.
Here is what it means for families in North Carolina. Middle-income
families will see more than a $2,300 increase in their take-home pay.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act means more than 30,000 new jobs in North
Carolina.
I am encouraged that our Senate colleagues have also decided to
include the ObamaCare individual mandate repeal and would urge our
House Conference to consider it, as well.
Last, I would like to thank Chairman Brady. There is no greater
servant in the United States House. Thanks to his work and that of his
team, today we keep our promise. It is time to move forward.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett), a thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the promise of tax reform has degenerated
into little more than a scam to aid tax dodgers. While public attention
is diverted to the scandal in Alabama, Republicans are rushing through
this sham of a bill, developed in the dark with lobbyists, before most
Americans realize what is about to hit them in the face.
Instead of more jobs at home, Republicans create a giant, new gaping
loophole to ship ever more jobs abroad. Even Speaker Ryan's home State
Republican Senator Ron Johnson concedes that, under this bill, ``there
will be a real incentive to keep manufacturing overseas.''
It is hardly a surprise since President Trump's Wall Streeter
designated to run the show has just been identified personally from
leaked Bermudan documents as the past executive of not one, but 22
different island tax-paradise shell companies.
Meanwhile, another loophole, carried interest, that flows to
plutocrats like Donald Trump. That is the very injustice he promised to
stop last year. It will keep flowing right into their pocket.
As for the deduction for student interest for those who are
overwhelmed with college loans, like other middle-class tax provisions,
that is part of the $65 billion that is cut out of tax incentives by
Republicans in this bill.
They are totally dependent upon alternative facts.
Today's bill even authorizes those who want to pay absolutely zero in
tax to do that by abolishing the alternative minimum tax (AMT). That
one change that they make, in one year, would have put $31 million in
Donald Trump's pocket.
So you can certainly understand why he is coming to the Capitol
today, just to say thank you: Thank you for the billion dollars-plus
that is estimated to go to the Trump family under this bill. ``When
does my tax refund get here?'' he must be saying.
Of course, we don't know precisely how much Donald Trump is enriched
because these Republicans keep colluding to hide his tax returns.
Republicans want to apply a ``dynamic score'' to this bill. I say:
create a dynamic workforce, invest in people, and don't overwhelm us
with endless debt. Develop a more competitive, healthy workforce that
empowers our DREAMers and other immigrants and that gives every
American access to education and skill upgrades to achieve their full,
God-given potential.
As they deny one middle-class deduction after another and impose this
new Alzheimer's tax, Republicans claim that they have a patented tax
miracle cure for most everything but baldness.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional
15 seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. We have seen this trickle-down, medicine sideshow
before. It didn't work then; it won't work now.
All they are doing is grabbing for a political life preserver after
10 months of Republican failures and leave America drowning in debt.
This isn't ``tax reform.'' It is a giant giveaway to Washington special
interests that must be stopped.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, my late father was the ranking
Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee when the last tax
reform was passed in 1986. I know personally how difficult it was then
to bring all the competing interests together. Everything looks easy
from a distance.
Everyone in this Congress would write a slightly different tax bill
if given the chance to do so, but we can't have 535 different tax
bills. Even Chairman Brady would probably change some things if he had
complete control over it. I would favor some slight differences, but
this is a great bill, overall, for middle-income people. We need to do
more in the future to cut spending along with it.
Kevin Brady is the right man at the right time. I think he has done a
masterful job in bringing this bill to the floor. No other bill will do
more to help keep jobs in this country. No other bill we can pass in
this Congress would do more to help more people than this one will.
I urge the bill's passage.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), whose knowledge of new markets tax
credits is second to none in this institution.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record
two letters: one from the National Education Association and one from
the American Council on Education.
November 15, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the three million members
of the National Education Association (NEA), and the 50
million
[[Page H9391]]
students they serve, we urge you to Vote No on the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act (H.R. 1), a rewrite of the U.S. tax code being
voted on this week. This multi-trillion dollar plan is a tax
giveaway to the wealthiest and corporations paid for on the
backs of working families and students, and jeopardizes the
ability of states and local communities to adequately fund
public schools. Votes associated with this issue may be
included in NEA's Legislative Report Card for the 115th
Congress.
Tax plans reveal the priorities of a nation and in a number
of respects this one tells working and middle-class families,
students, and educators that they must sacrifice in order to
further enrich the wealthy and corporations. We oppose the
bill as currently crafted for several reasons outlined below.
A Giveaway to the Wealthy and Corporations sets up Drastic Cuts to
Medicaid, Medicare, and Education
Analysis of the Joint Committee on Taxation's estimate of
H.R. 1's impact shows that the bill is overwhelmingly skewed
to the wealthy. Households with annual incomes over $1
million would receive 16 times the percentage increase in
after-tax income as other taxpayers. In addition, 45 percent
of the cost of the bill's tax cuts would go to households
with incomes above $500,000--less than one percent of filers.
Meanwhile, JCT estimates show that taxes would actually
increase for filers with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000
over the life of the bill.
For now, much of the tax cuts will be deficit-financed, but
the budget resolution that helped pave the way for this plan
previews the next phase: future legislation to cut the
growing deficit caused by tax cuts by demanding cuts to
critical services that help working people, children,
seniors, and others--Medicaid, Medicare, education, and more.
In fact, some of this impact will be immediate. According to
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), without enacting
subsequent legislation, the tax bill will trigger automatic
spending cuts to pay for the tax changes under a ``paygo''
law. The CBO analysis concludes that Medicare would face an
FY18 reduction of $25 billion with a remaining $111 billion
to be sequestered from remaining mandatory programs.
Kansas provides a window into what this approach looks
like. In 2012, the state's former governor pushed through
similar massive tax cuts to individuals and businesses that
allegedly would boost the economy. In reality, Kansas' job
growth was anemic and the governor and legislature starved
state services. Kansas cut funding for public schools,
infrastructure, and other services, and scrambled to close a
$350-million budget deficit. After voters spoke at the ballot
box, lawmakers reversed course, raising taxes and
overriding--in a bipartisan manner--the governor's veto.
Rather than rushing forward with a partisan bill, Congress
would do well to heed the recent lesson from America's
heartland.
Eliminating SALT Deduction is a Tax Increase and Will Devastate
Education Funding
H.R. 1 would eliminate most of the state and local tax
deduction (SALT)--taking money out of the pockets of as many
44 million middle-class families across the nation. While the
bill hammers middle-class families on this, it oddly
preserves the ability of businesses to deduct state and local
taxes--yet another example of how the bill takes from working
families to provide tax giveaways to those who are wealthier.
Eliminating any part of the state and local tax deduction
could lead to a tax increase on middle class families and
have a negative, ripple effect on the ability of states and
local communities to fund public services, like education.
That could translate into cuts to public schools, lost jobs
to educators, and overcrowded classrooms that deprive
students of one-on-one attention.
NEA conducted a detailed analysis of the plan to eliminate
most of SALT. In total, education funding could take a $250
billion cut over the next 10 years and put up to 250,000
education jobs at risk. It is no secret what is likely to
follow if Congress eliminates SALT. If there is any doubt,
one need only to listen to what far-right groups like ALEC
are saying right now. Their letter about the SALT deduction
lays out their plan--to lobby for lower taxes at the state
and local level. This means even fewer available funds for
students and public education.
Turning Popular 529 College Savings Plan into a Voucher-like scheme for
the Wealthy
The tax plan distorts a popular education tax program for
middle-class families by creating a voucher scheme with no
income limits that is aimed at benefitting the wealthy to set
aside up to $10,000 annually in a tax-free account for
private school expenses. Both the Heritage Foundation and
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos agree, noting to the
Washington Post that the backdoor voucher plan is ``. . . a
good step forward . . .'' in allowing public dollars to
follow children to private school. Make no mistake. This
poorly veiled voucher program will only benefit the
wealthiest families who can already afford private school
tuition at the expense of our students, communities, and
taxpayers. In the end, no matter what form or name a voucher
program takes, the impact is the same. This risky voucher
program will hurt students and neighborhood schools--where 90
percent of children attend.
Elimination of the modest Educator Tax Deduction
While offering huge giveaways for wealthy individuals and
corporations, the plan inexplicably eliminates the popular
educator tax deduction that allows educators to deduct
eligible unreimbursed out-of-pocket classroom spending--
books, paper, pencils, and art supplies purchased to
supplement meager school budgets--up to $250 annually. The
popular plan made ``permanent'' by Congress just two years
ago, was claimed on 3.7 million tax returns in 2015. Almost
every educator pays out of pocket for school supplies. The
most recent study by the National School Supplies and
Equipment Association (NSSEA) estimated that public school
educators spent $1.6 billion of their own money during the
2012-2013 school year on classroom supplies. An estimated 99
percent of public school teachers spent some amount of money
out of pocket for their classrooms, with typical amounts
ranging from $500-$1,000.
Making College Even More Costly for Families
The plan also eliminates the student loan interest
deduction. This is bad news for students and families. Under
current rules, borrowers paying off education loans can
annually deduct up to $2,500 of interest paid on student
loans. H.R. 1 essentially raises the long-term cost of
attending college by eliminating the deductions for interest
paid on student loans. According to the IRS, over 12 million
individuals claimed this deduction in 2015. Further, the bill
eliminates a provision that allows universities to waive
tuition for graduate students. Graduate students would be
taxed on the value of that tuition as if it were income,
making it almost impossible for many students to afford
graduate degrees. In a time of rising college costs and
skyrocketing student loan debt, it is unthinkable to take
away provisions that assists students and families struggling
to pay for college.
Eliminating Successful School Construction Bonds Program
The Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) Program has proven
to be an efficient and cost-effective way to help
disadvantaged communities address pressing renovation and
repair needs in schools. Investors receive a federal tax
credit equal to the amount of interest payable on the bonds,
thereby relieving local taxpayers and municipalities of the
interest burden. A school that is awarded a QZAB may use the
funds to renovate and repair buildings, invest in equipment,
and update technology which are all vital to student well-
being and success. Eliminating this program will only ensure
that more and more students will go to school in yesterday's
buildings with out-of-date technology and often unsafe,
crumbling infrastructures.
Putting State and Local Public Pensions Funding at Risk
Section 5001 of H.R. 1 could subject certain investment of
state and local government pension plans to the unrelated
business income tax (UBIT). Investment earnings pay for
approximately two-thirds of state and local government
pension benefits, which are taxed when distributed to
participants. In addition to the revenue lost from the tax
itself, subjecting these pension plans to UBIT could pose
significant and complex compliance costs that could
dramatically affect pension funds. Further, the UBIT will
result in a drag on these critically important investment
returns, sets a dangerous precedent for taxation of state
entities, and will ultimately increase costs to taxpayers.
Rewriting the Tax Code Should Not be Rushed
In 1986, Congress undertook a yearlong, bipartisan effort
to deliberately and carefully rewrite the tax code. Measured
consideration should again be taken in understanding the
near-term and long-term impacts a tax code rewrite will have
on families, communities, and public services. Instead,
Congressional leadership is rushing the process and putting
forward a bill that further tilts the scale in favor of the
wealthy and corporations, and paid for by working families.
For all of the reasons outlined above, we urge you to Vote No
on H.R. 1.
Sincerely,
Marc Egan,
Director of Government Relations,
National Education Association.
____
American Council on Education,
Washington, DC, November 6, 2017.
Re Higher Education Provisions in H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and
Jobs Act.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, Ways and Means Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Neal,
Ranking Member, Ways and Means Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal: On behalf of
the American Council on Education and the undersigned higher
education associations, we write to express grave concerns
with H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
This legislation, taken in its entirety, would discourage
participation in postsecondary education, make college more
expensive for those who do enroll, and undermine the
financial stability of public and private, two-year and four-
year colleges and universities. According to the Committee on
Ways and Means summary, the bill's provisions would increase
the cost to students attending college by more than $65
billion between 2018 and 2027. This is not in America's
national interest.
It is possible to offer tax relief to hard-working middle-
class and lower-income
[[Page H9392]]
Americans in a way that does not increase college costs and
does not make a quality higher education less accessible. We
are eager to work with Congress to enact such legislation,
but this bill heads in the wrong direction.
Our main objections to the bill are listed below, in the
order in which they appear in the legislation. The order is
not meant to reflect prioritization:
Sec. 1002: Changes to the standardized deduction, which
will reduce charitable contributions to our institutions;
Sec. 1002: Repeal of Lifetime Learning Credit, while not
substantially increasing the American Opportunity Tax Credit
(AOTC);
Sec. 1204: Repeal of the Student Loan Interest Deduction
(SLID);
Sec. 117(d): Repeal of the qualified tuition reduction;
Sec. 127: Repeal of educational assistance program;
Sec. 1303: Changes to the state and local tax (SALT)
deduction, which will reduce state budgets and, in turn,
funding for public higher education;
Sec. 3601: Termination of private activity bonds; and,
Sec. 5103: Creation of a new excise tax on endowments at
private colleges and universities.
