[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 74 (Monday, May 5, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H1849-H1852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REPUBLICAN TAX CUTS
(Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr.
Thompson of California was recognized for 30 minutes.)
General Leave
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to start today with
some good news. I think it is fantastic that the Golden State Warriors
played an incredible basketball game last night and brought them to
victory over the Rockets out of Texas and are going to advance onto the
next round of the basketball playoffs. So I congratulate the Dubs.
Sadly, that is where the good news ends. What we are going to talk
about for the rest of this evening is some bad news, bad for the
American people.
The Republican plan to extend the Trump tax cuts for billionaire
donors like Elon Musk is a bad deal for the American people.
During this Special Order, we are going to lay out exactly how
reckless this Republican plan is to extend the Republican Trump tax
cuts. An extension of the Republican Trump tax cuts would
disproportionately benefit those who need it the least, would
recklessly increase our Nation's deficits, and it fails to prioritize
hardworking Americans' contributions.
Republican tax cuts get our priorities exactly backwards. When
Democrats passed tax cuts, we focused on who needed the help the most.
The tax cuts that Democrats passed and that President Biden signed into
law were some of the most significant middle-class tax cuts we have
seen in a generation.
In 2021, our expanded child tax credit nearly cut child poverty in
our country in half. We also made historic expansions to both the
earned income tax credit and the dependent care credit which
dramatically cut child poverty. In other words, when Democrats do tax
cuts, we focus those tax cuts on those who need it the most.
The Republicans on the other hand are looking to extend tax cuts that
are overwhelmingly tilted to benefit those who need it the least.
Under the Republican tax bill, a taxpayer who makes $1 million or
more saw an average tax cut of $79,000, where a taxpayer making $50,000
only saw about $270 in tax cuts. Putting this another way, for every
dollar they are giving to the average working person, they are handing
$288 to a person making over $1 million every year.
Let me be clear about that statistic. I am not talking about a
millionaire, not someone who is sitting on a house and a 401(k) that
they have worked for and saved for for 30 years to hit $1 million. This
is what they are giving to someone who makes $1 million every year.
Now, I don't know how you feel, Mr. Speaker, but I don't think people
who are making $1 million a year are the ones who need a helping hand
in this economy.
Now, suffice it to say, we have made this point once or twice before,
and every time we do we get the same response from our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle. They say: People who make over $1 million
pay a lot in taxes, so, of course, they get a bigger tax cut.
However, that argument is full of prunes. Let's be clear. Congress is
perfectly capable of cutting taxes for working people without also
cutting taxes for those at the top.
That is right. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, you can lower the tax
rates at the bottom without also lowering the tax rates at the top.
In fact, last year, the Treasury Department did a study. They looked
at how much it would cost to extend the Republican Trump tax cuts so
that everyone making under $400,000 a year was held harmless. There was
no impact on the bottom 98 percent of the income distribution.
How much did it cost?
They said it would cost $1.8 trillion. Now, that is not pocket
change. We all know that, but it is a heck of a lot less than the
recent Joint Committee on Taxation estimate of $4.6 trillion that it
will cost to extend the Republican Trump tax cuts that favor those who
don't need any help.
{time} 2030
The thing is, if Republicans would be willing to abandon their goal
of cutting taxes for the most fortunate, if they would genuinely focus
on the middle
[[Page H1850]]
class and focus on offsetting those tax cuts in a responsible, deficit-
neutral manner, I bet they could get a lot of colleagues on my side of
the aisle to join them in that effort.
Instead, they have embarked on a go-it-alone strategy, and go it
alone they will. As long as their goal is to reward their big donors
with massive tax cuts while leaving working people behind, they can go
it alone.
Someone who knows the impact that these tax cuts have had on
taxpayers across our country, the negative impact they have had on
working people across our country; someone who knows well how these
Republican tax cuts stole from people who live in high-cost areas their
ability to deduct their State and local taxes, costing constituents in
those areas thousands and thousands of dollars a year; someone who
knows well what that is and has been working tirelessly ever since they
did that, ever since they foisted that tax increase on people in high-
cost-of-living areas; and someone who has been working on it ever since
they did it, trying to work with people on both sides of the aisle to
figure out how to resolve the State and local tax deduction is my
colleague, Tom Suozzi from New York. He is a great Member and a member
of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi).
Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for bringing attention to this important issue.
I am going to talk about the State and local tax deduction in some
detail, but first let me just say generally that what we are talking
about is so important. We have so many of our friends on the other side
of the aisle who are constantly talking about how the government spends
too much money and how deficits are getting so much bigger.
Here, under their tax bill that they are proposing right now, they
are going to increase the deficit in the United States by $4.5
trillion. Now, that doesn't make any sense. Why would they propose
something when they have people on their side who their singular most
important issue is reducing the deficit, but they would increase the
deficit by $4.5 trillion?
