scenes bringing us this program today. i just wanted to share an illuminating point. in early 2000, i was divorced and was awarded primary custodial care of two great kids. and it was during that time as a single dad that i had an incredibly newfound appreciation for all that mothers do. especially single mothers. when i was a single dad, i remember calling my mom, my former brother-in-law, and many mothers that i knew. i wholeheartedly thanked them for everything they did as moms. sorry for cracking. but thank you, and i will listen to your response off-line. guest: oh my gosh, sending you the biggest hugs. inc. you for all you have done and for calling in. i think happy mother's day to everybody out there, including the single dads. i am just going to say it. it is hard. right now, we have a significant

number of families who are raising children as single parents. in fact, a johns hopkins university study recently said that in the millennial population, 56% of parents are unmarried. that does not mean they are not partnered, but it means that when we are working on the public policies that lift families, businesses, and our economy, and we just talk for a little bit about how these policies we are talking about lift businesses an >> we will leave this here and take you live now to capitol hill where the house ways and means is considering the tax portion of the republicans '2025 budget package and includes a number of tax cuts proposed by president trump. debate and amendment votes are expected to run through the night. you're watching live coverage on c-span3. chair smith: while democrats were defending i.r.s. audits on the middle class and tax carveouts for the wealthy, republicans on this committee got on the road to hear from real americans about how the

2017 tax cuts been fitted them. -- benefited them. this bill wasn't drafted by k street lobbyists. it was drafted by american people in communities across the country. we heard from a mother in iowa, sarah curry, who can afford the care required for her son living with disabilities because of lower taxes and the double child tax credit, the 2017 child tax cuts delivered. we met another iowan. a mother takes comfort knowing her sons won't have to sell off the family's farm's acreage thanks to a double death tax exemption. an accountant for small businesses in georgia, allison couch, shared how the small business tax deduction helps her clients create jobs. and in north carolina, a manufacturer, courtney silver, was able to give every employee

a raise, expand her workforce by 20%, and start an apprenticeship program training the next generation because of the tax relief delivered in 2017. after the trump tax cuts went into effect, real household incomes grew by $5,000. prices were stable. five million jobs were created. investment poured into every corner of america, and the economy grew faster than so-called experts in washington ever predicted. if the trump tax cuts expire, every single american will face on average a tax increase of 22%. democrats who vote against this tax relief will be voting for the largest tax hike in american history. the loss of the small business deduction would destroy jobs and

shutter doors on main street. working class communities would be devastated by the loss of more than one million manufacturing jobs. family farms would be sold off. this bill makes the 2017 tax cuts permanent, locking in lower tax rates for workers, small businesses and farmers. these provisions offer the certainty and support small businesses and manufacturers need to invest in america and bring back the economic prosperity of president trump's first term. the 2017 trump tax cuts gave a boost to workers. the new 2025 trump tax cuts will provide even more tax relief by delivering on president trump's promise to hardworking americans, and it proved -- it provides that relief immediately. a single mom waiting tables will no longer owe taxes to the

federal government on her hard-earned tips. the lineman who worked countless hours of restoring power after devastating natural disasters in missouri will no longer pay taxes on overtime pay. seniors like my aunt who had to take a job as a door greeter at our local walmart to supplement her social security income after the loss of my uncle, her husband, will receive much-needed tax relief in this bill. working families will be spared from a $1,700 tax hike. parents will benefit from a 25% increase in the child tax credit that will grow with inflation and get help with the high cost of childcare, adoption, and

education. americans will pay less for health care through expanded eligibility for health savings accounts. the elimination of bureaucratic waste and abuse, and the end of illegal immigrant access to obamacare's premium tax credits. main street will grow again. this legislation makes the small business deduction permanent and increases it to 23%. helping small businesses compete with larger corporations with a lower rate. mom and pop businesses will power the economy to new heights, adding one million new jobs annually, and over $750 billion in growth over the next decade. opportunity zones will ensure low-income and distressed communities, especially those in rural areas, share in this surge of new investments, new jobs, and new possibilities.