Colleges and universities also have a number of concerns
about other provisions that would negatively impact students
by lessening charitable giving, limiting university-industry
partnerships, and compromising educational quality.
Title I--Tax Reform for Individuals
subtitle a--simplification and reform of rates, standard deduction, and
exemptions
Sec. 1002. Enhancement of the standard deduction
Colleges and universities are concerned that doubling the
standard deduction for individuals and couples will reduce
the number of taxpayers who itemize, significantly reducing
the value of the charitable deduction and leading to a drop
in donations to all nonprofits, including colleges and
universities. For private nonprofit and public colleges and
universities, the charitable deduction is vital for
generating private support to higher education institutions
to help achieve their educational missions of teaching,
research, and public service. While the bill preserves a
modest charitable giving incentive, its value would be
significantly curtailed and charitable giving would decline
to all nonprofits, which provide essential services to all
Americans. We are disappointed that the bill did not include
a proposal that would expand the charitable deduction to non-
itemizers, like the universal charitable deduction.
subtitle c--simplification and reform of education incentives
Sec. 1201. The American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC)
H.R. 1 would repeal the Lifetime Learning Credit, while
only expanding AOTC to include a fifth year of reduced
support. This would be a large step backwards, not an
improvement, for many students and their families who benefit
under current law. We appreciate that the bill maintains the
expanded eligible expenses of the AOTC, which includes
required course materials, as well as the current income
thresholds. But we are extremely concerned that the
``enhanced'' AOTC, as written, would preclude graduate
students, part-time students, lifelong learners (particularly
those seeking retraining), and any student taking longer than
five years to finish their education from accessing the AOTC,
adversely impacting their financial ability to pursue a
degree or lifelong learning. Indeed, under the changes
proposed in the bill, many non-traditional students--the
fastest growing segment of students in higher education--
would lose significant tax benefits they currently rely upon
to help finance their higher education.
Sec. 1204. Repeal of other provisions relating to education
The legislation as written would repeal the current Student
Loan Interest Deduction (SLID). Under current law, any
individual with income up to $80,000 (or $160,000 on a joint
return) repaying student loans can currently deduct up to
$2,500 in student loan interest paid. In 2014, 12 million
taxpayers benefited from SLID. Eliminating this provision
would mean that, over the next decade, the cost of student
loans for borrowers would increase by roughly $13 billion.
H.R. 1 would also repeal two important provisions meant to
exclude tuition waivers and tuition exemptions from income
for campus employees and graduate students.
Section 117(d) permits educational institutions to provide
their employees, spouses, or dependents with tuition
reductions that are excluded from taxable income, helping
them afford a college education and providing an important
benefit to many middle- and lower-income college employees.
Section 117(d)(5) is also an important provision that
reduces the cost of graduate education and mitigates the tax
liability of graduate students teaching and researching as
part of their academic programs. Roughly 145,000 graduate
students received a tuition reduction in 2011-2012. Repeal of
this provision would result in thousands of graduate students
being subjected to a major tax increase. The provision is
also critical to the research endeavor at major universities,
particularly in the crucial science, technology, engineering
and math (STEM) fields. According to data from the Department
of Education, 57 percent of tuition reductions went to
graduate students in STEM programs.
Section 127 allows employers to offer employees up to
$5,250 annually in tuition assistance, which is excluded from
taxable income. This provision has been an important means of
building and adding to the competencies of the workforce and
is a critical tool to help our nation accelerate its economic
growth.
For all of these reasons, we strongly believe that Sections
117(d) and 127 should be preserved.
subtitle d--simplification and reform of deductions
Sec. 1303. Repeal of deduction for certain taxes not paid
or accrued in a trade or business
Changes to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction will
have a significant negative effect on state budgets, forcing
state governments to make very difficult and harmful funding
decisions. The SALT deduction helps state and local
governments fund public services that provide widely shared
benefits. Limiting the deduction will almost certainly make
it harder for states and localities--many of which already
face serious budget strains--to raise sufficient revenues in
the coming years to fund higher education and other
priorities. There has been a long-term decline in state
support for higher education and cuts to SALT will exacerbate
this problem. Cuts in state support for public higher
education can lead to increased tuition and potentially cuts
to state student financial aid programs, raising the cost of
attending college for students and their families. History
has shown that when states need to make cuts, support for
higher education is often a primary target.
Title III--Business Tax Reform
subtitle g--bond reforms
Sec. 3601. Termination of private activity bonds
H.R. 1 would eliminate private activity bonds, which are
used by private nonprofit colleges and universities to
finance capital projects. This repeal would essentially
prevent institutions from using lower-cost tax-exempt bond
financing. Higher borrowing costs can result in diminished
investments in infrastructure, fewer jobs, reduced services,
and increased service charges and other fees to students.
Title V--Exempt Organizations
subtitle b--excise taxes
Sec. 5103. Excise tax based on investment income of private
colleges and universities
H.R. 1 fundamentally changes the way nonprofits are treated
by creating a new and unprecedented tax on endowments of some
private colleges and universities. This provision undermines
the very nature of the tax-exempt status of private colleges
and universities. While the new excise tax is currently
focused on private institutions, we strongly oppose this new
excise tax and the precedent it sets for all of higher
education.
Investment income from endowments is used every day to
support nearly every aspect of an institution's operations,
including all the components vital to its mission and the
delivery of a high-quality, affordable education, from
financial aid to research and student retention and success
programs. An endowment is not a single entity that can be
used for any purpose. Rather, it is a permanent investment
fund consisting of often thousands of separate accounts
designed for the needs of the present and the future. Under
H.R. 1 potentially large amounts of endowment dollars would
be redirected to the federal government, taking them away
from providing scholarships to our students and supporting
research and education. It also would effectively be a tax on
donors' contributions and shift money from the dedicated
purpose for the donation. Roughly 160 institutions will
likely be affected by this provision, and we strongly object
to it.
For all of these reasons, we cannot support H.R. 1 and
strongly oppose the proposed changes outlined above.
Sincerely,
Ted Mitchell,
President.
On behalf of:
ACPA--College Student Educators International, American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American
Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, American
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers
(AACRAO), American Association of Community Colleges,
American Association of State Colleges and Universities,
American Association of University Professors, American
Council on Education, American Dental Education Association,
American Psychological Association.
APPA, ``Leadership in Educational Facilities'', Association
of American Colleges and Universities, Association of
American Medical Colleges, Association of American
Universities, Association of Catholic Colleges and
Universities, Association of Community College Trustees,
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges,
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, Association
of Public and Land-grant Universities, Association of
Research Libraries.
Association of Teacher Educators, College and University
Professional Association for Human Resources, Consortium of
Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area, Council for
Advancement and Support of
[[Page H9393]]
Education, Council for Christian Colleges & Universities,
Council for Higher Education Accreditation, Council of
Graduate Schools, Council of Independent Colleges, Council on
Governmental Relations, Council on Social Work Education.
EDUCAUSE, Hispanic Association of Colleges and
Universities, NAFSA: Association of International Educators,
NASPA--Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education,
National Adult Learner Coalition, National Association for
College Admission Counseling, National Association for Equal
Opportunity in Higher Education, National Association of
College and University Business Officers, National
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities,
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators,
National Collegiate Athletic Association, The Council for
Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), Thurgood Marshall
College Fund, UNCF (United Negro College Fund), UPCEA.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill
is a dangerous bill that raises taxes on 36 million middle class
households; takes healthcare from tens of millions of Americans;
skyrockets the cost of health insurance for all Americans, but
especially for those who are sick or have preexisting conditions; and
directly results in cuts to Medicare and safety net spending next
year--all to give corporate special interests immediate, permanent, and
monumental tax cuts.
Cut, cut, cut is all that I have heard this week: cut the safety net;
cut service for the needy; cut service for the physically challenged;
cut the poor; cut the homeless; cut Medicaid; cut education; cut out
low-income tax credits; cut out new market tax credits; cut out social
services; cut block grants; cut student loans.
Winter is here. Cut the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. If
you live in Chicago, Minneapolis, the Midwest, or the Northeast,
without any heat, you are subject to catch pneumonia and die. There is
no doubt about it.
I can imagine that college residents, hospital administrators, and
managers of programs are wringing their hands, wondering what they are
going to do.
I heard a minister last Sunday at one of the churches in my community
asking this, and he said: Pray, organize, vote.
Vote against this bill.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Buchanan), chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I also want to acknowledge our incredible
chairman and his leadership over the last 7 years I have been here and
working this plan forward. It is an exciting time for all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,
legislation to provide tax relief to middle class families and small-
business owners across America.
As a businessman for more than 30 years, I have had the opportunity
to employ thousands of workers. I have seen firsthand how broken our
tax system can be for many hardworking Americans.
Under this bill, not only will the average family of four receive a
tax cut, but small businesses will finally be taxed at a lower rate to
help them expand and grow jobs in America.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, this bill will create 1
million new jobs and grow the economy by 4 percent, a growth rate this
country hasn't experienced since 2000.
It is time to give all Americans a break in terms of their taxes.
With passage of this bill, we will finally have the opportunity to help
middle class families and get our economy back on track.
I urge support for this critical bill to cut taxes and reform our tax
system.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Higgins), one of the most knowledgeable members of the Ways
and Means Committee.
Mr. HIGGINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is nothing more than a hit
job on middle America to pay for a massive tax cut for corporate
America. The only certainty from this charade is slower economic
growth, more income inequality, and exploding budget deficits.
When you take away tax relief from sick people who were born into
illness and for whom insurance doesn't provide enough coverage, that is
a hit on middle America.
When you remove help for people who are just trying to make college
affordable, who are trying to make themselves better, that is a hit on
middle America.
{time} 1015
And when you take away healthcare from 13 million Americans and raise
the cost for millions more because you needed another $300 billion to
give more to corporate America, that is a hit on middle America.
And when 152,000 people from my community and millions more from New
York lose 100 years of protection from State and local taxes,
protection worth more than $8,000 per household, that is a hit on my
community, it is a hit on New York State, and it is a hit on each and
every community in America.
And when you take away the essential needs of middle America to feed
the rapacious needs of corporate America, it is a hit on fundamental
fairness, and that, Mr. Speaker, is a hit on all of America.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, we know that the economic and job creation
benefits are key components of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, making the
U.S. globally competitive again, giving much-needed tax cuts to
American business, and much-needed wage increases to American workers.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is really the long overdue direct tax benefits to
the vast middle class, who don't have a lobbyist living in the rich
suburbs of Washington, D.C., that take center stage for me and my
fellow North Dakotans.
You see, 80 percent of the citizens of North Dakota file claiming
this standard deduction. That means, Mr. Speaker, that the vast
majority of my constituents will see their deductions nearly doubled if
they do nothing else. And obviously, with the doubling of the standard
deduction, it will likely inspire even more North Dakotans to claim
this simple deduction.
Mr. Speaker, this huge benefit, combined with greater job
opportunities and simpler, less expensive filing costs, and, of course,
a generous family tax credit, will put more money in the pockets and
less anxiety in the hearts of middle class North Dakotans. Supporting
this reform package is easy for me because it is right for North
Dakota, and I thank Chairman Brady for this outstanding work.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. DelBene), a very successful businesswomen in her own
right, who understands the modern economy.
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, in this Ryan-McConnell tax bill,
Republicans are touting the largest set of corporate tax cuts in our
country's history. They are raving that their corporate cuts will
create jobs, even though we know that trickle-down economics has never
worked and never will.
Instead of bringing Democrats and the public into the process,
Republicans have made the most cynical tradeoffs, only hurting people
who need help the most.
This is wrong. Tax reform should be about coming together and making
choices that reflect our values.
Yet, under this plan, teachers, who buy supplies for their students,
like pens, pencils, and paper, will lose the ability to deduct those
costs from their tax returns, but corporations still can deduct supply
costs.
Firefighters will no longer be able to deduct their State and local
income or sales taxes, but corporations still can.
Homeowners will no longer be able to deduct all of their property
taxes, but corporations still can.
And if workers have to move because their employer is forcing them to
relocate their families or lose their jobs, they will no longer be able
to deduct their moving expenses, but corporations, even those
offshoring jobs, still can.
