Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to quickly respond to my friend, I would remind the gentleman that Republicans offered, in committee, an amendment which would have, frankly, given the SALT deduction to the bottom 90 percent of all Americans in exchange for continuing to charge it on the top 10 percent. I suspect that would cover the vast majority of the gentleman's constituents who might benefit. I also remind everybody that the standard deduction was double, so, for most people, the average person actually came out ahead. It is only the very wealthy people who lost ground under this particular measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Green), a distinguished former general.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, nobody admires my friend from New York more than I do. We worked on a number of issues. But let's be real. Democrats are going to make the rich, I guess, in every State pay for the rich in your own State. That is just the fact. Most of the benefit of this thing--56 percent of the benefits--goes to the top 1 percent of income earners. That is the fact. Eighty percent of it goes to the top 5 percent, and 94 percent goes to households that make over $200,000 a year. Those are just the numbers. Now, some of this is used for worthy causes. I would agree with that. But a permanent tax increase for a temporary tax cut, frankly, just doesn't make a lot of sense, and that is what we are dealing with here. So I would also suggest that my friends remember that the tax cut that they revile so much doubles the personal exemption for most people so that more than offsets for most people the SALT tax reduction that was reduced. It is not eliminated; it is still there. Mr. Speaker, $10,000 a year is still a pretty good deduction to be able to take. If you make that much income that you can take a deduction that large, then you are probably doing pretty well. So, again, I don't have any problem with people defending the interest of their States, that is a perfectly appropriate thing to do. I don't have any problem with people wanting to use money for good purposes. That is a perfectly appropriate thing to do. But let's be real about who is getting the benefit of this tax package, and it is very-high-income people. In fact, I am going to oppose it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my prepared remarks, I want to advise my friend that I certainly have no objection to raising the tax credit for teachers or first responders. Those things are, I think, perfectly laudable parts of the bill. Our main objection is simply that the main benefits of this are going to the top 1 percent and 5 percent of incomes, and that is just indisputable. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up H.R. 750, a resolution that expresses the sense of the House that it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect and promote individual choice in health insurance for all American people and prevent any Medicare for All proposal that would outlaw private health plans such as the job-based coverage in Medicare Advantage plans. Earlier this Congress, the House Rules Committee held the first-ever legislative hearing on the Democratic Medicare for All proposal. During that hearing, we heard promises about the Democrat-proposed, one-size- fits-all, government-run healthcare system. But we also heard about the realities of that plan: how it would require doubling income and corporate tax rates to implement, how it would lead to long waits for care, and how it would lead to 158 million Americans losing their current coverage. That is all because Medicare for All, if implemented, would outlaw private healthcare coverage. This includes coverage offered through the popular Medicare Advantage program, which gives 22 million Americans healthcare. Given that reality, it is wholly appropriate for the House to take this stand now. Protecting individual choice and protecting the private healthcare plans should be a priority for this House. If we defeat the previous question, we will give every Member of the House an opportunity to say so together, with one voice. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. COLE. No, I won't yield. I want to yield to another speaker in a moment. You are the one who raised the issue, so I am just going back to the numbers. The numbers here are pretty clear. This is a targeted tax cut for wealthy people in a very few States. That is just the truth. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is our third rule debate in what has turned out to be a pretty eventful and memorable week. Unfortunately, today's debate is on a deeply partisan and misguided tax bill. H.R. 5377 would temporarily remove the cap on the deduction for State and local income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. The bill also pays for this temporary tax break for a few by permanently increasing the top marginal tax rate. What is worse, Mr. Speaker, the permanent tax increase isn't limited to individuals but applies to small businesses, as well. Two years ago, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This monumental legislation not only reformed the corporate tax code to make American business more competitive and simplified the personal tax code, but it also ensured that the vast majority of Americans are getting to keep more of their hard-earned money than they did 2 years ago. Between lower tax rates, the expanded standard deduction, the child tax credit, and changes to the alternative minimum tax, the benefit of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are numerous and reach far and wide across the Nation. Today, the majority is seeking to undo some of that progress and is seeking to push a temporary tax break that will only benefit a few wealthy individuals in a few States. The State and local tax deduction, or SALT deduction, as it is called, primarily benefits only a select group of individuals, generally wealthy people in the top 20 percent of income, in a few high-tax States, who own expensive homes. H.R. 5377 would allow these individuals to temporarily claim an unlimited SALT deduction for only the years 2020 and 2021. Mr. Speaker, the benefits of this bill will overwhelmingly go to those who are already wealthy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the top 1 percent of households would receive 56 percent of the benefit of repealing the SALT deduction cap. Let me repeat that: The top 1 percent get 56 percent of the benefits of repealing the SALT