[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 96 (Thursday, June 5, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H2498-H2499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MONITORING BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL PROVISIONS
(Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr.
Grothman of Wisconsin was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of
the majority leader. )
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, due to when I was pushed
back to start this, my speech will go a little less than 10 minutes, if
anybody is planning around it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about the big bill
that we just passed and some provisions that should be monitored as we
work our way not only through the big reconciliation bill but through
the appropriations bills, as well.
First of all, I think it is important that the public and the press
corps pay attention to what becomes of the low-income housing tax
credits in this bill.
Currently, the low-income tax credits were brought to my attention
when I attended part of a seminar in which the speaker was bragging
about how much money developers could make off of these low-income
housing tax credits. The credits give a developer 10 percent of their
value of their project over a 9-year period.
There is a time value of money. Even taking into account the time
value of money, it means the government pays for 70 percent of the cost
of a project. If we felt there was a shortage of anything else in this
society, we would never say the answer is to give a business 70 percent
of the cost of their
[[Page H2499]]
product so that they would produce more.
In a related comment on the low-income tax credit, once you say the
government is going to pay for 70 percent of these housing projects, it
results in overspending on the part of the developer. These projects in
California have sometimes cost $800,000 or almost $900,000 per unit.
That is not the norm, but think of it. The government pays somebody
70 percent of the cost of a building. Is it surprising that these
people don't put marble countertops in? Is it even surprising that it
costs $800,000 or $900,000 per unit?
{time} 1740
How in the world under any circumstances in a budget in which the
government is borrowing 26 percent of the amount of Federal spending
could we, under any circumstances, allow this program to continue?
Nevertheless, it not only continues, but the House of Representatives
for some reason decided to increase the amount of money in these
credits.
I also think it encourages a little bit of questionable behavior
there because, of course, there is always going to be more demand for
these credits because so much money can be made off them. Because there
is so much demand, I think sometimes, on a State level, when they dole
out these credits, the credits go to a politically favored class. It
obviously encourages developers to curry favor with politicians who may
directly or indirectly determine who gets these projects.
I hope our sleeping press corps pays attention as to what becomes of
this program as it works its way through the process. Right now, we are
spending about $12.5 billion a year on low-income housing tax credits.
I want to point out that low income is in the title, but well over
half the people who live in these buildings are not meeting sub- to
low-income qualifications. Even if one is technically low-income, they
could have unlimited assets, as well.
In any event, I really think, in all of my years in public life, the
most questionable program I have ever come across is the low-income
housing tax credit.
The press corps likes to run down politicians. Here is something they
ought to be run down for, so I hope they pay a little more attention.
The next thing I would like to point out is what the Republicans do
with the SALT deduction. There are a variety of changes in the tax code
that we could make that would affect people's behavior. Because tax
rates are so high, any change in the tax code affects people's
behavior.
Some people feel we ought to make reductions to encourage more
research and development. Other people feel that we ought to--I feel we
ought to increase the personal exemption to give a special benefit to
people who have more children. Some people feel we should have an
across-the-board cut and not influence one behavior or another.
There is a small group of people in this building who apparently feel
the number one problem we have is that State and local taxes are not
high enough, and they want to bring back a deduction for State and
local taxes. Right now, we have a low deduction in there, so they are
aiming things at not the poor or middle class. They are really aiming
things at the well-off people and encouraging governments, like
California and especially New York, to raise their taxes.
Recently, on the radio, I was listening to a guy who, I believe, is
running for Governor there. He wants to raise the income tax in New
York to 11 percent. It is not surprising, then, that I am sure people,
like this person, who want to dramatically increase the income taxes in
New York would want those taxes to be tax deductible.
Why a Republican would want to do that, I am not sure. I think it is
something we ought to talk a little bit more about.
The next area that is going to be working its way that is affected
indirectly by the great big, beautiful bill but will be more directly
impacted by the appropriations bills that follow is what happens with
the Department of Defense.
Right now, we have close to 900,000 employees who are not uniformed
in the Department of Defense. I think one of the great things DOGE did
is expose how hard or not hard some of those employees are working. We
will see what happens with the overall defense budget and whether
Congress is willing to take the step forward and say that maybe we
don't need 900,000 employees in the Department of Defense who are not
uniformed.
The other thing in the Department of Defense we can look at is what
Pete Hegseth, who I think is going to be a great Secretary of Defense,
has pointed out. He feels, in today's world, aircraft carriers are
maybe not entirely obsolete but are not as valuable as they were 30
years ago. That should be obvious from what happened over the weekend
when Ukraine used drones to wipe out some aircraft thousands of miles
away in the Soviet Union, showing that the nature of warfare is
changing rapidly. Our defense budget should change rapidly with it.
Mr. Hegseth has said we are going to use less combat troops. We
certainly need a lot less noncombat troops. He has implied that he
feels aircraft carriers are becoming a little bit obsolete. Right now,
we have 11 aircraft carriers. We have three more under construction to
replace the current aircraft carriers.
I think we have to protect our electric grid. I think we have to
protect ourselves against hypersonic missiles. I think Israel is doing
a good job at that.
We have to prepare for the next war, not prepare to refight World War
II.
I think it is important for our press corps to publicize people who
talk about the new type of munitions and the new type of armaments we
are going to need in a new war. Given that we are so entirely broke and
that 26 percent of our budget is borrowed, we have to make sure now
more than ever that our defense dollars are spent wisely and not on
things that, to a certain extent, are a little bit outdated.
I hope the press covers whether we still need 11 aircraft carriers
and asks Pete Hegseth if he still believes that they are overrated
because, in today's world, with hypersonic missiles and drones, as the
Russians found out, big stationary things, even temporary stationary
things, are sitting ducks.
Looking at the clock here, I think I should probably not deal with my
other issues, so I will stop speaking. I believe we have somebody else
ready to go.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________