This bill increases taxes on 36 million working families and rips
away key lifelines that help people struggling with long-term illness,
childcare, and education expenses. It blows a $1.5 trillion hole in the
deficit and burdens our children and grandchildren with debt,
triggering an automatic $25 billion cut to Medicare. This bill gives
massive permanent tax cuts to corporations,
[[Page H9394]]
but working families will have to live with the temporary scraps thrown
at them.
Bottom line: this bill hurts Americans from cradle to retirement, and
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), one of the leaders of the Tax Policy
Subcommittee.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady and
all the members of the Ways and Means staff who have worked tirelessly
in order to bring this bill forward.
I can't tell you how excited I am to be here today. My friend, Mr.
Larson, I notice he wears a pin with a picture of John Kennedy, one of
my favorite Presidents of all time.
Let me just read from a speech that President Kennedy gave on
December 14, 1962. This is 55 years ago, and he gave it in an address
to the Economic Club of New York.
``Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and
the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is
increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as
our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by
restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our
budget--just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
`` . . . only full employment can balance the budget, and tax
reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting
taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more
prosperous, expanding economy, which can bring a budget surplus.''
Keeping that in mind--and I hear the debate going back and forth--I
would just encourage all of our Members: you are going to have a choice
today to take your voting card, and you are going to put it in the
voting machine, and you can push a green button that says ``go,''
putting this Nation back on track, making America the greatest economic
power in the world; or you can push the red button and say: you know
what, just not something I can vote for today because it is just not
exactly what I want.
Next week, 50 million Americans will travel because they want to come
home; they want to come home for the holidays; they want to come home
for Thanksgiving. This bill is a Thanksgiving bill. This is a jobs bill
because what we are telling corporate America is we want you to come
home. We want to make this a more favorable environment for you to
live, to work, to succeed, because we know that true success in
business is only a sustainable business model.
So when you tax people at the highest rate in the industrialized
world, when you regulate people that puts them in an uncompetitive
advantage on the shelf, they can't exist, and so where do they go? They
have to leave home to go overseas to find that answer.
Now, I just want to go over some things that really are important. A
friend of mine by the name of George Abraham, who is a basketball
coach--George and I were talking one day, and we were talking about the
value of winning. And George said to me: You know what, Mike, the only
position you want to be in is the number one position.
And I said: Really?
He goes: Yes. Because anything other than finishing first is you
finish with the rest.
If you were to take a survey, and Forbes did, and they said: If you
were starting a business today, where would you start that business?
And right away, I would say: Are you kidding me? It is the United
States of America because of who we are, our greatness.
And no, there are 22 other countries that people say I would rather
go someplace else than do it right here in America. That is incredible.
And when we talk about where we are as a people--where we are as a
people--listen to these figures. These are not my figures, by the way.
This is the Tax Foundation:
Cuts for Americans at every economic level;
Reduces taxes by almost $1,200 for every average-size middle-income
American family;
Reduces taxes by almost $2,000 for every average-size middle-income
family in Pennsylvania's Third District;
Grows national GDP by 3.5 percent;
Increases American wages by 2.7 percent;
Increases after-tax income for every taxpayer by 3.8 percent in the
long run;
Increases after-tax incomes for median families in Pennsylvania by
over $2,300;
Creates almost 900,000 new American jobs; and
Creates, in my State of Pennsylvania, over 36,000 new jobs.
So I say, this is a jobs bill. This is a revenue raiser for us. This
is about bringing people back home. This is about more take-home pay
for every hardworking American guy and gal who is out there who gets up
every day and gets up to do one thing, and that is, to protect their
families and work in the interest of their country.
I am just asking you today to look at this card and know that you
have within the power of your vote to unleash the greatest economy in
the world, to unshackle it from a Tax Code that makes it impossible to
compete globally, that overregulates it and forces it offshore, and
then blames them for leaving.
This is a ``come on back home.'' This is a ``don't leave home; stay
here; we are on your side; we are going to work with you; and we are
going to get there.''
I ask my friends on both sides of the aisle: Let's do what is right
for America. If it is right for America, it is right for Republicans,
it is right for Democrats, it is right for Independents, it is right
for Libertarians, it is right for America.
This is the right time to do the right thing. My friends, we cannot
stay where we are. A standpat hand is a nonwinning hand. The ability to
move forward, the ability to absolutely not just participate in a
global economy but dominate a global economy and give every single
American the faith and a future and restore the faith they need to have
in this body that we are doing the best thing in their interest every
single day that we come here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have Mr. Kelly--as he
describes sports teams, we discovered he is a closet Patriots fan.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Judy Chu), whose history, in terms of revenue and revenue
collection, is well known to the Congress.
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear about the
GOP tax scam: corporate interests get a huge giveaway. They get a
windfall tax break. Who pays for it? The middle class. Who wins?
Corporations, billionaires, millionaires, the Trump family. Who loses?
Women, families, seniors, teachers, students.
As a former Los Angeles Community College teacher of 20 years, I
can't believe what Republicans are doing to students. They rip away
critical benefits that help our students pay for their college
education. They eliminate the student loan interest deductions and
choose to tax graduate students on money they have never even received
by taxing the tuition assistance they get for working for their
schools.
This bill even pinches students when they are still in elementary
school by taxing their teachers who claim a deduction for the school
supplies they pay for out of their own paycheck. One teacher in my area
even pays for the ink in her classroom printer. They don't ask to be
repaid, just to be able to deduct the expense.
If corporations get to keep this deduction, why not our teachers? And
then if that is not cruel enough, they eliminate the deduction for
extraordinary medical expenses for those with Alzheimer's and cancer.
And this week we learn that Republicans plan to pay for these corporate
cuts by causing 13 million people to lose their health insurance, a
move that will increase premiums by 10 percent and result in
individuals with preexisting conditions losing access to lifesaving
affordable coverage.
Then Republicans eliminate the State and local ta deduction, which is
used by over 6 million California households, to prevent their hard-
earned dollars from being taxed twice. Of all the States, Californians
will actually face the largest net tax increase
[[Page H9395]]
from this bill of $12.1 billion in 2027 alone.
California Republicans who vote for this bill ought to be ashamed of
themselves, and the voters need to hold them accountable. Thirty-six
million middle class families will be stuck holding the bag under this
plan. For what? For tax cuts for corporate interests. This is
unacceptable.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Renacci), one of our key members of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act. First of all, I want to thank President Trump for
making this a priority, but I especially want to thank Chairman Brady
for his tireless efforts and leadership in bringing this legislation to
the floor today.
Three decades ago, there was a 24-year-old starting a business in
Ohio. He borrowed money and started hiring people. As he grew his
business, he didn't take a paycheck and kept hiring hardworking middle
class Americans. But then, as he started looking over things, he
couldn't hire anymore, because of the tremendous tax bill owed to the
Federal Government.
That is what small business entrepreneurs face in today's tax
environment. That 24-year-old was me. Luckily, I was a certified public
accountant. I was able to figure out a way to make my business work and
grow without our suffocating Tax Code or through our suffocating Tax
Code.
Unfortunately, most small-business owners do not experience the Tax
Code complexities until they get started. They have an idea, they start
their business, and then the government steps in; and they are not
CPAs.
If my three children were to ask me today if they should risk and
start a business, I would be hesitant to push them down that path,
which is why I support H.R. 1, which lowers the tax rate for businesses
and gives hardworking taxpayers a break. This bill puts more money in
their pockets to do with it what is important to them, those
hardworking taxpayers, not letting the government take it and waste it.
{time} 1030
Lowering the individual rate will give Americans the opportunity to
choose where they want to spend their money instead of banking on a
government to spend it for them.
On the business side, the harsh reality is that America has become an
uncompetitive place to do business. With the highest corporate tax rate
in the developed world, it should not be a surprise that businesses are
relocating to countries with better business climates. Fortunately, by
bringing our rate down to 20 percent, we can make America one of the
most competitive countries in the world to do business.
It is hard for U.S. companies to compete against companies based in
Canada, where the Federal income tax rate is 15 percent, Ireland at
12.5 percent, or even the U.K., which will be 17 percent by 2020.
Businesses set their prices to be competitive. The U.S. has to set its
business rate to compete, as well.
The high corporate tax rate is not just a Wall Street problem; it is
a Main Street problem. Business entities do not pay taxes; people do.
The burden of the corporate tax rate falls on three categories of
people: shareholders, customers, and employees. Corporations do not pay
taxes; we do.
This bill helps companies compete, hire more people, and give them a
more competitive wage. This bill gives individuals more money to spend
on what they want, not what the government wants. This bill simplifies
the Tax Code for hardworking Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this historic reform so
more Americans can choose where their money goes, not Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 1.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a Marshall Scholar and attorney.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my
colleagues to reject this misguided and mean-spirited tax bill that is
being rushed through this Congress today.
Mr. Speaker, this Republican sham tax bill picks winners and losers.
The winners under this tax bill are corporations, Wall Street fat cats,
the top 1 percent of the highest wage earners in America, and the
special interests. The losers are the middle class, working families,
students, the most vulnerable in our society, and our farmers.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National
Farmers Union, which objects to this bill.
National Farmers Union,
November 14, 2017.
Congressional Tax Plans Jeopardize the Farm Safety Net, CBO Analysis
Says
For Immediate Release.
Contact: Andrew Jerome.
Washington.--Amidst the steepest drop in farm profitability
in a generation, U.S. Congressional leadership is proposing
tax reform legislation that would jeopardize all funding for
farm bill commodity safety net programs.
The two tax bills being considered in both the U.S. Senate
and the U.S. House of Representatives would add $1.5 trillion
to the federal deficit. According to new Congressional Budget
Office analysis of the bills, that $1.5 trillion deficit
increase would need to be offset by eliminating all funding
for vital farm programs such as Agriculture Risk Coverage
(ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC), among other mandatory
federal spending programs.
``If Congress passes legislation that increases the
deficit, they will subsequently be forced to cut federal
spending. In the case of the tax bill, current law could
require 100 percent sequestration of all commodity program
payments and other farm bill programs,'' said National
Farmers Union President Roger Johnson ``Tax cuts for the
highest income brackets should absolutely not come at the
expense of programs that protect our nation's family farmers
and ranchers.''
The House and Senate budget resolution that was passed
earlier this year paves the way for tax cuts that would
increase the U.S. federal deficit by $1.5 trillion over ten
years Statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules require that
increases in deficit spending be offset by reduced spending
across non-exempt mandatory programs The government would be
required to cut such programs by $150 billion per year in
accordance with PAYGO.
The total available pool of funding across all non-exempt
mandatory programs amounts to, in CBO's estimation, ``only
between $85 billion to $90 billion,'' meaning that all
impacted mandatory spending programs other than Medicare,
including the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), would be
entirely stripped of funding.
The CCC is the second largest non-exempt mandatory program,
after Medicare It funds dairy and other farm program
payments, including ARC and PLC, both of which are critical
for keeping family farmers and ranchers in business during
times of economic uncertainty. Discretionary spending and a
number of mandatory programs, including Social Security, the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), federal
crop insurance, and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
are exempt from PAYGO. ``Farmers Union has long opposed using
budget sequestration to reduce the federal deficit,
especially through cuts to agricultural programs,'' added
Johnson. ``This proposal asks farmers and ranchers to trade
any possible tax benefits for the elimination of farm safety
net payments, like ARC and PLC. That would be a disastrous
trade. NFU continues to advocate for a simplified,
progressive tax code that does not risk programs vital to the
livelihoods and well-being of American family farmers and
ranchers.''
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. These are the very same people that this
President promised to benefit.
This is what this bill does for corporate America:
It dramatically cuts rates from the largest companies in the world,
moving the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.
It creates loopholes for wealthy individuals to recharacterize their
wage income as small business income so that they can pay less in
taxes.
It repeals the alternative minimum tax, which captures the tax
liabilities for wealthy individuals. In fact, the only tax return that
we have ever seen of Mr. Trump was his 2005 tax return in which he had
to pay $38 million. Why? Because of AMT.
And this tax bill will also permanently repeal the estate tax, which
only affects 5,500 households in America. And I can tell you, Mr.
Speaker, none of those households are in my district.
In contrast, how will this tax bill impact the middle class? Mr.
Speaker, 36 million middle class households will pay more taxes. One in
four taxpayers will pay more taxes.
To pay for the corporate tax cuts, this bill will hurt working
families. It will eliminate deductions on interest on student loans. It
will eliminate medical expense deductions, which many, many households
use to pay for long-term care needs. It will eliminate
[[Page H9396]]
the lifetime learning credit. And it will also do away with deductions
for families that pay for daycare and aging parents.
Mr. Speaker, this is not comprehensive tax reform. The American
people deserve better, and we as a Congress can do better.
Please reject this bill.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady for his leadership.