two million family-owned farms and small businesses will benefit from a death tax exemption that is larger, permanent, and index to inflation, keeping the legacy of family farming alive in america. this tax bill will jump-start a revival of manufacturing in our country. we're delivering on the president's pledge of lower taxes for companies who make the smart choice to build new factories in america. working class families buying american-made cars will pay no taxes only their auto loan interest. and business will boom with a restored r&d credit, full expensing, and interest deductibilities, creating jobs here at home and helping america compete abroad. the story of american manufacturing will transform from one of lost jobs, abandoned factories, and forgotten towns to good-paying jobs for

americans in new, state-of-the-art facilities. this bill also means the end of washington's special treatment of wealthy elites. exclusive universities with the largest endowments, many whom have failed to protect their jewish students, will pay an endowment tax as high as the corporate tax rate. democrats' bad tax policies that shower the wealthy, the big banks, and china with billions of dollars in special interest tax breaks will be replaced by good tax policy, helping the working class. illegal immigrants will no longer be able to claim the refundable tax credits. foreign nations will no longer profit from the biden-era surrender of our tax revenues. hardworking americans like wait eszterhaus -- waitresses, mechanics and farmers are the one that serves them, not the

wealthy and well-connected. a 3.2% boost in long run g.d.p. will translate to $4,500 of more income for the average family. my democrat colleagues will continue to ignore the facts and make false claims about who benefits from this bill. these are the same things they repeated after the 2017 tax cuts. under which the share of taxes paid by the wealthy increased while lower income americans paid less. i come from a community in missouri of less than 5,000 people. today one in six people there live in poverty. i grew up a family of four most of my life in a single-wide trailer. my priority is the working class because i'm a product of the working class. this bill delivers for those american families just like mine

who have struggled to get ahead for far too long. where i come from, you work until the job is done. the american people, they expect it. they voted for it. they deserve it, and they are tired of political grandstanding. they want real relief, and congress must deliver it as quickly as possible. i urge all of my colleagues, put aside the politics, focus on the people, and vote to advance this bill. remember the americans we met traveling on the road and the people in each of your districts who are better off today thanks to the trump tax cuts. together, with the one big beautiful bill, we can ignite the second trump economic boom and improve the lives of millions of our neighbors back home. i'm now pleased to recognize the ranking member from massachusetts, mr. neal, for his opening statement.

mr. neal: thank you, mr. chairman. so here we are, one big beautiful tax cut for billionaires legislation. the republican pathology with tax cuts for wealthy people continues. the theology for a long time until it was put to rest was that tax cuts would pay for themselves. well, that is just what it was, theology. then we heard in the middle of the iraq war the republican whip in the house of representatives say, quote, it was patriotic to cut taxes in a time of war. then we were told it would always be about accelerated growth. well, we'll take the clinton growth rates any day. in 2017, our colleagues on the republican side passed a tax cut that was supposed to pay for itself, raise wages and help working families. it didn't happen. it left everyday americans

behind. this bill as currently proposed will cut health care from 14 million americans of the american -- members of the american family. now they want to double down on the same playbook. one that rigs the system for billionaires while everybody else pays the price. here's the real kicker. they're going to ignore the baseline for 2017. just make people think it never happened. so they borrow $2.3 trillion in 2017 for a tax cut that did not have greater growth. they don't even want to pay attention to that. the other part of this: how about raising the debt ceiling by $4 trillion to pay for their tax cut, which will be with borrowed money? let's be clear: the trump economy didn't work for all american families then and it won't work now. what we've seen is the continued chaos. no real trade deals, no lower prices, no economic stability,

empty ports, anxious markets and rising costs while the president blames everybody but himself. complain about the debt on monday and then borrow $4 trillion on tuesday to add to the debt. this legislation pours gasoline on the fire that's already burning. americans are buckling under the chaos that our republican colleagues have helped to create, and this bill will make it worse. no wonder a strong majority of americans believe that this could trigger a recession. they're right. this isn't about growth or prosperity. it's about protecting the ultra-wealthy again. let me point something else out that's really important. we haven't seen the joint committee on taxation distribution tables yet. you know why? because that shows who will get what, and it will give the american people a chance to contrast what's going to happen to those at the top and what's going to happen to those at the bottom who will get a dollar a day in tax relief.

70% of the benefits in this bill go to the top 20% of the american family. that's before the trump tariff tax takes $2,800 out of our household budgets each year and then republicans gutting health care that will just drive people to emergency rooms when the hospitals don't close. that's not a tax plan. it's a wealth grab. while the richest americans are raking in piles of cash, they want to gut the affordable care act, medicare, medicaid, and snap. according to the congressional budget office, 14 million americans will lose their health care plan. two in five pregnancies are covered by medicaid. it covers long-term care, addiction services, mental health treatments. we all know people that have those challenges and problems. they're our constituents. cuts like these will devastate families and entire communities, especially in rural areas. and what are they offering in