Now, my colleague talked about the tax cuts from 2017, well, a lot of
my residents didn't see a tax deduction. They saw a tax increase. The
reason they saw a tax increase is because they capped the State and
local tax deduction at $10,000.
Let me just explain what the State and local tax deduction is. The
State and local tax deduction was in place for 100 years, from 1913
until 2017. In 1930, they started the Federal income tax code in the
United States of America. When they said we are going to tax people's
income at the Federal level, a lot of Governors, mayors, and local
elected officials said, no, they don't want a Federal income tax
because that will stop them from raising the taxes at the State and
local level. Since America's founding, government was mainly paid for
at the State and local level through State and local taxes. The Federal
Government was funded by tariffs, quite frankly, a very interesting
topic for today.
When the mayors and Governors protested, they said: We don't want to
have a Federal income tax because you are going to hurt us. We don't
want to pay taxes on the taxes we have already paid at the State and
local level.
The Federal Government said: Don't worry about it. We will put a
deduction in place that says you can deduct your State and local taxes
from your income, so you don't have to pay taxes on the taxes you have
already paid.
Okay, let's do that. They put it in place for 100 years.
In 2017, they said we are going to cap this deduction that has been
in place for over 100 years at $10,000. They took the long arm of the
Federal Government and reached into local governments. They violated
the covenant of federalism, and they said: We are going to make you pay
taxes on the taxes you have already paid to your States, to your
cities, to your towns, to your villages, to your school districts. We
are going to tax you on the money you have already paid in taxes at the
State and local levels.
That caused some people's taxes to go up, especially in high-tax
States that happen to be Democratic States, such as in New York, New
Jersey, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Rhode Island, and
Hawaii. They caused people's taxes to go up because they could no
longer deduct their State and local taxes.
It is not fair. In fact, people have moved away from our States to
other lower tax States.
Why are taxes higher in my State and in your State compared to, say,
Florida and Texas? They are higher because in New York State and in
California, we insure our children. We have the lowest rates of
uninsured children in the United States of America and the lowest rates
of uninsured adults in the United States of America, whereas Florida
and Texas have the highest rates of uninsured children and uninsured
adults.
Our taxes are higher in our States because we pay our teachers,
police officers, firefighters, and other public workers in public
employee unions and other union workers higher wages. They don't like
unions in Florida, Texas, and other low-tax States.
It is not fair that in States like mine and yours, Mr. Thompson, and
other Democratic States, we are net donors to the Federal Government.
We send more money to the Federal Government than we get back.
A lot of our colleagues criticize our States. They say it is so
ineffective the way we are running our States. Why is it that we are
doing so well economically that we are the biggest net donors to the
Federal Government? We send more money to the Federal Government in
income taxes than we get back in Federal contracts and Federal
programs.
In fact, most of the red States in the United States of America are
net takers, and most of the blue States are net donors, so it is not
fair. It is very different from State to State in our country, but in
my State, for example, and in Mr. Thompson's State, similarly, if you
have a teacher and a police officer who are married, their income could
be over $150,000, $200,000 a year. In our States, because the taxes are
higher, because the cost of living is higher, the cost of housing is
higher, so that $150,000 to $200,000 a year is not a wealthy person.
That is a middle-class person.
I talked to a friend of mine from Oklahoma, and I told him that
person making $150,000 between the husband and wife is middle class.
They said: $150,000 a year? If they lived in my State, they would be
living in a gated community. They would belong to the country club.
That is not what it is like. It is different from place to place.
We set up these different State and city governments throughout our
country to be laboratories of democracy, to run their States and their
cities the way they see fit, to tax them as they see fit, and the one
way that they used the Federal income tax code to move forward was to
have a State and local tax deduction that was ripped away from them in
2017.
Some of my colleagues on the Republican side have said they will not
support this new tax bill unless we restore the State and local tax
deduction. We would like to see a complete repeal of the cap. We would
like to have you be able to claim all of your State and local taxes. We
passed it three times when the Democrats were in charge. We passed it
once, complete repeal; twice, complete repeal; third time, $80,000 cap.
Some Republicans have proposed a cap of $25,000. Five Republicans
have stood up and said $25,000 is not acceptable. I want to commend
them for standing up for their residents and taxpayers against their
party and saying they will not support this bill.
President Trump came to my State, actually right near my district in
Nassau County, where I used to be the county executive. He spoke at a
campaign rally in the summer of 2024, and he said we have to restore
the State and local tax deduction. Now, he is the one who took it away.
He said that we have to restore the State and local tax deduction.
Well, let's hold the President to that.
Let's commend our five colleagues who are standing up against their
party to say they want to raise the State and local tax deduction.