Today is a huge victory for working Americans. Today, we take a giant
step forward to deliver more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks
for working Hoosiers. This bill will create thousands of jobs in
Indiana, and it will give the typical working family a $1,500 tax cut.
The Trump tax plan also includes a provision that I authored to stop
$4 billion to $7 billion in refundable child tax credits paid out to
illegal immigrants each year. These savings help expand the child tax
credit for working American families by $600 per child.
Hoosiers get it: no one should get a tax incentive to violate the
law.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this plan. It will give
working Hoosiers a pay raise, bring back jobs from overseas, and get
our economy moving again.
I also urge the Senate to act and keep their promise to the American
people.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Lewis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article
about this bill's impact on graduate students in my district.
[From the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Nov. 16, 2017]
Opinion: Only Wealthy Can Afford Grad School Under House Tax Plan Up
for Vote Today
(By Maureen Downey)
Jenny C. Bledsoe is a fifth-year Ph.D. candidate in English
at Emory University, specializing in medieval literature. She
was featured in a New York Times story last week that
examined how the GOP House tax plan would impact a range of
American students. In this essay, Bledsoe focuses on the
change that makes graduate tuition waivers taxable income.
The tax plan is expected to come to the House floor today
where passage is predicted. The Senate, however, is not
expected to take up its own tax bill until after
Thanksgiving. And then House and Senate conferees will have
to hammer out their differences and come up with a compromise
plan.
Under the House plan, Bledsoe and other doctoral students
would be hurt by a new provision that would tax graduate
students on tuition wavers granted them in exchange for
working as teaching assistants or researchers. The tax
accountants hired by The New York Times estimated Bledsoe and
her husband would pay an additional $7,194 in taxes under the
House tax bill.
When I about this last week, some readers contended the
increase in the standard deduction will offset the
eliminations of these education deductions. However, some
reviews found that not to be true for graduate students.
____
Impact of GOP Tax Plan on Students
(By Jenny C. Bledsoe)
The House GOP tax bill makes graduate school inaccessible
for anyone who is not independently wealthy, and it will
likely cause current graduate students to drop out of
doctoral programs and/or declare bankruptcy.
A single line in the 429-page bill effects this change: 26
U.S. tax code Sec. 117(d) allows students conducting research
or teaching for a university (usually Ph.D. students on
fellowship) to receive tuition waivers tax free. Any stipends
are taxed.
The House ``Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,'' however, will repeal
this provision, meaning that a Ph.D. student making a stipend
of $24,000 will be taxed as if they are making $85,200. This
would have been my situation two years ago. During the first
three years of Emory's Ph.D. program, a student currently
receives a tuition waiver amounting to $61,200. Once you
reach ``tuition-paid'' status after your third year, the
annual tuition is $30,600.
Tax experts hired by The New York Times estimated that my
husband's and my tax bill would increase by $7,194--despite
the increase in the standard deduction--because of the newly
taxable tuition waiver.
Tuition amounts vary widely depending on the institution,
and the situation may be worse (or better) for some
individuals, depending on tuition rates and stipend amounts.
At Georgia Tech, full-time graduate student tuition for one
semester is $6,894 in-state and $14,284 out-of-state. Georgia
State's tuition is $4,680 in-state and $15,012 out-of-state
for one semester.
Graduate students will clearly owe much larger federal
income tax bills, and in some states, including Georgia, they
will also have to pay more due to the proposed changes to the
federal tax credit for state and local income taxes. Those at
private colleges and universities will be responsible for
larger taxable amounts (given the higher tuition at private
institutions).
Those at public universities will pay the taxes on their
relatively lower tuition waiver amounts, but they will have
to do so with already significantly smaller stipends than
Ph.D. students receive at private universities.
This is an issue across the disciplines. It will affect any
graduate student pursuing a Ph.D. on a research or teaching
fellowship, which common for those pursuing doctorates in
STEM, the social sciences, and the humanities. In addition to
graduate students suffering personally, universities will
experience the effects of their graduate students' tax
burdens in multiple ways (in addition to the bill's other
deleterious effects on higher education).
Graduate students will have less time for research because
they will have to work additional jobs. Humanities Ph.D.
students, who provide essential labor as instructors, will
have less time to devote to the classes they teach to
undergraduates.
Long-term effects are difficult to measure, but surely many
lower-income students will no longer attend. It's unlikely
that international students will be able to maintain a decent
standard of living since they are often forbidden from taking
on additional work.
The House GOP tax bill will lead to a ``brain drain,'' with
international students and Americans alike seeking graduate
study elsewhere or not all. In terms of personal finance, it
will be extremely challenging (if not impossible) to meet
one's basic needs--food, shelter--while pursuing a higher
degree.
Unless . . . you're independently wealthy. This single line
in a massive tax bill destroys lower- and middle-class young
Americans' ability to pursue a professional career in
academia, industry, or government. The bill reduces other
education tax credits, which will adversely affect access to
undergraduate as well as graduate education. The GOP will
effectively end class mobility, return the academy fully to
the so-called one percent, and reduce charitable donations to
universities by de-incentivizing itemized deductions.
Even if you don't believe in the value of academic study,
eliminating section 117(d) of the U.S. tax code would be bad
for the economy. Those who were not independently wealthy and
who chose to pursue graduate studies anyway would have to do
so with the help of student loans. Student loans are with you
forever; student loan debt is not forgiven even when
bankruptcy is declared. Young Americans are already saddled
with too much debt, causing many opinion pieces to complain
about the latest store or product that ``millennials have
killed'' by not spending enough money.
Eliminating this line of tax code effectively condemns
those who pursue higher education to a life of debt
servitude. How is our economy, our country, our world to
progress with these barriers against access to education, an
essential asset in our dynamic world?
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, also, I include in the Record
letters of opposition from the ACLU, Baptist Joint Committee, and
Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
ACLU,
Washington, DC, November 3, 2017.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Neal,
Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Neal, and Members of
the Committee on Ways and Means:
ACLU Strongly Opposes Unconstitutional Religious Favoritism Provision
in H.R. 1
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is strongly
opposed to Sec. 5201 in H.R. 1, the so-called Tax Cuts and
Jobs Act. This provision is designed--in violation of the
Constitution--to give religious organizations special tax
benefits and privileges that are unavailable to all other,
non-religious 501(c)(3) organizations. Accordingly, we urge
that this unconstitutional provision be removed from the
bill.
Sec. 5201 would allow a house of worship to endorse one or
more candidates in all of its statements, presentations, and
teachings made during ``religious services or gatherings.''
While current law applies to all tax-exempt nonprofit
organizations, this provision would apply only to churches.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution was designed to prevent exactly this kind of
religious favoritism. See, e.g. Texas Monthly v. Bullock, 489
U.S. 1 (1989) (striking down tax exemption that applied only
to religious periodicals). Moreover, the Free Speech Clause
of the First Amendment prohibits laws that engage in this
type of viewpoint discrimination. See Rosenberger v. Rector &
Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995)
(invalidating a subsidy program that distinguished between
religious and nonreligious viewpoints)
[[Page H9397]]
Sec. 5201 includes a vague and undefined test that would
open up houses of worship to extensive government
entanglement. To determine whether a house of worship is
complying with the law, the IRS would have to determine
whether an endorsement (1) occurred during the ``ordinary
course'' of the organization's ``regular and customary
activities'' in carrying out its ``tax-exempt purpose;'' (2)
whether it amounted to a ``de minimis incremental expense,''
and (3) whether it took place during ``religious services or
gatherings.'' To determine whether a house of worship meets
this test, the IRS would have to investigate the house of
worship's books, activities, sermons, and correspondence. The
IRS would also have to judge whether an event is
``religious'' and part of a house of worship's ``exempt
purpose.'' By inviting this type of invasive government
scrutiny of church documents and judgment about religion,
this provision actually threatens, rather than upholds, the
autonomy and independence of houses of worship.
Churches and religious leaders are already able to exercise
their free speech--free from fear of sanction by the IRS--by
speaking out on political and social issues. Church leaders
are also completely free to support or endorse political
candidates as private citizens. As an organization deeply
committed since our founding nearly 100 years ago to
protecting the free speech rights of all people, the ACLU
would vigorously oppose any effort to chill the ability of
houses of worship and religious leaders to speak out on what
they see as the important issues of the day.
That does not mean, however, that religious organizations
are entitled to receive special tax benefits and privileges
that are unavailable to all other 501(c)(3) organizations.
The ACLU strongly opposes Sec. 5201 and urges the removal of
this unconstitutional provision from the so-called Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act (H.R. 1).
Please feel free to contact Ian Thompson, legislative
representative, with any questions.
Sincerely,
Faiz Shakir,
National Political Director.
Ian Thompson,
Legislative Representative.
____
Baptist Joint Committee
for Religious Liberty,
Washington, DC, November 6, 2017.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Neal,
Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal: On behalf of
the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), an
81-year-old agency serving 15 Baptist bodies on legal and
policy matters relating to religious liberty and the
separation of church and state, I write to express strong
opposition to Section 5201 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This
provision seriously undermines the independence and integrity
of our houses of worship and denominations by creating an
exemption to the partisan campaign prohibition that applies
equally to all 501(c)(3) organizations. This attempt to
encourage certain religious organizations to engage in
partisan campaigning is constitutionally problematic
following the Supreme Court's application of the
Establishment Clause in Texas Monthly v. Bullock.
We are committed to ensuring that the free speech rights
for houses of worship and members of the clergy are
respected. We do not share the view that current law
prohibiting 501(c)(3) organizations from participating and
intervening in partisan candidate campaigns infringes on
those free speech rights. We joined with more than 100 other
religious and denominational organizations in a letter to
Congress, originally sent in April, saying we ``strongly
oppose any effort to weaken or eliminate protections in the
law that prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, including houses
of worship, from endorsing or opposing political
candidates.'' The full letter is attached to my testimony.
In 2002, the House voted down legislation offered by Rep.
Walter Jones, called the Houses of Worship Political Speech
Protection Act (H.R. 2357). The BJC co-led the coalition of
religious groups opposing that legislation, which failed by a
House vote of 178-239. We continue to think there is no
reason to change the way the law works now, and we are very
concerned about the consequences of weakening the protection
for houses of worship. For more than 60 years, all 501(c)(3)
organizations have been required to refrain from partisan
campaign involvement in exchange for receiving that most-
favored tax status. The prohibition has allowed charitable
organizations, including our houses of worship, to
concentrate on their exempt purposes and not be distracted or
co-opted by partisan campaigns.
Current law strikes the right balance in protecting the
integrity and independence of our religious sector. The tax
law prohibition is not a divorcement of politics from houses
of worship. Many churches feel that they are called to be
``political'' and to ``speak truth to power'' on a variety of
social issues, and nothing in the tax law prevents pastors
from speaking out from the pulpit on the issues, no matter
how controversial.
Houses of worship can encourage voting, engage in voter
registration drives, host candidate forums, distribute
nonpartisan education materials, and invite all candidates
for an office to speak during a worship service.
Pastors and other leaders can endorse and oppose candidates
in their personal capacities and without using the resources
of the church. Whether and how openly they want to do this is
a personal decision. Pastors know that their reputations will
rise and fall with individuals they endorse and therefore may
be reluctant to publicly endorse and oppose candidates. They
also consider the impact that their endorsements will have in
their spiritual communities, particularly with those who may
support another candidate.
But what is not permitted--and what most clergy and
churchgoers don't want in any event--is for the tax-exempt
501(c)(3) entity to endorse or oppose candidates. Polling
consistently shows that large majorities--70 or 80 percent
depending on the survey--oppose candidate endorsements in
church. And when just clergy are asked, the numbers are more
like 90 percent, including among evangelical pastors.
These numbers are not surprising given the negative effects
endorsements would have on houses of worship. Pastors and
churchgoers I talk with think this would be a terrible idea
for their congregations, dividing what are otherwise rather
politically diverse communities and distracting them from
their religious mission. Congregants also choose to worship
in faith communities for reasons other than hearing a
political ad. There are plenty of places in our culture today
to engage in partisan electoral campaigns. Most people I know
don't want church to be one of those places.
We also recognize the powerful prophetic voice with which
the church speaks to power. That voice is threatened whenever
the church associates itself too closely with the government
or its officials.
Creating an exemption for houses of worship would expose
churches to political pressure to endorse candidates during
primaries and elections at all political levels, as the
campaign intervention prohibition applies not only to
presidential and congressional elections but to every state
and local race, too. Many candidates and donors supporting
candidates would have a strong incentive to put pressure on
churches to become involved in their campaigns, particularly
given the highly-valued tax status churches enjoy. Donors to
churches, like all other 501(c)(3) organizations, receive a
tax deduction for their contributions. Churches also receive
automatic 501(c)(3) tax status and are not required to file
the Form 990 information return. Combining tax deductibility
with these permissible accommodations for churches would make
houses of worship particularly vulnerable targets for
partisan campaign activity by political donors and others
seeking to influence local, state, and national elections.
