Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).

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

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.

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. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 15 seconds.

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.

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. 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. 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. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I am for maintaining the status quo by allowing students to deduct their student interest loans. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. The summary of this tax bill was published last Thursday. We did a walk-through on Monday. We only had a chance to respond to the bill, or the chairman's mark on Friday. And then on Monday, we did a walk-through. Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday morning, we did the markup. Not one hearing. And recall that, in the last moments of the markup, we were handed a manager's amendment. We had 20 minutes to react to the manager's amendment, so no hearings. And compare that with 1986, which everybody heralds now, as the great moment of Reagan and O'Neill and Rostenkowski and Gephardt and Bradley, 450 witnesses, 30 public hearings. The Secretary of the Treasury sat through the markup.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Lipinski and the group that is assembled here tonight. I want to encourage the American people to pay attention beginning again tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock when we are going to finish the debate on this legislation. I hope that as they pay attention to it they will consider what a missed opportunity this was, a reminder that one of the most complex pieces of legislation offered in the years I have been here had no public hearings. Not one witness was summonsed to give advice on a tax bill of this consequence. It has been advertised as a middle class tax cut. I can assure you that 36 million Americans are going to pay more when this is done. Also, another reminder to pay close attention to is that our friends down the hallway in the Senate are going to include an end to the mandate, which is the glue that holds together the Affordable Care Act, in a further effort to take away health insurance from 13 million people to pay for a tax cut. This could have been done together, Democrats and Republicans. We wanted to do it. We were shut out of this process from day one. Remember, this legislation was offered last Thursday. A manager's mark was published Friday. We went to markup on Monday, and we were done on Thursday. There was no opportunity for us to participate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.