exchange for this pain? the same tired promises that tax cuts automatically will give you more growth even though the c.b.o. says that's false. in fact, extending that tax scam can slow the economy, not expand it. it doesn't have to be this way. republicans have chosen this path. they could have expanded the child tax credit, they could have made the a.c.a. subsidies permanently, they could have made meaningful progress with long-term care and housing. instead another $2 trillion giveaway to the wealthiest americans. when they start talking about the deficits, don't forget, $10 trillion worth of tax cuts that have never been paid for. they'll use this hole as an excuse to cut medicare, medicaid and social security next. it's the same pattern. blow off the budget, then cut the programs that people rely on. we deserve a tax system that works. we deserve peace of mind and not

the fear that our retirement plans will be taken away. we will continue to fight for the future as democrats, and we intend to lay out for the american people precisely what this legislation means. it is a tax cut for billionaires. i yield back my time, mr. chairman. chair smith: thank you. only other business today is consideration of the committee print providing legislative recommendations to comply with the reconciliation directives included in section 2001 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2025 h.con.res. 14. the committee will now proceed to consideration of the committee print. >> mr. chairman, at this point i reserve a right to object to your unanimous consent request and raise a point of order raising its consideration. chair smith: so the next line is without objection. mr. doggett: it is with objection -- reservation with objection. chair smith: state your objection. mr. doggett: certainly. mr. chairman, i just ask to be heard briefly about the

amendment and the nature -- chair smith: speak to your objection. mr. doggett: my point of order is under house rule 16 clause 7 in that your 18-page bill that you filed friday night is now a 389-page bill that includes multiple provisions that were not in any way referenced on friday night from the salt cap to the $20 billion voucher plan to just one provision after another. and under house rule 16 clause 7, it is designed to help the members of congress properly legislate by knowing what's going to be considered before we act. i have people in my district who will spend months researching a $40,000 car. we're being asked to consider a $5 trillion tax bill where we don't have the information since this bill deviates so much from the one that was filed friday

night. i have, mr. chairman, the house practice manual, and it makes very clear that on page 565 that the burden of proof is on the offer of an amendment that deviates so fundamentally and that this applies to amendments in the nature of a substitute. so i just ask you to clarify. perhaps your broad definition of germaneness, if that's your definition, will be applied similarly to any democratic amendment that will be offered. i'm trying to ensure that we don't have one standard that applies to your amendment and another standard that applies to mine or the others that might be offered. so perhaps you could explain why you think this is germane to what you offered on friday night. chair smith: the house

substitute that we provided provides with all house rules and so the gentleman is more than happy to discuss any of the conversations when we move forward within the substitute. mr. doggett: so your position is our amendments, for example, that deal with the affordable care act enhanced credits, though they're not dealt with directly in your bill, that germaneness will be permitted to debate all matters on the merits? chair smith: we'll consider a case by case basis as we move forward. mr. doggett: sometimes your consideration tends to move a little one way. chair smith: you stated your objection. we're going to move on. mr. doggett: all right. my objection -- i raise a point of order that -- chair smith: state your point of order. mr. doggett: the further proceedings on the amendment offered by is not injury -- the amendment in the nature of a substitute includes multiple provisions, salt, the vouchers, the denial of health care -- chair smith: the gentleman will suspend for a moment. mr. doggett: surely.

chair smith: the amendment in the nature of a substitute hasn't been called up yet so it's not timely to raise a point of order at this moment on -- mr. doggett: well, you're about to make a unanimous consent request that we dispense with any objections so if you want to make that request i will renew -- chair smith: i was about to say, the measure will be considered as read and opened for amendment at any point if there is no objection. mr. doggett: are you referring to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? chair smith: we are not there yet. mr. doggett: when you're there i have a reservation of objection and it will be somewhat similar to the one i stated. chair smith: without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. at this time, i offer an amendment in the nature of a

substitute which was distributed in advanced, along with the green sheet explaining it. without objection, the amendment -- mr. doggett: mr. chairman, at that point i will reserve an objection and raise a point of order. chair smith: and that is the appropriate time. mr. doggett: thank you very much. chair smith: that is not the appropriate time. does the gentleman wish to reserve a point of order on germaneness? mr. doggett: i reserve a point of order under the house rule that i cited, hoping we can comply with the rules or if you're adjusting the rules that it will apply the same to democrats as republicans. house rule 16 clause 6. chair smith: the committee is complying with all house rules and we will continue to comply with all house rules. mr. doggett: mr. chairman, you are not complying with house rule 6 clause 7 which applies to amendments in the nature of a substitute of this type. and it's obvious from your expansion from 28 pages to --