The legislative ``solution'' that has been put forward
would threaten great harm to houses of worship. This bill
injects a new subjective standard for the IRS to enforce,
allowing political campaign involvement if it is ``in the
ordinary course of the organization's regular and customary
activities in carrying out its exempt purpose, and results in
the organization incurring not more than de minimis
incremental expenses.'' What does ``ordinary course'' mean?
What is the organization's ``regular and customary activities
in carrying out its exempt purpose''? What is ``de minimis''
compared to the organization's total budget? What is
``incremental''? These are all line-drawing questions that
would fall on the IRS, which would have a mandate to enforce
this new standard with limited resources and with likely much
more activity in this area, given the new permissible
standard and political pressure to be involved. We would
either see lack of enforcement, rendering the statutory
limitations meaningless, or we would see troubling
entanglement of the IRS in a church's affairs. Neither
outcome would be an improvement on our current system.
Jesus taught us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and
to God what is God's. Permitting tax-exempt churches to
endorse candidates in a ``sermon . . . or other
presentation'' during their ``services or gatherings''
threatens to fundamentally alter the very nature of and
esteem for our religious sector. This approach does not bode
well for religion or religious liberty.
Respectfully,
Amanda Tyler,
Executive Director,
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
[[Page H9398]]
____
Updated, November 1, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Senate Majority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House Democratic Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Chuck Schumer,
Senate Democratic Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Neal,
Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Finance, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McConnell, Leader
Pelosi, Leader Schumer, Chairman Brady, Chairman Hatch,
Ranking Member Neal, and Ranking Member Wyden: We, the 103
undersigned religious and denominational organizations
strongly oppose any effort to weaken or eliminate protections
that prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, including houses of
worship, from endorsing or opposing political candidates.
Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity
of our charitable sector and campaign finance system.
Religious leaders often use their pulpits to address the
moral and political issues of the day. They also can, in
their personal capacities and without the resources of their
houses of worship, endorse and oppose political candidates.
Houses of worship can engage in public debate on any issue,
host candidate forums, engage in voter registration drives,
encourage people to vote, help transport people to the polls
and even, with a few boundaries, lobby on specific
legislation and invite candidates to speak. Tax-exempt houses
of worship may not, however, endorse or oppose candidates or
use their tax-exempt donations to contribute to candidates'
campaigns. Current law simply limits groups from being both a
tax-exempt ministry and a partisan political entity.
As religious organizations, we oppose any attempt to weaken
the current protections offered by the 501(c)(3) campaign
intervention prohibition because:
People of faith do not want partisan political fights
infiltrating their houses of worship. Houses of worship are
spaces for members of religious communities to come together,
not be divided along political lines; faith ought to be a
source of connection and community, not division and discord.
Indeed, the vast majority of Americans do not want houses of
worship to issue political endorsements. Particularly in
today's political climate, such endorsements would be highly
divisive and would have a detrimental impact on civil
discourse.
Current law protects the integrity of houses of worship. If
houses of worship endorse candidates, their prophetic voice,
their ability to speak truth to power as political outsiders,
is threatened. The credibility and integrity of congregations
would suffer with bad decisions of candidates they endorsed.
Tying America's houses of worship to partisan activity
demeans the institutions from which so many believers expect
unimpeachable decency.
Current law protects the independence of houses of worship.
Houses of worship often speak out on issues of justice and
morality and do good works within the community but may also
labor to adequately fund their ministries. Permitting
electioneering in churches would give partisan groups
incentive to use congregations as a conduit for political
activity and expenditures. Changing the law would also make
them vulnerable to individuals and corporations who could
offer large donations or a politician promising social
service contracts in exchange for taking a position on a
candidate. Even proposals that would permit an
``insubstantial'' standard or allow limited electioneering
only if it is in furtherance of an organization's mission
would actually invite increased government intrusion,
scrutiny, and oversight.
The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship,
should not become another cog in a political machine or
another loophole in campaign finance laws. We strongly urge
you to oppose any efforts to repeal or weaken protections in
the law for 501(c)(3) organizations, including houses of
worship.
Sincerely,
African American Ministers in Action; African Methodist
Episcopal Church--Social Action Commission; Alabama
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship; Alliance of Baptists;
American Baptist Churches USA; American Baptist Home
Mission Societies; American Friends Service Committee;
American Jewish Committee (AJC); Anti-Defamation League;
Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists; B'nai
B'rith International; Baptist Center for Ethics; Baptist
Fellowship Northeast; Baptist General Association of
Virginia; Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty;
Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America--Bautistas por
la Paz; Baptist Women in Ministry; Bend the Arc: A Jewish
Partnership for Justice; California Council of Churches
IMPACT; Catholics for Choice.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; Central
Conference of American Rabbis; Christian Life Commission;
Christian Methodist Episcopal (CME) Church; Churchnet, a
ministry of the Baptist General Convention of Missouri;
Colorado Council of Churches; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship;
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Heartland; Cooperative Baptist
Fellowship Kentucky; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of
Arkansas; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Florida;
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Georgia; Cooperative
Baptist Fellowship of Mississippi; Cooperative Baptist
Fellowship of North Carolina; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
of Oklahoma; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Texas;
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Virginia; Cooperative
Baptist Fellowship West; Disciples Center for Public Witness;
Ecumenical Catholic Communion.
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon; The Episcopal Church;
Equal Partners in Faith; Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America; Evergreen Association of American Baptist Churches;
Faith Action Network--Washington State; Faith in Public Life;
Faith Voices Arkansas; Faithful America; Florida Council of
Churches; Franciscan Action Network; Friends Committee on
National Legislation; Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America;
Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc.;
Hindu American Foundation; Hispanic Baptist Convention of
Texas; Interfaith Alliance; International Society for Krishna
Consciousness (ISKCON); Islamic Networks Group; Islamic
Society of North America.
Jewish Community Relations Council, Greater Boston; Jewish
Community Relations Council of Greater Washington; Jewish
Council for Public Affairs; The Jewish Federations of North
America; Jewish Women International; Kentucky Council of
Churches; Mid-Atlantic Cooperative Baptist Fellowship;
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd;
National Baptist Convention of America; National Council of
Churches; National Council of Jewish Women; National Sikh
Campaign; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; New
Baptist Covenant; North Carolina Council of Churches;
Oklahoma Conference of Churches; Pastors for Oklahoma Kids;
Pastors for Texas Children; Pax Christi, Montgomery County,
MD chapters; Pennsylvania Council of Churches.
Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office of Public
Witness; Progressive National Baptist Convention;
Reconstructionist Rabbinical Assembly; Religions for Peace
USA; Religious Institute; Rhode Island State Council of
Churches; Seventh-day Adventist Church in North
America; South Carolina Christian Action Council; South
Dakota Faith in Public Life; T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for
Human Rights; Tennessee Cooperative Baptist Fellowship;
Texas Baptists Committed; Texas Faith Network; Texas
Impact; Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist
Association; Unitarian Universalist Service Committee;
Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice; United Church
of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; The United
Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society;
Virginia Council of Churches; Women of Reform Judaism;
Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER).
____
Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
Washington, DC, November 6, 2017.
Re Oppose Section 5201 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which
Exempts Houses of Worship from the Johnson Amendment.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Neal,
Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal: On behalf of
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, we urge
you to strip Section 5201 from H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act. This provision would exempt houses of worship from the
Johnson Amendment, which is the six-decades-old law that
ensures tax-exempt organizations--including houses of
worship, charitable nonprofits, and foundations--do not
endorse or oppose political candidates. We join 103 religious
and denomination organizations, more than 4,200 faith
leaders, and 5,500 nonprofits organizations, in urging
Members of Congress to reject efforts, like the one in
Section 5201, to weaken or repeal the Johnson Amendment.
Tax-exempt charities and houses of worship are granted
special 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status because they work for the
common good, not so they can support political candidates.
Current law protects their right to speak out about political
and social issues while, at the same time, ensuring they are
not pressured by political candidates and campaigns seeking
their own political gain. Indeed, under current law, tax-
exempt houses of worship and the faith leaders who represent
them can speak to any issue or piece of legislation they
choose. And faith leaders can endorse candidates in their
personal capacity.
Exempting houses of worship from the law would threaten
their independence and integrity and open them up to pressure
from political candidates, donors, and congregants who want
to use them for their own political gain. Furthermore,
Section 5201 singles out houses of worship for special
treatment, violating the Constitution.
SECTION 5201 EXEMPTS HOUSES OF WORSHIP FROM THE JOHNSON AMENDMENT
Section 5201 allows houses of worship to endorse candidates
so long the endorsement
[[Page H9399]]
is made during a religious service or gathering, is made in
the ordinary course of their tax-exempt purpose, and does not
incur more than a de minimis incremental expense. This would,
in effect, exempt houses of worship from the Johnson
Amendment.
The impact of even just one endorsement from a house of
worship would be powerful and could have a significant impact
on an election, but this provision permits far more than
merely a lone statement of support. Section 5201, for
example, would allow:
A pastor to preach a sermon endorsing one or more
candidates. His church could then post a video of that sermon
on its website, email it to parishioners, and distribute it
publicly on social media.
A Rabbi to endorse a candidate during the welcoming message
provided to those attending her synagogue's community service
event.
A church that is motivated by faith to provide social
services to the public to tell each and every person who
attends its meetings to vote for a particular candidate.
If such activities were allowed, the Johnson Amendment
would be rendered meaningless as applied to houses of
worship. The very purpose of the Johnson Amendment--to
prevent government subsidized partisan campaign activity--
would be allowed in every church and house of worship across
the country.
SECTION 5201 WOULD REQUIRE THE IRS TO LOOK INTO THE INTERNAL WORKINGS
OF HOUSES OF WORSHIP AND MAKE POLITICAL JUDGMENTS
The Johnson Amendment includes a clear rule: tax-exempt
organizations, including houses of worship, cannot endorse
candidates. This bill includes a vague and undefined test
that is subject to IRS discretion. Enforcing the law would
entangle the IRS in internal church governance and require it
to make judgments about religion.
Section 5201 calls on the IRS to determine whether an
endorsement (1) occurred during the ``ordinary course'' of
the organization's ``regular and customary activities'' in
carrying out its ``tax-exempt purpose;'' (2) whether it
amounted to a ``de minimis incremental expense,'' and (3)
whether it took place during ``religious services or
gatherings.'' To determine whether the cost of any
endorsement was a ``de minimis incremental expense,'' the IRS
would, not only have to define de minimis, but also have to
investigate the house of worship's books. And to determine
whether the endorsement was part of the ``regular and
customary activities,'' the IRS would have to examine the
institution's history of activities. The IRS would also have
to judge whether an event is ``religious'' or not and whether
the activity serves the organization's ``exempt purpose.'' By
inviting that type of scrutiny of church documents and
activities, and judgments about religion, this bill actually
threatens, rather than upholds, the autonomy and independence
of houses of worship.
EXEMPTING ONLY HOUSES OF WORSHIP FROM THE JOHNSON AMENDMENT WOULD
VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION
Under the religious freedom protections provided by the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government
cannot prefer or favor religion or non-religion. The Johnson
Amendment applies to all 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations,
yet Section 5201 exempts only houses of worship from the
restrictions of the Johnson Amendment. This special treatment
raises serious concerns under the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment and undermines religious freedom.
CONCLUSION
For all the above reasons, we urge you to oppose the
language effectively repealing the Johnson Amendment for
houses of worship.
Sincerely,
Maggie Garrett,
Legislative Director, Americans United for Separation of
Church and State.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the ranking member of the Budget Committee, and
one of the most knowledgeable Members of the House.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a horror show today, this is a horror show
debate, and this is a horror show process, but it is a disaster for the
American people.
The tax bill we are debating today will abandon millions of American
families. It showers the wealthy and corporations with massive tax
cuts, and it adds $1.5 trillion to our deficits. The top 1 percent get
this massive payout in the neighborhood of $500 billion; hardworking
families get pocket change.
But millions don't even get that. In fact, 36 million middle class
families will pay more in taxes because of this bill. Our Republican
colleagues will be taking money out of the pockets of these families to
give more tax cuts to the rich.