[[Page H1851]]
Let's be fair to these middle-class families. Let's be fair to these
States. Let's be fair to these mayors, Governors, and county
executives. Let's be fair to our firefighters and teachers. Let's be
fair to make sure that these States that are net donors to the Federal
Government are treated with the proper respect and dignity that they
deserved throughout America's history and stop penalizing them for
trying to serve their residents the best way they can.
Again, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
the passion he brings to this issue. I know how much work he has put
into it.
I want to add a couple of things on the SALT topic.
One, as I think the gentleman remembers, when this was happening, my
subcommittee held hearings on SALT. We brought witnesses in from a
number of different States, not all blue States. Blue States are the
ones that are generally recognized as being most harmed by this
terrible tax policy that the Republicans put on us.
What we saw in those hearings were red States are quickly catching
up. This is catching red State taxpayers as well, and it is hurting
them just like it is hurting taxpayers in blue States.
I want to mention that the gentleman talked about our Republican
colleagues who are talking a good game about how they won't vote for
this, that, and the other thing unless SALT is taken care of. Well,
SALT goes back to what it used to be if we don't do anything, so that
is where we could end up if this foolish tax bill that is being pushed
on the American people right now were to go away. We get our SALT
deduction back.
I certainly hope that the colleagues that the gentleman mentioned are
going to hold to their word and work with us to see if we can fix that.
The gentleman is spot on regarding donor States like his State and my
State. We give more money to the Federal Government than we get back.
Just to demonstrate how big that is, in my State of California, if
you deduct the money that we get back from the Federal Government from
all the money that California taxpayers send to the Federal Government,
what is left, what stays in Washington to go out to all the red States,
is more than the entire State budget of 47 other States.
To say that we represent donor States, that is almost a throw-away
line. We are paying the freight for all the States that are voting in a
way that is hurting the American taxpayer. It is inexcusable. It
is inexcusable that my Republican colleagues are looking to enact these
tax cuts at the expense of the American people, including cutting up to
$880 billion from Medicaid over the next 10 years.
Nearly 1 in 4 Americans, or 80 million American people, are covered
by Medicaid. These cuts that the Republicans are promoting mean that
our neighbors will struggle to afford to see a doctor, struggle to pay
for medication, or won't have access to nursing home services if they
need it.
For over 60 years, Medicaid has been a lifeline for people with low
incomes and for people with disabilities so they could have access to
healthcare. Already, we are seeing rural hospitals struggling and not
just in my district. Rural hospitals across the United States of
America are struggling. Many of them are closing or are eliminating
critical services.
These hospitals, every one of them, are heavily reliant on
reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid. Any cut in Medicaid funding
would lead to catastrophic results for all--not just those on Medicaid,
for everyone. Those lacking coverage will skip necessary care, only
making people sicker and requiring costlier treatment. It will put a
strain on local emergency rooms and community health providers when
these folks show up in the emergency room with a very serious problem
that, as I said, will cost more to treat. In fact, every uninsured
person results in a $900 uncompensated healthcare cost per year.
This results in services being offered at higher prices for patients
and reduced investments in local healthcare centers. Cutting Medicaid
will devastate the most vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker, 12 million people in rural areas, not rural areas in
blue States, rural areas across the United States of America, 12
million people in those rural areas have health coverage through
Medicaid, including 47 percent of children living in rural communities.
It is, in many instances, the only way that kids can get healthcare.
Mr. Speaker, 38 percent of children in urban areas also rely on
Medicaid coverage.
Yet, these Medicaid and ensuing service cuts will just show new
physicians that they can't count on keeping a job in a rural hospital.
The Medicaid cuts will widen the gap between what a rural hospital can
offer and what an urban or suburban hospital can offer.
It is not just those on Medicaid who will suffer. Without Medicaid
reimbursement, hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices, and urgent care
centers will close, leaving even those with private insurance without
access to healthcare.
{time} 2045
In my State, one-third of the population is covered by Medicaid.
Republicans can't cut one-third of the money that goes to healthcare
and expect our healthcare system and infrastructure to stand. Hospitals
and clinics will close their doors. If they don't close, they will cut
services dramatically.
It doesn't matter if you are on Medicaid, on Medicare, if you have
private insurance through your employer, or you are filthy rich with
pockets full of gold. If you go to the hospital or to the clinic or to
an urgent care center and they have had to make drastic cuts to
compensate for these terrible Medicaid cuts that the Republicans are
trying to push down their throats, there is not going to be anybody
there to take care of you. It doesn't matter if you have the money or
you have the insurance.
If the majority cuts services, your healthcare access will be
truncated. There is no two ways about it. It has been a very
interesting exercise to watch some of our Republican colleagues wrap
themselves into pretzels claiming not to have voted for the Medicaid
cuts, but it was just an overall structure giving direction of how we
should cut these moneys.