chair smith: will the gentleman suspend? mr. doggett: surely. chair smith: after i read this next line the gentleman will have an opportunity to raise the objection. without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point and considered base text for purpose of amendment. mr. doggett: mr. chairman, at that point i will reserve an objection and raise a point of order. chair smith: this is the time you need to raise it, not reserve it. mr. doggett: well, i'm reserving it because i'm hopeful that you'll give me an explanation that germaneness will apply the same way to democratic amendments as you have applied it to your amendment in the

nature of a substitute. and if that's not the case and there's some possibility that our amendments will be rejected as nongermane while yours, which is obviously nongermane, is ok to consider, i'm willing to withdraw the objection. really was hoping to get more insight from you about your approach to germaneness and the vast change in this bill from friday night, which gave us almost no time to prepare amendments or to be prepared to discuss its multiple provisions of a big beautiful bill. i'm hoping that the house rules will be followed while closely the rule of law has been followed by the administration. chair smith: so the amendment in the nature of a substitute is germane, and we'll move forward as it being germane. mr. doggett: mr. chairman, i raise a point of order against further consideration and request a vote on my point of order as described that the amendment in the nature of a substitute is not germane to the base bill.

it legislates on a different subject matter. it has a different fundamental purpose from the bill that you noticed, and the burden is on you to show germaneness and you've done nothing to show germaneness here. you're not only met your burden, you've not even offered an speculation as to -- explanation as to why you deviated from a bill of 28 pages and went to 389 pages with more new provisions than you had old provisions. chair smith: ok. so the chair's prepared to rule that this is germane. so you're objecting to that and you want a -- mr. doggett: i want a record vote on it. chair smith: ok. >> point of order, mr. chairman. chair smith: you can't entertain another point of order while this is pending. >> can i ask a question about this vote before us? chair smith: it's not debatable or discussion. we're going to it. >> no discussion of germaneness, in other words, you'll rule on germaneness without consideration.

chair smith: does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point of order of germaneness? mr. doggett: proceed. -- i do. chair smith: proceed. mr. doggett: mr. chairman, when you add multiple provisions that are wholly unrelated to the 28 pages that you presented us on friday evening. that friday evening presentation seemed to be designed to minimize scrutiny of what you were doing. but not included in that 28 pages is any mention of a salt whatsoever, a matter that has deemed some discussion in not only the democratic caucus but in the republican caucus. your expansive definition includes an entirely new $20 billion voucher system that seems to encourage parents to abandon our public schools. you help throw millions of americans out of their health plans. you repeal all the renewable energy credits. that was not in friday night which have been generating so many jobs, especially in

republican districts. you've given the trump administration dangerous new authority to impose capital punishment on nonprofit universities, civic, and chartable organization -- chartable organizations. and you have established new category of tax-preferred savings accounts that were not in the house bill. this rule helps those on both sides of the aisle. as members of congress be prepared to legislate. it's designed to prevent hasty decisions. mr. chairman, last tuesday it was speaker johnson himself who said the legislation that we're considering right now would be, quote, the most important, the most consequential legislation that we'll ever be involved in in our lifetimes and arguably one of the biggest in the history of congress. shouldn't a matter of such importance, according to the speaker, be in full compliance with the rules of the house of representatives?

as such, a momentous measure we ought to be complying with the house rules and the precedents are clear. under the house, there have been bills brought to the floor that will be vbl -- have been rejected because they did not comply with the house rules. on friday night you set out what we were supposed to be prepared to legislate on tuesday. and then hours ago, you totally altered it. it was you and the president were describing it one big beautiful bill it is one big hidden beauty. you didn't want anyone to be admiring the flawless beauty closely. by introducing a new subject matter not contemplated in friday's base text and changing the fundamental purpose of measures before us today, this proposed substitute is manifestly nongermane. if you're rejecting the bill that you introduced on friday night and asking us to consider this monstrosity, that is your right, but it is a right that could only be exercised after

proper notice to us, which means giving members the requisite time to read, understand it, and prepare any necessary amendments and to have the information that the ranking member referred to that we lack from the joint committee on taxation. mr. chairman, i would just particularly address your attention to page 565 of the discussion of this rule in the house practice manual, which i brought along with me. since under the house rules you as a sponsor of this gigantic new amendment bear the burden of proof that it is germane to the underlying 28 pages. i would just ask you to explain how it is germane and ensure us if you are applying what appears to be a liberal interpretation of germaneness that you do the same for any amendment that may be offered by any member of the committee. chair smith: the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from texas makes the point of order that the amendment proposed is nongermane. the amendment is in order and the point of order is overruled.