But it doesn't stop there. It never does. This is part of a dangerous
three-step process that we have seen, unfortunately, far too often:
The first step, Republicans enact massive tax cuts for the rich,
claiming they will generate enough growth to pay for themselves. I know
my Republican colleagues desperately want the American people to
believe that this is what will happen. But the record is clear. It
failed in the 1980s, and it failed in the 2000s. It was an epic failure
in Kansas.
This is about politics, not reality, for them, which brings us to
step two. Once these cuts fail to produce the growth that they promise,
Republicans will shriek about the impending doom of high deficits and
debt. Then they will quickly move to step three, demanding cuts in
vital programs that benefit working families throughout our country.
We have seen this act before. As I said before, it is a horror show.
There is a reason why a lot of people are looking at this and saying
this is the great tax scam of 2017--because it is the great tax scam of
2017.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Rice), one of the key leaders of the Ways and
Means Committee.
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the American Dream is what
separates us from the rest of the world. It promises that, with hard
work and determination, you can improve your station in life and that
your children have an opportunity for a better life than yours. But for
many in the generation coming of age in the last decade, the American
Dream has been a little tarnished and just out of reach.
The last time we did tax reform was 30 years ago. At that time, we
were the world's uncontested economic leader. Our economic system and
Tax Code were competitive. But for decades, we have sat by as the world
passed us by.
In 1990, the middle class was about 50 percent of American families;
today, only 40 percent. Today, the middle class makes just about the
same take-home pay as it did in 1990.
When we all worry about income disparity and the gulf between the
rich and the poor in this country, this is the source of the problem.
The American middle class is smaller and has not had a raise in 30
years.
How could this happen? It has everything to do with a bloated,
overregulating, and overtaxing Federal Government, a government that
sucks the life out of the economy and forces our companies, our
innovators, and our job creators out of our country to survive.
Some folks say it doesn't matter that we have the highest business
tax rate in the world. That is not why our companies left. They say
those jobs aren't coming back.
Well, I say the outdated Tax Code is an anchor around the neck of our
businesses, our innovators, and the American middle class. I say the
American worker can compete with anyone on a level playing field if we
just get government off their back.
Since January, we have been working to correct that. We have made
dramatic steps in reducing regulation. You can already see the economic
lift.
Today, we undertake a tax cut, which will restore economic growth,
put more take-home pay into the pockets of hardworking Americans, and
restore opportunity for a generation of Americans. It will bring
American jobs back to America, which will grow our middle class and,
finally, after 30 years, our middle class will get the pay raise it
deserves.
If you really wish to grow our economy, you should vote for this
bill.
If you really wish to give the middle class a pay raise, you should
vote for this bill.
If you really wish to reduce income disparity, you should vote for
this bill.
If you really wish to give hope to Americans who have given up and
left the workforce and wish to reduce crime and addiction in this
country, you should vote for this bill.
If you want America to have the economic strength to remain a force
of peace and stability in the world, you should vote for this bill.
And, finally, if you truly believe what Thomas Jefferson said 240
years ago, that all men are created equal and that they are entitled to
pursue their own happiness, you should vote for this bill.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).
[[Page H9400]]
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, this bill put forward
by congressional Republicans isn't a tax plan; it is a tax scam.
Republicans are going to borrow money on the backs of working
families to give a tax cut to corporations in the top 1 percent. This
will increase taxes on the middle class. This will add to our Nation's
debt and pass the bill to our children.
This Republican tax scam hurts seniors and families with long-term
medical needs by eliminating the medical expense deduction that 9
million Americans, and nearly 120,000 people in my home State of New
Mexico, depend upon.
Destroying the medical expense deduction delivers a staggering blow
to New Mexico families. Listen to this story sent to me by Lisa, a
constituent of mine from northern New Mexico:
``My husband and I are lifelong native New Mexicans who grew up here,
went to college here, and have opened and operate our two businesses in
our home State. We are the proud parents of two wonderful children. New
Mexico's our home, and we're proud to live here, contribute to our
State's economy, and realize our version of the American Dream.
``Like most families today, life isn't always easy. The kids and I
have medically complex conditions which require expensive medications,
and my husband and I struggle with student loan debt, housing and
transportation costs, and making a good life for our family. We incur
$5,000 to $7,000 in out-of-pocket medical costs each year. Without the
medical expense deductions, I am not sure we could continue to meet the
demands of raising healthy, happy children while keeping our businesses
going and growing.
``For us, this deduction is a lifeline, and the thought of losing
that lifeline means we could drown in debt. That's not the American
Dream--that's a nightmare.''
This is real and this is personal to people all across the country.
Let's vote this bill down today, come back, work in a bipartisan
fashion, work with our ranking member, Mr. Richard Neal, and come up
with real tax reform that puts American working families first.
Mr. Speaker, let's do the right thing today and put hardworking
families first with our decision today.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Marchant), a key leader on the Tax Policy Subcommittee.
Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on
this issue. It is an honor for me to serve on the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act. This is a historic opportunity to reject the status quo and
provide real tax relief to the families, individuals, and businesses in
my district.
America's Tax Code is broken. It is uncompetitive for American
companies, and it is unfair to American workers. The American people
deserve a Tax Code that works for them, not one that works for special
interests in Washington. They deserve a Tax Code that rewards their
lifetime of hard work, not one that squeezes and depletes their
savings.
{time} 1045
They deserve a Tax Code that prioritizes their goals, not penalizes
their success.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act creates a Tax Code that is focused on
growth, fairness, and a booming economy for everyone.
The reforms in this bill level the playing field for small businesses
in my district in north Texas around the DFW Airport, giving them an
opportunity to grow and hire more people and spend more money in our
economy, and allow the hardworking taxpayers whom I represent to keep
more of their paycheck and increase their family's budget.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for allowing me to represent the
views of my constituents throughout the process of the committee work.
I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this very historic
opportunity and vote in favor of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez), a very thoughtful member of the Ways and
Means Committee.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1, or
better known as the GOP tax scam.
This bill provides tax cuts for corporations and multimillionaires at
the expense of hardworking middle class families. Massive corporate tax
cuts do not guarantee job growth or higher wages. The only thing
guaranteed is the $2.3 trillion that this scam adds to the deficit.
Democrats are serious about passing comprehensive tax reform that is
fair and that puts a little more money in the pockets of working
Americans. This fiasco of a bill is not fair.
Corporations get a massive 15 percent tax cut, but what do working
families get? They get nickeled and dimed.
Despite student loan debts surpassing $1 trillion, this bill
eliminates the student loan interest deduction, which only allows those
earning $80,000 or less to claim it in the first place, squarely
hurting middle class Americans who are trying to pay off debt, save for
a home, or buy a new car.
Teachers will no longer be able to deduct expenses for school
supplies that they purchase with their own money for their classrooms,
yet corporations are able to deduct the cost of those same supplies
that they purchase.
Seniors and people with chronic illnesses would no longer be able to
deduct some of the cost of their treatment. At a time when many
families are feeling the pressures of affording care for their children
and their aging parents, this bill takes money right out of their
pockets.
Under this bill, 29 million households would lose their property tax
deduction. Eighty percent of middle class homeowners would lose,
compared with just 13 percent of high-income earners. Does that sound
fair?
Finally, the elimination of the State and local income tax deduction
disproportionately impacts middle-income families, especially those in
California, whose residents would see an overall net tax increase of
$12.1 billion.
The Tax Code is a reflection of our values. The Republicans have
clearly chosen who they serve--the wealthy and corporations--but I am
concerned about the 36 million Americans who will see a tax increase,
teachers and their students, and people with preexisting conditions.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this disaster of
a bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters in opposition to
this bill, one from SEIU and one from the AFL-CIO.
SEIU,
Washington, DC, November 6, 2017.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, House Committee on Ways & Means,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Neal,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Ways & Means, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Neal, and Members of
the House Committee on Ways & Means: On behalf of the two
million members of the Service Employees International Union
(``SEIU''), I write to strongly oppose H.R. 1, the
misleadingly named ``Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.'' H.R. 1 would
double down on the same failed trickle down policies that
have hurt working families for decades. Once again, major
legislation is being drafted behind closed doors, out of the
view of the American people and without any input from
Democratic members of Congress.
It is unconscionable that elected representatives would
mark-up and jam through a bill that significantly affects the
financial security of their constituents without appropriate
time for non-partisan analysis and for all Americans to
properly understand the real impacts on their everyday lives.
There is no need to rush legislation of this magnitude
through Congress due to artificial political timelines.
Instead, there should be an open process by which all
stakeholders including working people and not just corporate
lobbyists are able to provide input.
Although this bill pretends to benefit the middle class,
the tax cuts proposed under this bill would go overwhelmingly
to high-income households and large corporations. And this
bill would actually raise taxes for some low- and moderate-
income households, while making it harder for states to fund
healthcare, education, infrastructure and other investments.
History has shown us that these types of tax breaks never
`trickle down' to working people and will result in cuts to
healthcare, education and other programs our communities
depend on. If passed, this legislation would give
millionaires and corporations a reason to celebrate but would
hurt working Americans who are trying put food on the table,
start their first businesses, send their children to college,
or save for their retirement and buy homes.
For these reasons, SEIU urges you to oppose H.R. 1 and
instead, work in a bi-partisan
[[Page H9401]]
and transparent manner on policies that will improve the
lives of working families. If you have any questions, please
contact John Foti.
Sincerely,
John Gray,
Legislative Director.
____
AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, November 14, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I urge you
to oppose the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1). H.R. 1 is not a
``jobs bill,'' it is a job killer that gives huge tax breaks
to companies that outsource jobs. It is also the poster child
for the failed ``trickle-down'' economic theory that has
never worked and has repeatedly stuck working people with the
tab for tax giveaways for millionaires, big corporations, and
Wall Street.
The Republican leadership wants to pay for these giveaways
with drastic cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, education, and other
programs that working people depend on. The price tag of H.R.
1 is $1.5 trillion over 10 years, while the budget resolution
includes $5 trillion in budget cuts, including $1.5 trillion
from Medicaid and Medicare.
H.R 1 would waste trillions of dollars on tax breaks for
people who do not need them. According to the Joint Committee
on Taxation (JCT), 45% of the tax benefits would ultimately
go to households making over $500,000 per year; 38% of the
tax benefits would go to households making over $1 million;
and the top 1% one percent would get an average annual tax
cut of $64,720. By contrast, households making between
$20,000 and $40,000 would actually pay more in taxes.
H.R. 1 would hurt working people in many ways. It would
eliminate the deduction for state and local income and sales
taxes, punishing states that make the kind of investments
that create good jobs and starving communities of the funding
they need for education, infrastructure, and other essential
public services. H.R. 1 would repeal deductions for student
loan interest, tuition expenses, and tuition assistance and
end tax credits for students to cover college expenses,
making it harder for students and their families to afford
higher education at a time when tuition prices are at an all-
time high. Under this bill, corporations could still deduct
their payments to lawyers to fight unions, but union members
could no longer deduct union dues and educators could no
longer deduct their out-of-pocket expenses.
On the corporate side, H.R. 1 would give a giant tax cut to
big corporations that outsource jobs. Under this bill, a
business that creates jobs on Main Street USA would pay U.S.
taxes on its profits at a rate of 20%, while a big
corporation that outsources those same jobs to Ireland or
Switzerland would pay no U.S. taxes on the profits it earns
from outsourcing. Currently, the United States taxes all
profits of U.S. corporations, whether earned in the United
States or in a foreign country, at the same rate of 35%
(though a corporation that earns profits in a foreign country
does not have to pay U.S. taxes on those earnings until it
repatriates them to the United States). H.R. 1 changes this
system so a U.S. corporation never pays any U.S. income taxes
on the profits it earns from active operations in a foreign
country (as opposed to domestic profits that the company
disguises as foreign profits through the use of accounting
gimmicks). Reducing the U.S. tax rate on offshore profits
from 35% to 0%--basically a subsidy to companies that
outsource jobs--would cost $208 billion over 10 years. Even
worse, the bill would encourage foreign countries that want
to attract offshore investment to lower their corporate tax
rate. The more foreign countries lower their corporate tax
rates to attract offshore investment, the bigger the tax
subsidy for offshoring this bill will provide. The GOP tax
bill creates a powerful incentive for big companies to
outsource jobs, and it is an incentive that will grow over
time.
With regard to past profits, the Institute on Taxation and
Economic Policy (ITEP) estimates that H.R. 1 would give
multinational corporations a tax windfall of $529 billion,
allowing them to get away with paying just $223 billion of
the $752 billion they owe on accumulated offshore earnings.