deduction cap. The top 5 percent of households will receive over 80 percent of the benefit. Again, let me repeat that: The top 5 percent of income earners in the country are going to get 80 percent of the benefit of this bill. Amazing. The bottom 80 percent of all households would receive precisely 4 percent of the benefit. Amazing. What is worse, in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we have already acted to offset the reduced SALT deduction by doubling the standard deduction. In the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we doubled the standard deduction from $12,000 to $24,000 for married couples, which offset an increase resulting from lowering the SALT deduction cap for a vast majority of taxpayers. Before TCJA, 30 percent of all taxpayers itemized deductions and could potentially benefit from a SALT deduction. Today, just under 90 percent of all taxpayers take the standard deduction. This has made tax filing significantly easier. More importantly, for our purposes, it has meant that the vast majority of taxpayers who potentially could have benefited from a SALT deduction are already benefiting from the increased standard deduction. In the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the drafters of the bill made sure that the benefits were spread across all taxpayers. Between doubling the standard deduction, doubling the child tax credit and making it partially refundable, and simplifying the tax code, there is hardly a taxpayer in America who did not see some benefit from the bill. Here, unlike the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the benefits of H.R. 5377 will go only to a select group of people in a few key States, and it will overwhelmingly go to people who are already wealthy--already wealthy. Though the majority likes to claim that Republicans only want to cut taxes for the rich, it is ironic that the majority is now pushing a special tax break that literally benefits only the rich. But the bill is worse than that, Mr. Speaker. To pay for this short- term tax break for a few, the bill also increases the top marginal tax rate for all taxpayers on a permanent basis. That is correct. The bill imposes a permanent tax hike on all Americans to give a short-term tax break for a wealthy few. That type of tax change simply doesn't make any sense, Mr. Speaker. The tax code does need further reforms, no doubt about it. But those reforms should be those that increase the competitiveness of American business, simplify the tax code further to make it more comprehensible to taxpayers, and ensure further fairness for everyone. Giving a few select people in a few States a short-term and complicated tax break simply doesn't meet these goals. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, there is nobody I like better than my friend from New Jersey, quite frankly. We are very good friends. We have worked together on a lot of good things. But I have to tell you, on this one, we just disagree. The middle class is going to benefit from this bill? Let me just go through the figures again. The top 1 percent of income earners in America get 56 percent of the benefits in this bill. The top 5 percent get 80 percent. The bottom 80 percent get 4 percent. This is not a middle-class bill. This is not even an upper-middle- class bill. This is a bill for pretty wealthy people. Ninety-six percent of the benefits go to households that make more than $200,000 a year.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy on this particular bill, noting that the President's advisers would advise him to veto this bill, were it to pass. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 5377--Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act--Rep. Suozzi, D-NY, and 52 cosponsors The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 5377, the Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act. This legislation would unfairly force all Federal taxpayers to subsidize a tax break for the wealthy, as well as excessive government spending by fiscally irresponsible States. H.R. 5377 would likely cause State and local governments to raise taxes, all while hindering the growth of small businesses and opportunities for workers. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), which passed Congress without a single Democrat vote, is a signature achievement of the Trump Administration. This bill, which President Donald J. Trump signed into law on December 22, 2017, has spurred economic growth across the Nation by lowering individual tax rates, nearly doubling the standard deduction, simplifying the tax code, and closing special interest loopholes. Workers and middle-class Americans are reaping the benefits of the TCJA in the form of record low unemployment and substantially higher wages. H.R. 5377 would turn back the clock by adding a special interest provision back into the Federal tax code that unfairly requires middle- class Americans to subsidize fiscally irresponsible States and wealthy taxpayers. In doing so, H.R. 5377 would violate the principle that States should raise their own revenue rather than rely on tax subsidies from the Federal Government. The bill would also reduce incentives for States to be fiscally responsible. Additionally, the provision in H.R. 5377 that would raise the top income tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent would stifle economic growth by placing an undue burden on thousands of small businesses. Because it is unfair to middle-class taxpayers, encourages excessive spending by States, and would stunt economic growth, H.R. 5377 is poor tax policy that should not be enacted into law. If H.R. 5377 were resented to the President his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird), my good friend, a distinguished combat veteran for our country.