mr. doggett: mr. chairman, on that i ask for a record vote. >> can i have a point of clarification, please, mr. chairman? chair smith: you have to appeal the decision. mr. doggett: i'm appealing for the decision of the bill and -- >> mr. chairman, can i have a point of clarification? chair smith: you can't -- >> i can't ask for a point of clarification. chair smith: no. i mean, we can. what is the clarification? >> i would like you to just clarify why the bill that you put in the amendment in nature of a substitute is germane. chair smith: because it is germane, mr. buchanan. mr. buchanan: there is no rationale behind it. it's because you say so? chair smith: the gentleman, mr. buchanan, is recognized for a motion. mr. buchanan: i move to table the appeal because i said so. chair smith: the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. buchanan. mr. buchanan: yes. >> mr. buchanan, yes. mr. smith of nebraska. mr. smith: yes. >> mr. smith of nebraska, yes. mr. kelly. mr. keller: yes.

>> mr. schweikert yes. mr. lahood. mr. arrington. mr. arrington, yes. mr. estes, yes. mr. smucker. spell snubbing -- mr. smucker yes. mr. hern. mr. hern yes. mrs. miller. mrs. miller yes. dr. murphy. dr. murphy yes. mr. kustoff. mr. kustoff, yes. mr. [roll being called]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [roll being called]

>> jimmy smith [silence] >> the clerk will report the four. >> the uses or 25. the nose or 19. >> 25 years is 19 euros. he abused people that i would turn to the chief of staff of

the joint committee on taxation, josh snead, chief trade counsel, patrick thomas, staff director of the subcommittee on health and sean freeman, deputy general counsel to provide the technical description of the amendment and the nature of this attitude with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction. i ask that members hold their questions until after the presentations. >> herman smith, mr. new, you have several joint committee documents which describe the market as a notice and more relevant for today's preceding. they are which describe the achievement's amendment in the nature of the substitute with respect to the tax provisions of the legislation that is before you. the legislation it a substantial number of changes. i will try to briefly highlight a number of them. in general, as was noted the --

noted in the opening statement, the legislation would extend and make permanent almost all of the provisions of public law 11597 that were otherwise scheduled to expire at the end of this year. while extending those provisions, doesn't make a number of modifications. for example, the recent schedule, it was established in the legislation that it was extended and made permanent the standard deduction that was increased in the 2017 legislation, is extended and made permanent in that section 199a special deduction for pastor businesses and is extended and made permanent. but each of these is also modified in terms of the indexing that was -- the indexing of the thresholds and the break points and the values under those provisions by providing an additional year of inflation indexing in the calculation of each year's indexed change.

in addition, the standard deduction for four years from 2025 through 2028 has an increase in value of $1,000 for single taxpayers 1500 for head of household powers and 2,000 for joint filers. the child tax credit, which is extended probably by the legislation has for four years 2025 to 2028 and increase in value to $2,500 and also on a permanent basis, makes changes in terms of requiring social security requirements to be eligible to claim the child tax credit. the section 199a small pastor business deduction that i already mentioned has its deduction amount increased from 20 to 23%, modifies the test for women based on either wage or capital and i want to park out in the document describing this and that was passed out to you,

there's an error, two errors on page 22 where it incorrectly references 22% in the 23% reduction increase that i just mentioned. the estate and gift tax effective for 2026 will be -- have a 15 minute of the exemption. that amount is indexed and made permanent. that legislation repeals the old piece, a limitation on itemized deductions but in fact -- in ex in its place effective for next year, a limit the value of itemized deduction to 35% that will generally affect only taxpayers in the top income tax bracket of 37%. in addition, 2017 legislation had enacted a limitation on deduction of state and local taxes. the so-called salt limitation, the legislation before you will increase the current year $10,000 limitation through