There is no economic case for discounted tax rates on profits
already earned. The last time we gave companies a break on
the profits they booked offshore, they used that money for
executive bonuses and dividends. They did not use the money
for creating new jobs, raises for workers, or investments in
new factories or equipment. The top 15 companies to take
advantage of the so-called ``tax holiday'' in 2004 laid off
20,000 workers in the subsequent two years. There is no
reason to believe this time will be different. JPMorgan says,
``We expect little economic effect from firms repatriating
funds to the U.S.''
The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
(H.R. 1), which gives huge tax breaks to companies that
outsource jobs and makes working people pay the price for tax
giveaways to millionaires, big corporations, and Wall Street.
Sincerely,
William Samuel,
Director, Government Affairs Department.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), our chief deputy whip.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee for his hard work and effort, his staff's effort, and his
committee members' effort to put this great bill on the floor today.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a vitally important bill. This will help
all Americans' lives for the better. The name fits for this bill as
well. It truly is a tax cut for American working families, and it
creates good-paying jobs.
The bill is the result of over 3 years of hard work here in the House
of Representatives. It has been clear for years that our Tax Code is
broken. We all agree on that. Simply put, it does not work for the vast
majority of the American people.
What we do is simplify the Tax Code. More Americans will be able to
take a standard deduction, file on a postcard their tax return,
simplifying the process. Importantly, it makes us more competitive
internationally so we don't lose jobs to overseas companies. That makes
us stronger as a nation.
At the same time, it helps small businesses compete with those large
businesses, with those global businesses, and makes sure that our Main
Streets are strong in America.
This is a very good bill. It is a very good bill, well contemplated,
and will have a great impact on working families.
The bill helps families in my district in particular. The Tax
Foundation says that average middle class families in my district in
western North Carolina are going to see a $2,400 increase in their
take-home pay. That is real money for working Americans. It is real
money for North Carolinians as well.
The bill also helps small businesses by reducing their tax rates and
allowing them to create more good-paying jobs. We need that. Small
businesses are the lifeblood of western North Carolina's communities.
We need them strengthened.
The same Tax Foundation study estimates that this bill will create
nearly a million new jobs nationwide, including more than 30,000 in
North Carolina alone.
Now, there is a great debate in this body about the approach we took
on this bill. There is a fundamental disagreement between the two
parties here.
My colleagues on the left want more power, more expenditures from
government, and want to take more from the American people in order to
pay for that.
We believe, on the Republican side of the aisle, that American
families should be able to keep more of what they earn, make more
decisions for themselves, empower communities, empower small
businesses, make us more competitive and make us stronger.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, to send a strong message
that we in the House of Representatives have a strong tax package for
the American people. I look forward to getting this bill signed into
law before Christmas.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and I ask unanimous consent
that he may control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chairman of the Democratic
Caucus and a great leader on the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I have to give it to Speaker Ryan and to President Trump and all of
my Republican colleagues. I have to give them their due. They announced
earlier this year they would cut taxes for corporate special interests,
and today they are following through on that promise.
The problem is, in order to do it, they are raising taxes on middle
class families. Don't take my word for it. Listen to them.
The Republicans started this process by saying that every American,
everyone in America, will get a tax cut. Now they are saying, on
average, people will get a tax cut, and even that is incorrect.
It is time to be honest with the American people. What we have before
[[Page H9402]]
us today isn't a bill, it is a scam--a scam that will hurt homeowners
in Irvine, California, in Mrs. Walters' district; a scam that will hurt
seniors in Lancaster, New York, in Congressman Chris Collins' district;
a scam that will hurt students in Toms River, New Jersey, in Tom
MacArthur's district; a scam that will hurt veterans in Barrington,
Illinois, in Pete Roskam's district; and a scam that will absolutely
hurt the middle class in every congressional district in our country,
36 million people to be exact.
In my district, a quarter of all homeowners will lose the ability to
deduct their taxes, but corporate special interests, they can still
deduct their taxes under the GOP plan.
Mr. Speaker, 20,000 students in Queens and the Bronx, in my district,
will lose one of the most effective ways to pay down their student loan
debt. That is right. Republicans are eliminating the ability to deduct
the interest on student loan payments.
This scam eliminates the assistance for small businesses to hire
veterans here at home, but it continues the tax breaks to ship American
jobs overseas. Yes, you heard that correctly. Republicans and President
Trump are doling out tax breaks for companies to move overseas but will
take away benefits to hire American veterans right here at home.
These aren't the values of my constituents, but, apparently, they are
the values of Speaker Ryan, President Trump, and the entire
congressional Republican caucus.
So how did we end up here? It is because when the Republicans sat
down to write this bill, they didn't have the average American in mind.
They had their wealthy donors and corporate friends in mind.
Republicans started tax reform with this question: How do we get
the corporate rate down? Democrats would have started with the
question: How do we raise up the middle class?
Republicans wrote a bill, a tax scam, that benefits people who own
second and third homes, but they left behind average American
homeowners. They left behind teachers, who use their own money to buy
school supplies. They left average Americans behind, because they never
had you in mind to begin with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from
New York an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hardworking Americans
throughout this country, I say, vote ``no'' on H.R. 1, vote ``no'' on
H.R. 1 percent.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Estes).
Mr. ESTES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady for his
efforts to get this tax reform bill done.
Our outdated and uncompetitive Tax Code has led to slow economic
growth over the past decade in America. Today, we are taking an
important step to fix that. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will reform the
Tax Code and help foster economic growth.
For more than three decades, families have paid a growing cost for
our country's increasingly complex and burdensome Tax Code that is
chockfull of special interest loopholes. This is not fair.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will simplify the process of filing taxes
by doubling the size of the standard deduction and removing the need
for millions to itemize their deductions. It will provide tax cuts to
millions of middle-income working families.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also includes many tax reforms for
businesses in order to spur economic growth. The bill makes it easier
for entrepreneurs to start businesses, and it brings down the corporate
tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent to be in line with our
competitors around the world.
This will help spur economic growth by encouraging businesses to move
their capital and jobs back to the United States and will help lower
prices for Americans, who are the ones who ultimately pay for high
corporate taxes through higher prices.
I'm proud that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is focused on growing the
economy, bringing jobs back to Main Street, and increasing paychecks
for workers. This bill is committed to helping families because the
family unit is the cornerstone of our nation. We made a promise to
families that we'd deliver them tax relief--and we're holding to it.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will fix our bureaucratic tax nightmare and
puts families first again.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the son of a preacher man,
who always speaks truth to power.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Larson for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Republicans can dress it up and call it good names, but that will not
change the fact that H.R. 1 is a scam that will be perpetrated on
America's middle-income families.
This bill will make it harder to own a home, raise a family, and
afford a postsecondary education.
It should come as no surprise that President Trump wanted to call the
bill: ``Cut, Cut, Cut.'' That would have been apropos. The first cut is
for him and his family, the second cut is for his wealthy friends, and
the third cut is for large corporations and businesses that ship jobs
overseas.
H.R. 1 certainly does not cut taxes for middle-income families or
small businesses; in fact, it does just the opposite.
Under H.R. 1, millions of Americans, middle-income families, will pay
more--500,000 of whom live in South Carolina. Middle-income families
and first-time homeowners who utilize mortgage interest deductions will
pay more, because the GOP scam lowers the cap, making homeownership
more expensive and driving down property taxes for current homeowners.
Middle-income families with children in college or recent graduates
will pay more, because the GOP scam eliminates deductions for interest
on student loans. This includes 12 million American families, 156,000
of whom are South Carolinians.
{time} 1100
Middle-income families struggling to pay costly medical bills will
pay more because the GOP scam shamefully eliminates that deductibility.
This includes 9 million American families, and nearly 140,000 live in
South Carolina.
Middle-income families with children in daycare, nursery school, or
aging parents will pay more because the GOP scam eliminates the
deductions for dependent care assistance.
Middle-income schoolteachers will pay more because the GOP scam
eliminates their ability to deduct the cost of the supplies they
purchase for their classrooms.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 is an attack on middle-income families. It will
subject the good people of this country to a second Great Recession and
raise taxes on 36 million middle-income households.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, this GOP
tax scam will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years
and trigger massive funding cuts across the government next year.
Medicare will see a $25 billion-per-year cut.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to engage the gentleman from Texas in
a colloquy.
We should not be satisfied with the historically low economic growth
rates of the past decade. This tax reform bill that creates jobs,
increases paychecks, grows our economy, and increases American
competitiveness can help Maryland families and businesses.
The bill we are considering today has many positive elements that
will benefit our country in many ways. However, I am concerned about
its impact on some of my constituents in Maryland who pay high State
and local income taxes. I ask you, as the Ways and Means chairman, to
continue to work with me to ensure that families and job creators in my
district will all be helped by this legislation.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARRIS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland
for yielding.
The intent of our tax reform bill is to achieve tax relief for
individuals at every income level in every State.
I agree with the gentleman, there are still some areas where we will
and can
[[Page H9403]]
make improvements. If the gentleman is willing to help us continue to
move this process forward today, I am happy to commit to working with
him to ensure we reach a positive outcome for his constituents to
reconcile our differences with the Senate.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for agreeing to work
with me on this as we move forward. I will be voting for this bill
today, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill to increase
American competitiveness.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the lead Democrat on the Foreign
Affairs Committee who understands the impact of double taxation from a
donor State.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, someone near and dear to me once said that
the Republican Party is the party of rich men and women, and the
Democratic Party is the party of working men and women. Nothing proves
that more than this tax scam today.
I have been around here a long time. Of all the bills I have seen,
this is one of the worst bills I have ever seen on the floor of this
House. It is actually a disaster. It raises taxes on the middle class
and on millions of families across America. It adds trillions to the
debt to give tax cuts to America's wealthy families and corporations
while stripping credits and deductions from middle class families.
What ever happened to the fiscal responsibility of the Republican
Party?
This budget ransacks Medicare and Medicaid of $1.5 trillion, and the
GOP will use the new deficits to justify further devastating Medicare
and Medicaid.
Finally, it is a terrible disaster for my New York constituents who
already pay their fair share of taxes. New York is a donor State,
meaning that we pay more to the Federal Government than what we get in
return.
This will reduce or eliminate key deductions, such as curbing or
eliminating deductibility of State and local taxes, mortgage interest
deductions, college debt, student loans.
We are a high-tax State. This is a disaster. Scrap this disaster. Go
back to the drawing board and write a bill which is fair to middle
class taxpayers.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the voice of Houston.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is not the American Dream tax
plan. This is the American nightmare, a tax scam of the worst
proportion.
With over 8,000 of my constituents last evening on a teleconference
town hall meeting, overwhelmingly they disagreed with a tax plan that
cuts Medicare or Medicaid to finance tax cuts, eliminates the mortgage
tax deduction, so that those who are suffering from Hurricane Harvey,
trying to rebuild their lives, seeking a new home cannot, in fact,
deduct their mortgage.
The same thing with the 200,000 Texans who are going to pay more
because we are eliminating the deduction for State and local taxes, and
eliminating deductions for student loans, casualty losses; by next
year, $25 billion in Social Security cuts.
My seniors on the phone last night asked me about those cuts. They
asked me about the medical expenses cuts for seniors. All of that is
eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a sample of tele-townhall survey
questions and answers
Tax Tele-Townhall Survey Questions and Answers
(1) Do you agree that a tax bill should cut tax at the
expense of Medicaid and Medicare? 95 percent said no.
(2) The current tax reform bill will eliminate the tax
deduction for student loan interest and the lifetime learning
credit. Do you support the elimination of these tax credits?
91 percent said no.
(3) The current tax code allows homeowners to deduct
interest on mortgages. Would you support a tax plan that
includes a reduction in credit for first-time home buyers? 95
percent said no.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this plan will show no growth. The
neutral tax policy entity said you will get no growth, no growth in
wages, and you will send jobs overseas in waves.
It is a tax scam and it is an American nightmare. Vote against this
tax scam
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee, I rise in strong
and unyielding opposition to H.R. 1, the so-called ``Tax Cut and Jobs
Act,'' which more accurately should be called the ``Republican Tax Scam
Act.''
I oppose this cruel and immoral $1.7 trillion tax giveaway to wealthy
corporations and the top one percent because it raises taxes on poor,
working, and middle class families; explodes the deficit by adding an
additional $2.2 trillion over ten years; and will require an estimated
$5.4 trillion cut in funding for the programs ordinary Americans depend
on for health security, educational opportunity, and economic progress.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are not fooled; they know trickle-down
economics has never worked, and they see right through this phony tax
plan and recognize it for the scam that it is.
That is why Americans reject this Republican tax giveaway by an
overwhelming 2:1 margin according to a poll released yesterday by
Quinnipiac.
Specifically, 61 percent think the Republican tax scam will benefit
the wealthy the most; only 16 percent say the plan will reduce their
taxes.
