Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL

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

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of the leadership of the Democratic Party. I think he is going to tell us about what the elimination of the State and local tax deduction means to the people of New York.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), who is a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), who is a great champion of the middle class and a Marshall Scholar.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a particular champion of all renewable energy forms.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), who is a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee. The gentleman is also a great champion of new markets tax credits and the historic tax credit which is eliminated in the Republican tax plan.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), a neighbor and a good friend.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this could be a long few days if they can't agree on a motion to go to conference. That is not exactly the most heightened controversy we have. Mr. Speaker, I want to stand in support of the Democratic motion to instruct conferees on the Ryan-McConnell tax package and in strong opposition to the Republican tax plan. Behind me is a replica of the national debt clock. This clock was just reconfigured. New features have been added just in time for the Republicans to acknowledge that they are about to add $1 trillion to this national debt clock, which they tortured Democratic Presidents on for years about the debt. So let me provide you with some historical perspective. In January of 2001, when Bill Clinton said good-bye, we were looking at a $5.4 trillion surplus, four straight balanced budgets, and record economic growth. The CBO said that the surplus might even go beyond $5.6 trillion. But what really happened during that period of time? After the Bush administration left, we were staring at $6.1 trillion worth of debt. So what happened? In 2001, the Republican Party cut taxes by $1.3 trillion and said it was all about economic growth. Then they came back in 2003 and said: Well, the growth hasn't been substantial enough, so we are going to cut taxes by another $1 trillion, $2.3 trillion of tax cuts, and a repatriation tax holiday where the money is returned at 5.25 percent on the promise of economic growth and job creation; none of which happened. So where are we tonight? We are back to the same old pattern and playbook that they continue to utilize. They promised job growth. In a meeting with the President recently, he said he didn't understand why we couldn't have job growth of 4, 5, or 6 percent. I don't know an economist who thinks we are going to have 6 percent economic growth, but they use that as the linchpin, the excuse for a tax cut that is going to add $1 trillion to the budget deficits, all based on the following economic assumption: maybe. Maybe we will have growth that will help us to pay down the debt. All of the mainstream economists say maybe a return of one-third on the tax cuts in terms of revenue. Joint Committee on Taxation, The Wharton School, the Tax Policy Center, moodys.com, they all say the same thing: None of this is going to happen. So we are also back to a familiar argument that they hear, and I think you should pay some attention to this for the moment. They will say things repeatedly like: It is the people's money. The people know what to do with it. Well, let me say this as well tonight: It is the people's veterans hospitals; one million new veterans after Iraq and Afghanistan who are going to be in need of long-term care. That is the people's responsibility. In addition, 10,000 baby boomers retire every single day in America. Social Security is part of their retirement system, even as it averages about $15,000 for American citizens. We are going to live longer, and we herald that achievement regularly, but it is also going to mean more Alzheimer's and more dementia that families are going to have to reconcile, and they are going to come back and say at the right moment: Oh, because there is less revenue, we are going to have to have cuts in social spending. So they are going to say at the right moment: Oh, we are going to have to now change the way we calculate Medicare and Social Security. This is a missed opportunity above everything else. Everybody agrees on what is wrong with the Tax Code.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, there was a chance here to do some investment in human capital: community colleges, vocational education, internship programs. The Labor Department reported 3 weeks ago, 6 million jobs go unanswered in America every single day. I hope tonight, as the Republicans confer, they can tell us where they are actually conferring because, between the paste and the bubble gum, they keep putting on a new dimension to their proposal. This should be a debate that included both parties. Before I reserve my time, for the moment, I want to say this: We had a chance to really do something big. They have, unbelievably, proposed to take the entire revenue architecture of this country in 3 weeks without one hearing, without one witness. They are going to change it all, and the middle class is about to get it in the neck to take care of people at the top. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who announced this past weekend that he is going to leave this institution. He has served this institution with distinction and grace for a long period of time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a very important member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize David Starr, the longtime president of the Republican Company in Springfield, Massachusetts for receiving the Massachusetts Governor's Award in the Humanities. A national figure in the field of journalism, David's influence and impact on the media and arts in western Massachusetts and beyond for more than seven decades makes him an ideal recipient for this prestigious honor. In my opinion, no one deserves this recognition more. Throughout his extraordinary life, David has always been passionate about journalism and the newspaper business. His career began at age 12, when he started delivering the Long Island Press. Even then he was reading more than ten newspapers a day. At 17, he became one of the youngest editors of the Queen College newspaper in New York. After serving his country with distinction in the U.S. Army during World War II, David returned to journalism where he would begin his lifelong association with the Newhouse family. He did every job well and quickly rose through the ranks. The skill he displayed as a reporter, publisher, and eventually president, led him to have a successful career as the longest-serving news executive at the Advance Publications Newspaper Group, formerly known as Newhouse Publications. His leadership in the newsroom, particularly at the Springfield Republican, helped him win a well-deserved reputation as a giant in the industry. I first met David in 1977, and few people have consistently done more to improve the quality of life in the Pioneer Valley. He has worked tirelessly to make western Massachusetts a better place to live, work, and raise a family. He was pivotal in the 1980s and 1990s in revitalizing downtown Springfield by encouraging the public and private sectors to work together for the progress of the city. David was a critical