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks in closing, I want to say one thing for the record. I have great respect for all of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I am sure they are voting their convictions; so when I vote mine, please don't imply I am doing it for my political party. I am doing it because it is what I believe is right. I do believe I can defend both the President and the Constitution of the United States, and I think that is exactly what I am doing. Madam Speaker, I cannot oppose this rule strongly enough. The process we saw leading up to it today was a complete charade. It was a closed process, an unfair process, and a rushed process, and it could only have ever had one logical, predetermined ending. Throughout it all, the majority trampled on minority rights: They refused to call witnesses with relevant, firsthand knowledge; they relied on hearsay news reports to make their case; they denied Republicans the right to hold a minority hearing day; and they refused the President of the United States his due process rights in the committee that was actually conducting the impeachment process and investigating him. In the end, what was the result? Articles of Impeachment based on an event that never happened; a purported quid pro quo that did not exist; aid that was allegedly withheld that, in reality, was never withheld at all; and a narrative of intent based on nothing more than fantasy. Madam Speaker, we deserve better than this. Impeachment is the most consequential act the House of Representatives can undertake. It must not and cannot be based on a flawed process. It cannot come at the expense of minority rights or due process to the accused. It cannot be based on a vendetta against the President that the majority has pursued since the day he was elected, and it cannot be based on nothing more than spin and hearsay. I oppose this rule, and I opposed the flawed and unfair process. Madam Speaker, it is a very solemn vote that all of us will cast. I want to end by, number one, thanking my good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for conducting the kind of hearing he conducted yesterday; but I also want to underscore, again, that we are very violently opposed to the process and very strongly opposed to the rule. We think this is a charade and has been very unfair. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time. Just to advise, through the Chair, my friend, I am waiting for one additional speaker, but I reserve my time at this time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my very good friend, also a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment on the rule that the House shall not proceed to consideration of the underlying resolution until six conditions are met: all evidence in the possession of Chairman Schiff has been made available to the Judiciary Committee; that Chairman Schiff appear before the Judiciary Committee to testify to the report that he authored; that all underlying unclassified evidence has been made available to the public; minority members of the Judiciary Committee have received their right to a minority hearing day; minority witnesses requested by Ranking Member Nunes and Ranking Member Collins are called and allowed to be heard in accordance with H. Res. 660; and subpoenas requested by Ranking Member Nunes in the Intelligence Committee are issued and enforced. Madam Speaker, to be clear, my amendment ensures that the majority does not proceed without providing a fair, equitable, and transparent process, one that respects minority rights, one that opens up the investigation to all Members of the House, and one that allows Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to examine the most relevant witnesses. Perhaps most crucially, it will allow all Members to fully consider the information available to the committee that actually conducted the impeachment investigation, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The process the House has followed has been abysmal. It was a closed, unfair process that did not respect minority rights and did not give the President due process. But we can change that today. If we defeat the previous question, the House will only move forward with a real, thorough, and ultimately fair process that all Members can be proud of. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice), my good friend.

Mr. COLE. Might I inquire, Madam Speaker, how much time we have remaining.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), my very good friend, a distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee and a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), my good friend.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend, a distinguished member of both the Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Rules Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my very good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee and member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today is a very sad day for all of us--for me personally, for the Rules Committee, for the entire House of Representatives, and, most importantly, for the American people. For the second time in my life, the House of Representatives will be voting to impeach a President of the United States. But unlike in 1998, the decision to have this vote is not the result of a bipartisan process nor an open or fair process. Instead, it is going to be a deeply partisan vote, coming at the end of an unfair and rushed process prescribed solely by Democrats to ensure a predetermined result. Impeachment of a President is one of the most consequential acts the House of Representatives can undertake, and it should only be done after the fullest and most careful consideration. Yet, today, after a truncated investigation that denied the President due process and cherry-picked evidence and witness testimony to fit their narrative and trampled on Republicans' minority rights, Democrats in the House are pressing forward with a partisan impeachment vote. Doing so contradicts Speaker Pelosi's own words back in March of this year when she said that an ``impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.'' But if we are really being honest, Democrats have been searching for a reason to impeach President Trump since the day he was elected. In December of 2017, a current member of the majority forced a vote to impeach the President; and even then, long before there was even an impeachment investigation, 58 Democrats voted to impeach the President. Those Members have only grown since then, to the point where the majority is now pushing forward with a final vote on impeachment, heedless of where it takes the country and regardless of whether or not they have proven their case. If my colleagues in the majority believe they have proven their case, let me be clear: They have not. The entire premise of these Articles of Impeachment rests on a pause placed on Ukrainian security assistance, a pause of 55 days. The majority has spun creative narratives as to the meaning and the motive of this pause, alleging the President demanded a ``quid pro quo,'' but with no factual evidence to back it up. Security aid to Ukraine was released. The administration did