Remember, cut these moneys so that my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle can give a tax cut to their billionaire, Musk-like donors.
That is just not true. Republicans can't vote for a structure that
takes $880 billion out of the healthcare safety net and claim not to
have done it. Republican Members voted to cut Medicaid, which will hurt
everybody's healthcare delivery.
Now we see it again. The majority Members are trying to justify it by
creating this balancing effort to suggest that Republicans are not
cutting Medicaid but are just going to put in place some seven-bank
shot procedure where the $880 billion is still at risk but Republicans
can do it without voting to say that the majority actually cut
Medicaid.
My colleagues can't just hide the ball. It doesn't matter what
Republicans call it. The priority of tax cuts for the very rich, people
who don't need the help, will cut healthcare for all of our
constituents. That is going to hurt every one of us. It doesn't matter
if Members are in an urban area, a rural area, a suburban area, a red
State, a blue State, or whatever color State my colleagues think they
live in.
These cuts are devastating. I have had hospital administrators in my
district tell me that they are closing their hospitals if these go
through. I have had clinics tell me that their clinics are done if this
goes through. This is mean, cruel, and it doesn't have to happen. It is
going to hurt everyone.
I think it is important for the American people to know what the
Senate is planning on doing in regard to this discussion. Senate
Republicans are using what they call a current policy baseline.
Remember that: current policy baseline.
Mr. Speaker, I don't care what finance classes Members took. I don't
care if you are the CFO in the biggest corporation in the world. This
is not a policy definition that any of my colleagues have ever studied
before. This is a new thing that the Senate majority Members made up in
order to justify what Republicans are trying to do in regard to the tax
cuts for people who don't need it.
Senate Republicans call it current policy baseline to measure the
cost of
[[Page H1852]]
the tax bill. According to Republicans, current policy baseline is just
a fancy word for: We are not really doing what we say we are doing, but
it is accounting fraud.
Any way my colleagues cut it, it is accounting fraud. Here is what is
going to happen: Republicans are going to pass massive tax cuts, with
much of it going to those at the very top of the income scale, those
who don't need our help.
The nonpartisan professional economists at the Joint Committee on
Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office are going to provide a
score. In other words, they are going to tell us how much it is going
to cost to do what Republicans want to do. They submit that information
to all Members of Congress so that we know what the cost of this tax
cut policy will be.
Yet, with what the Senate is doing, the way the Senate majority is
setting up this score, the score that has been developed by
experienced, nonpartisan officials with Ph.D.'s in economics who
provide this good information to us, they are going to have to do some
kind of maneuver to figure out how to deal with this new accounting
fraud.
They are going to put all of the good work and all of the experience
they have to the side because the Republicans don't want us to see what
the real score is. The majority doesn't want my colleagues to see the
kind of reckless deficits that this bill is going to create.
Mr. Suozzi said it well:
All of the tax policy that we are talking about is not paid
for.
Mr. Speaker, all of the pearl-clutching that went on leading to the
election and all of the crying and screaming about the national debt
all of a sudden doesn't matter? We are going to put, at a minimum, $4.6
trillion onto the national debt because of this.
What Republicans will do instead is make up their own score with this
new accounting fraud that the majority has developed. The Senate has
made it clear what the score will say. It will say that extending the
Republican Trump tax cuts costs zero. It is pretending that the tax
cuts are free.
Tax cuts, the American people know good and well, are not free. There
is a cost associated with those. The ranking member of the Committee on
Ways and Means, Mr. Neal, former chairman, described this magical-
thinking tax fraud accounting system that the Republican Senators came
up with in a recent editorial in The Washington Post. I like his
description. This is what he said:
It is like saving your money and paying for three family
vacations and then saying: Now all of our future vacations
are free. We don't have to save. We don't have to pay for
them.
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the whole House and the American people
that extending the Trump tax cuts is not free. In fact, we have a
recent estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation that says that
extending the Trump tax cuts costs $4.6 trillion.
This is $4.6 trillion that will be added to the debt. Not only does
extending the Republican Trump tax cuts cost an extra $4.6 trillion,
but because they are pretending that it is free and doesn't cost
anything and doesn't need to be offset, every last penny of those tax
cuts will be borrowed money.
Borrowed money isn't free either. Who is going to pick up the tab on
this? Your kids, your grandkids, and future generations are paying the
freight for this irresponsible tax policy that is coming down the way.
On top of that, there is another $1.5 trillion in tax cuts that the
Republicans want to add to that. That is $6.1 billion of unpaid-for tax
cuts. That is $1.6 billion in debt on our children and our
grandchildren just to give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in this
country, people who do not need our help.
This is wrong, Mr. Speaker. We need to stand up. Our friends and our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to stand up and need to
show the courage that their voters placed in them to stand up and speak
out against this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________