part of the city's renaissance. Successful projects like the Monarch Building, the Sheraton Hotel and One Financial Plaza all happened on his watch. He had a vision for our community and it was realized. Additionally, he was the founder of several organizations to promote economic and cultural development including Springfield Business Friends of the Arts, the Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts, and the Economic Development Council of Western Massachusetts. His enthusiastic support of the Springfield Symphony and WGBY is legendary. Mr. Speaker, David Starr has spent decades listening to people and writing their stories. He was a mentor to a generation of young reporters just starting their careers in journalism and seeking sound advice and guidance. His good work and philanthropy informed the people of western Massachusetts and helped make their lives better. With his lovely wife Peggy by his side, they remain a truly formidable team. For the past 40 years I have been proud to call David Starr my friend and honored to be a small part of his incredible journey. On behalf of the United States of America, I congratulate him on receiving this important award in Humanities. It is a fitting tribute to a remarkable man.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as we wind down this debate on tax reform or, what we should really call it, tax cut, I think that we should tabulate this as a missed opportunity. This could have been done between the two parties. Instead, much of this was constructed without any Democratic input. Reminder: In 1986, the historic Tax Reform Act included President Reagan and Speaker O'Neill, Chairman Rostenkowski, Dick Gephardt, and Bill Bradley. In this instance here, 32 years later, not one hearing was held on this tax bill that is about to be voted on in the next 45 minutes. The significance of that is that there was never any back-and-forth, and in 1986, expert testimony was sought from 450 witnesses. We had not one witness who commented on the legislation. It has been advertised as a middle class tax cut. Wait until you get the bill. How can you say that this is a middle class tax cut and compare that to repeal of the estate tax? How many middle class people in America pay the estate tax? That is how many people pay the estate tax. No middle class American pays the estate tax. There is no such thing as a death tax, in addition to which a middle class tax cut is described as doing away with the alternative minimum tax. 4.5 million families pay an alternative minimum tax in America. That is it. I fixed the problem years ago for the middle class, and 27 million people stopped paying AMT. So now we are down to people at the very top. So how are we paying for this? Or how are they paying for it, better, because they are not going to get much help on this side? Well, they decided that that teacher who used to have $250, that they could deduct on their income taxes, that is going to be abolished. So if you have Alzheimer's and you exceed the 10 percent number in terms of cost in your healthcare for caring for that loved one at home who is sick or has dementia, that is how they are going to pay for the tax cut. They are going to take that away. State and local property taxes, they are going to take that away--the deduction. They are going to pare back the mortgage interest tax deduction. All of this advertised on the basis of a middle class tax cut? People at the bottom end are not going to get much from this tax cut. I want to take you back again, as I have repeatedly, because I have cast three great votes in this House during my 29 years: against the Iraq war, and there weren't many of us; against the cuts in 2001; and against the tax system in 2003; all advertised as progrowth economics. There was no economic growth in the tax cuts of 2001, which totaled, by the way, $1.3 trillion. For people who said at the time, ``everybody gets a tax cut,'' they were correct. Then you looked at the distribution tables to see what people got at the top and then what people got at the bottom. Then we came back in 2003 and cut another trillion dollars in taxes--advertises progrowth economics--zippo growth occurred. Then, by the way, the granddaddy of them all: How about repatriation. Repatriation, bringing back those earnings to the United States for investment in job growth, at, by the way, 5\1/4\ was the tax burden they carried, all based on job growth. It was for stock buybacks, dividends, and layoffs. We had a chance here to do something historic. We had a chance here in this debate and discussion because there is a genuine affability on that committee. We had this opportunity to take the Tax Code and transform it for the gig economy in the modern age. We didn't do that, though. Four days we had to examine this tax proposal with no hearings. Not one chance for a Democratic amendment to proceed. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the very capable Democratic leader.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the support of the Democratic staff that are here as well: Kara Getz, Karen McAfee, Aruna Kalyanam, Peg McGlinch, Deva Kyle, Ji Prichard, and Suzanne Walsh. They did a magnificent job as well, and we are much dependent on the good staff work, particularly, on the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier of the missed opportunity that we have here. We have a real problem in America with labor participation rates. Six million job go unanswered every day now in America, 18,000 precision manufacturing jobs in New England, and 1 million tech jobs, because skill sets don't align with the job opportunities that are out there. Two million Americans sit home with opioid addictions who should be in the workforce. This was a chance to invest in human capital as well, to invest in our community colleges, to invest in apprenticeship programs. Yes, the other challenge that we have in America is, clearly, to invest in vocational education for many of the jobs that are available. Instead, we pushed that off to the side and decided that, once again, if we just had tax cuts, all of these challenges and problems would go away. The idea of investing in the human side of American opportunity is then people do what we would like them to do in terms of home buying, raising families, caring for neighborhoods, and practicing the art form of citizenship. Once again, what we are witnessing today--and we need to be alarmed about it--is the greater and greater conservation of wealth in America. Now, I understand it is complicated. It has to do much with technology and globalization, but it is also about the gig economy, and we, today, reward capital more than we reward labor. When we get done, if they are successful on the other side, we are going to further concentrate wealth amongst those few families in America. We serve here in the House of Representatives, not in the House of Lords. This is not about peerage, where you are entitled to a seat in this House of Representatives. That is what is wrong. That is what Jefferson and Madison envisioned when they signed those bonds of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution to break with Europe. We don't practice divine right here. I wish the outcome here today, Mr. Speaker, would have been more genuine and it would have been different.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a very capable legislator, the Democratic whip.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a Marshall Scholar and attorney.