so without Ukraine ever initiating an investigation into anyone or anything. It is even more startling to me that the majority wants to move forward with this resolution given how substantially flawed and procedurally defective the entire process has been. The Judiciary Committee, which drafted these Articles of Impeachment, engaged in an abbreviated process, hearing from no witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the events in question. They did not conduct their own investigation and only held two hearings on this topic before drafting the articles, one with staff and one with constitutional law scholars. That is hardly the type of lengthy and serious consideration a topic as grave as impeachment demands. The committee actually charged with an impeachment investigation was the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, not the Judiciary Committee, but that committee, too, followed a primarily closed process. Republicans were denied the right to call witnesses or subpoena documents, and the President was denied the right to representation in the committee's hearings. Without respecting minority rights and without respecting due process rights of the President, how can anyone consider this a fair process? Madam Speaker, it gets worse. The Articles of Impeachment we are considering today are based on the Schiff report, the final document produced by the Intelligence Committee and transmitted to the Judiciary Committee. But the Schiff report includes unsubstantiated allegations. It includes, in some cases, news reports as the only evidence supporting so-called factual assertions, and it includes at least 54 different hearsay statements as assertions of evidence without any firsthand information from witnesses to corroborate those statements. The author of the report, Chairman Schiff, was never questioned by the Judiciary Committee, and he refused to sit for questions or to explain how his committee conducted its investigation. In fact, during the staff presentation of evidence at the Judiciary Committee, Ranking Member Collins asked how the investigation was conducted that resulted in the drafting of the Schiff report, but he never received an answer. During the Rules Committee consideration of H. Res. 755, there were numerous times when the members on both sides of the aisle posed questions to our witnesses, questions they could not answer because they sit on the Judiciary Committee and were not the author of the report that brought about H. Res. 755. The author has never appeared before members of the minority to explain a single thing in the report or to provide factual information supporting the many assertions it contains. Madam Speaker, this is no way to go about impeaching the President of the United States. The articles before us are based on very limited information. They are based on hearsay, on news reports, and on other unsupported allegations. They are based on a report written by a Member of Congress who refused to answer questions about it; and I do not believe the allegations, which are subject to interpretation, actually rise to the level of an impeachable offense. To make matters worse, when Republicans attempted to exercise one of their rights under House rules, they were shut down by Chairman Nadler. Under clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI, the minority is allowed to demand a minority hearing day. On December 4, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee properly exercised that right and transmitted a demand to Chairman Nadler for a hearing day at which the minority could call their own witnesses. To be clear, Madam Speaker, a minority hearing day is not subject to the chair's discretion. It is a right, and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee properly demanded the exercise of that right; yet, Chairman Nadler declined to allow a minority hearing day to be held before the voting of these articles. I think we can all agree that it would have been better for the institution and for the American people to allow all voices to be heard and all witnesses to be questioned before proceeding to a vote on something this consequential; yet, the majority trampled on that right. But I suppose I should not be surprised by any of this. When the House passed H. Res. 660, the resolution setting up the official impeachment inquiry less than 2 months ago, I warned the House that what the majority was doing was setting up a closed, unfair process that could only have one outcome. Today, we are seeing the end result of this closed and unfair process: a quick rush to judgment forced through not one, but two committees in short order, with minority rights trampled, witnesses left unquestioned, and due process ignored. It is also disappointing that Members are not being given more time to debate this issue on the floor. Last night at the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to double the amount of floor time debate from 6 to 12 hours. This would have allowed for roughly the same amount of debate time used in the Clinton impeachment, and it would have been ensured that all Members could have the opportunity to speak on the floor. Unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted. While I know my friend, Chairman McGovern, did the best he could, I do think it is ironic that, when all is said and done, the 13 members of the Rules Committee spent more time discussing H. Res. 755 in committee yesterday than we will spend debating it on the House floor for every Member today. I think that is a disservice to the Members of this body and to the American people. Madam Speaker, we deserve better than the flawed process that led to this flawed outcome. The House of Representatives deserves better than that. The President certainly deserves better than that. More importantly, the American people deserve better than what we are doing here today. I oppose proceeding any further; I oppose the rule; I oppose this limited and unfair process; and I certainly oppose impeaching the President of the United States. I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to respond to my friend. President Trump, for the Record, was not provided the opportunity to challenge the facts and still has not received the materials from the Judiciary Committee, as required by H. Res. 660, another example of why this isn't a fair process. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), the distinguished chairman of the Republican Conference, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.