59 percent think it is a very bad idea to eliminate the deduction for
state and local income taxes.
Nearly half of respondents (40 percent) think it a bad idea to lower
the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.
This Republican tax plan is even more toxic to my constituents in the
Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas.
Mr. Speaker, as you may know, my constituents and others in Texas are
still struggling to recover from the devastation caused by Hurricane
Harvey, the worst storm ever to make landfall in the continental United
States.
Yet last evening, nearly 8,000 of them took time out of their busy
schedules to join me in a tele-townhall to discuss the tax scheme that
has been rushed to the floor for a vote by the Republican leadership in
the hope of passing it before the American people learn its insidious
details.
But I have got news for them: too late.
My constituents understand and let me know that they believe it is
important that the United States has a tax system that is fair,
balanced, smart, and provides the resources and opportunities to allow
all Americans to reach their potential.
And by margins exceeding 90 percent, they reject:
1. Any cuts to Medicare or Medicaid to finance tax cuts for wealthy
corporations and the top 1 percent;
2. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction;
3. Eliminating the deductibility of state and local taxes;
4. Eliminating existing deductions for student loan interest or
making taxable college endowment funds or college fellowships expenses.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents, and Americans across the country,
oppose this unfair Republican tax giveaway because nearly half of the
$1.7 trillion tax cut goes to just the top one percent.
In fact, the average annual tax cut for the top one-tenth of one
percent is $320,000; for the top one percent it is $62,000, and for
those earning $1 million a year it is $68,000.
Nearly 25 percent of the tax cut goes to households in just the top
one-tenth of one percent, who make at least $5 million a year (2027).
While super-wealthy corporations and individuals are reaping
windfalls, millions of middle-class and working families will see their
taxes go up:
1. 13 million households face a tax increase next year.
2. 45 million households face a tax increase in 2027.
3. 29 million households (21 percent) earning less than $100,000 a
year see a tax increase.
On average, families earning up to $86,000 annually would see a $794
increase in their tax liability, a significant burden on families
struggling to afford child care and balance their checkbook.
It is shocking, but not surprising, that under this Republican tax
scam, the total value of tax cuts for just the top one percent is more
than the entire tax cut for the lower 95 percent of earners.
Put another way, those earning more than $912,000 a year will get
more in tax cuts than 180 million households combined.
The core of this Republican tax scheme is a massive tax cut from 35
percent to 20 percent for corporations, but that is not the only way
that the wealthy are rewarded.
The massive tax cuts for corporations are permanent but temporary for
working and middle-class families.
Another immoral aspect of this terrible tax scam is that it abandons
families that face natural disasters or high medical costs by repealing
deductions for casualty losses and medical expenses.
Mr. Speaker, in what universe does it make any sense to eliminate, as
this bill would, a deduction for:
[[Page H9404]]
1. Teachers who purchase supplies for their classroom;
2. Moving expenses to take a new job and taxes employer-provided
moving expenses; or
3. Dependent care assistance, making it harder for families to afford
day care, nursery school, or care for aging parents?
This Republican tax scam jeopardizes American innovation and
competitiveness by eliminating the deduction for student loan interest,
which affects 12 million borrowers, and cuts total education assistance
by more than $64 billion.
Under the extraordinary leadership of President Obama and the
determined efforts of ordinary Americans, we pulled our way out from
under the worst of the foreclosure crisis when the housing bubble burst
in 2007.
Inexplicably, Republicans are now championing a tax scheme that will
make the homes of average Americans less valuable because deductions
for mortgage interest and property taxes are much less valuable than
under current law.
A tax plan that reduces home values, as this one does, puts pressure
on states and towns to collect revenues they depend on to fund schools,
roads, and vital public resources.
Mr. Speaker, an estimated 2.8 million Texas households deduct state
and local taxes with an average deduction of $7,823 in 2015.
But this is not the end of the bad news that will be delivered were
this tax scam to become law, not by a long shot.
The proposed elimination of the personal exemption will harm millions
of Texans by taking away the $4,050 deduction for each taxpayer and
claimed dependent; in 2015, roughly 9.3 million dependent exemptions
were claimed in the Lone Star State.
Equally terrible is that this Republican tax scam drastically reduces
the Earned Income Tax Credit, which encourages work for 2.7 million
low-income individuals in Texas, helping them make ends meet with an
average credit of $2,689.
The EITC and the Child Tax Credit lift about 1.2 million Texans,
including 663,000 children, out of poverty each year.
So to achieve their goal of giving more and more to the haves and the
``have mores,'' our Republican friends are willing to betray seniors,
children, the most vulnerable and needy, and working and middle-class
families.
The $5.4 trillion cuts in program investments that will be required
to pay for this tax giveaway to wealthy corporations and individuals
will fall most heavily on low-income families, students struggling to
afford college, seniors, and persons with disabilities.
America will not be made great by financing a $1.7 trillion tax cut
for the rich by stealing $1.8 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid,
abandoning seniors and families in need, depriving students of
realizing a dream to attend college without drowning in debt, or
disinvesting in the working families.
America will not be positioned to compete and win in the global,
interconnected, and digital economy by slashing funding for scientific
research, the arts and humanities, job retraining, and clean energy
just to pay for a tax cut to corporations and individuals who do not
even need it.
Mr. Speaker, the tax scheme presented here by Republicans is not a
plan but a scam that represents a betrayal of our values as a nation.
This tax scam is not a revenue policy adapted for the real world that
real Americans live in but a fantasy resting on the monstrous belief
that the wealthy have too little money and that poor, working, and
middle-class families have too much.
Our Republican friends continue to cling to the fantasy belief that
their tax cuts for the rich will pay for themselves despite all
precedent to the contrary and evidence that their tax scheme is
projected by experts to lose between $3 trillion and $7 trillion.
Mr. Speaker, in evaluating the merits of a taxing system, it is not
enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal responsibility.
To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's
present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the plan must also pass
a ``moral test.''
The Republican tax bill fails both of these standards.
I strongly oppose H.R. 1, the ``Republican Tax Scam Act,'' and urge
all Members to join me in voting against this reckless, cruel, and
heartless proposal that will do nothing to improve the lives or well-
being of middle and working class families, and the poor and vulnerable
`caught in the tentacles of circumstance.'
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
So I note that constituents in the 18th District of Texas, the past
speaker's district, that average families will see a tax cut of nearly
$1,000, and Texas will grow 81,000 new jobs and see higher paychecks as
a result of this tax reform bill.
We are proposing a Tax Code so fair and simple, 9 out of 10 Americans
will be able to file using a simple postcard system. There is a
fairness and equality for each American--knowing what each others'
deductions are because we have exactly the same ones.
This simplicity, this fairness, these larger paychecks, this is what
the Tax Cut and Jobs Act is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the leader of the Republican
Conference.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his
tremendous leadership on this important legislation this morning.
I am proud to rise in support of enacting tax reform, tax relief to
millions of Americans. We have been waiting a long time, more than 30
years. And while everything else has changed over 30 years, our Tax
Code, unfortunately, has only gotten old, outdated, bigger, and more
complicated. It has become a burden, a burden that we are going to
lift.
Now, there are some defenders of the status quo who think that the
Tax Code is just fine. Well, that is not what the American people sent
us here to do, to defend the status quo. We are here to do the big
things.
Our plan rewrites the Tax Code to put American families first,
including families who have children with disabilities. For these
families, who may have saved for their son's or daughter's college
tuition, which is no longer needed, our plan carries on the legacy of
the ABLE Act by allowing them to roll over from a 529 account to a 529A
account, an ABLE account, to pay for things like medical bills or
workforce development instead.
With this bill, we are making it easier for everyone to reach their
full potential. We are lifting the tax burden for everyday, hardworking
Americans. An extra $1,182 for middle-income families in places likes
eastern Washington could make all the difference between living
paycheck to paycheck and saving for retirement or making that car
payment.
Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment, and I urge all of my
colleagues to join me on the right side of history by voting in favor
of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts. Let's help our hardworking men and women
all across this country.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record The Washington
Post op-ed, ``The Republican tax plan's five worst dangers,'' by
Secretary Rubin, dated November 15, 2017
[From the Washington Post, Nov. 15, 2017]
The Republican Tax Plan's Five Worst Dangers
(By Robert Rubin)
The deficit-funded tax cuts advancing through Congress are
a fiscal tragedy for which our country will pay a huge price
over time. While the details of the tax plan remain in flux,
its fundamental contours will not change. Nor will its $1.5
trillion of deficit funding, the amount stipulated in the
recently passed budget resolution.
Perhaps it's hopeless to expect those in Congress who have
long bemoaned deficits and the debt to oppose the plan. If,
however, as a matter of conscience or renewed reflection they
decide to take heed, here are the fiscal dangers posed by the
plan.
To start, the tax cuts will not increase growth and, given
their fiscal effects, would likely have a significant and
increasingly negative impact. The nonpartisan Tax Policy
Center's latest report estimated that, over 10 years, the
average increase in our growth rate would be roughly zero,
counting the crowding out of private investment by increasing
deficits but not counting other adverse effects of worsening
our fiscal outlook. The Penn Wharton Budget Model, using the
same approach, estimates virtually no increase in long-term
growth. Goldman Sachs projects an increase of 0.1 percent to
0.2 percent in the first couple of years and an average
increase over 10 years of just 0.05 percent per year, not
counting any of the adverse fiscal effects.
These estimates reflect three underlying views held by
mainstream economists. First, individual tax cuts will not
materially induce people to work more. Second, corporate tax
cuts will likely have limited effect on investment or
decisions about where to locate
[[Page H9405]]
business activity, given the many other variables at play.
Third, deficit-funded tax cuts will have little short-term
effect on growth, except perhaps for some temporary
overheating, because we are at roughly full employment.
With no additional revenue from increased growth to offset
the tax cuts' cost, the publicly held debt of the federal
government would increase by $1.5 trillion. An additional
danger is that the actual deficit impact would be increased
by abandoning the Congressional Budget Office's nonpartisan
evaluation that has been used for decades by both parties in
favor of partisan calculations by those pushing the tax cuts.
Adding $1.5 trillion or more to the federal debt would make
an already bad situation worse. A useful measure of our
fiscal position is the ratio of publicly held government debt
to economic output or gross domestic product, called the
debt/GDP ratio. In 2000, the debt/GDP ratio was 32 percent.
The ratio is now 77 percent. Looking forward, the CBO
projects the debt/GDP ratio to be 91 percent in 2027 and 150
percent in 2047. After $1.5 trillion of deficit-funded tax
cuts, those future ratios have been estimated to increase to
roughly 97 percent in 2027 and 160 percent in 2047. These
estimates likely substantially understate the worsening of
our fiscal trajectory. That's because they do not account for
the increasingly adverse effect on growth of the difficult-
to-quantify effects of fiscal deterioration.
Exacerbating our already unsustainable fiscal trajectory
with these tax cuts would threaten growth in five respects.
These are highly likely to be substantial and to increase
over time.
First, business confidence would likely be negatively
affected by creating uncertainty about future policy and
heightening concern about our political system's ability to
meet our economic policy challenges.
Second, our country's resilience to deal with inevitable
future economic and geopolitical emergencies, including the
effects of climate change, would continue to decline.
Third, funds available for public investment, national
security and defense spending--a professed concern of many
tax-cut proponents--would continue to decline as debt rises,
because of rising interest costs and the increased risk of
borrowing to fund government activities.
Fourth, Treasury bond interest rates would be highly likely
to increase over time because of increased demand for the
supply of savings and increased concern about future
imbalances. That, in turn, would raise private-sector
interest rates, which could also increase due to widening
spreads vs. Treasuries, further reflecting increased concern
about future conditions. And even a limited increase in the
debt/GDP ratio could focus attention on our fiscal
trajectory's long-ignored risks and trigger outsize increases
in Treasury and private-sector interest rates. The ability to
borrow in our own currency, and to print it through the
Federal Reserve, may diminish these risks for a while, as
might capital inflows from abroad. But these mitigating
factors have their limits; at some point, unsound fiscal
conditions almost surely would undermine our currency and
debt markets.
Finally, at some unpredictable point, fiscal conditions--
and these market dynamics--would likely be seen as
sufficiently serious to cause severe market and economic
destabilization.
We have an imperative need to address our unsustainable
longer-term fiscal trajectory with sound economic policies.
Few elected officials want to face this fact, but, at the
very least, they should not make matters worse. We can only
hope that responsible elected officials will prevent this
irresponsible tax plan from being adopted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 1 is postponed.
When debate resumes, the time remaining will be 17 minutes for the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and 12\1/2\ minutes for the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson)
____________________