$3,000 this would be phased out for taxpayers with a modified adjusting gross income in excess of $400,000 and in addition, the legislation limits certain substitute payments such as pass-through entity taxes that a number of states have enacted to enable taxpayers to mitigate the effects of this limitation. that legislation before you also connects an exclusion on tipping income. the exclusion applies to tips that are reported on w-2 wage statements. it requires reporting requirements. it is available to both atomizers and non-haida matters. this will be effective effective for years 2025 through 2028. at legislation also provides an income tax deduction for qualified over time this would apply to all taxpayers other than two highly compensated taxpayers. there are reporting requirements

established under the legislation in this provision would apply his, 2025 through 2028. an additional increase in tuition, and additional in the deduction for taxpayers 865 or older is provided for news, 25 through 2028. the increased amount is $4,000 per eligible taxpayer and it is phased out for taxpayers with higher incomes. that legislation also provides an exclusion up to $10,000 of qualified automobile loan interest for vehicles that are domestic, assembled domestically, this interest exclusion's, 20252028. at legislation also increases the amount of the fungibility of the production credit up to $5,000 on a permanent basis. there's an error in the

description in the document that was passed out before you to be clear. this provision will be effective for years after this 24. the charitable deduction for the limited charitable deduction for non-atomizers is included who is reinstated, i should say in this legislation. enterprise for years 2025 through 2028. on business provisions that legislation enacts effective for property placed in service after january 19th, 2025 and 3 the end of panciocco 2029, 100 percent bonus depreciation, the legislation also provides for full expensing of domestic research expenditures under code section 174 and again, applicable for years -- expenditure increase in years 2025 to 2029. the legislation reinstates the adjusted income limitation on

deductible this interest by reference rather than -- again, effective for interest payments in 2025 through three and 29. that legislation freezes and makes permanent the current levels of the deduction amounts to the guilty and the tax rate under the feed machines. for a manufacturing property for years 2025 through 20232100 percent appreciation is -- for structures that are engaged in manufacturing activities. the second round of opportunity zones is established what does with an emphasis on opportunities in rural zones. the legislation increases the expensing permitted under code

section 179, generally applicable to smaller businesses, to $2.5 million. legislation also repeals -- excuse me. forgive me. the legislation establishes a tiered structure, an increased level and tiered structure of excise taxes. it creates a new code section, a 99 which provides remedies against unfair foreign taxes, generally this would increase certain taxes already in the codes such as roast basis for withholding and it would apply to individuals corporate residents in those countries that were deemed to have discriminatory tax regimes.

and the legislation would also establish a new excise tax on remittances from persons in the united states paid to persons in another country. there's many other provisions in the legislation. i would be happy to answer any other questions that the members might have. it is just a general overview and i'm happy to answer questions that members might have. >> thank you, mr. sneed, you are recognized. >> thank you, members of the committee. i have simply one trait provision to cover today. section 112031 modifies six and 321 of the tariff act of 1930, which is commonly referred to as to the minnesota law in two ways. first, it adds a new penalty provision applicable to violations of u.s. law. the level of penalties up to $5,000 for the first violation and $10,000 for any subsequent

violation. these penalty levels are the same as those included in representative murphy part of his bill that was marked up in april of 2024 and also the same as those included in the former representative hours. the effective tournament for this penalty provision is 50 days after enactment. second, the repeals section 321 of the tariff act of 1930 which provides an $800 threshold value for the measurement instruments and is the provision under which commercial shipments currently make -- may qualify for de minimis treatment. effective today of this change is july 1st, 2027. the separate provisions providing diminished treatment for for articles and coming persons arriving in the united states remain unchanged. this concludes my walk-through and i welcome any technical questions. >> thank you. mr. dormaa, you are recognized. >> thank you, members of the committee. the amendment and the nature of the subsidy contains three provisions. section 111201 a man's sections

1861 and 1834 with the social security act to allow otherwise eligible facilities that closed between january 1st, 2014 and december 26, 2020 to reopen under the real emergency hospital destination. section 112104 as a new section to part d of title xviii of the social security act to limit medicare benefit eligibility only for u.s. citizens and lawful permanent residents, certain individuals and individuals living in the united states through a compact of free association. section 112204 adds a new section to part e of title xviii of the social security act that will require the secretary of state health and human services to contract with artificial intelligence vendors and data scientists to identify, produce, and a proper payment and report on such progress. this concludes the technical walk-through of the medical

provisions of this title. >> thank you. mr. freeman, who are recognized. aspect thank you, its members on the committee on ways and means. in addition to the matters covered by sneed and dumas, and in compliance with the reconciliation instructions provided by house concurrent resolution 14 the amendment and the nature of the substitute includes a provision that increases by exactly $4 trillion the general limitation of the the public to make a post section 3101 of title xxxi of the united states code and that was most recently established in january 2, 2025, following a debt limit suspension period that ran from june 3, 2023 through january 1, 2025 in accordance with section 401p of public law 118-5. thank you, mr. chairman, and members of the committee, this concludes my walk-through and i welcome any technical questions related to this provision of the

lemon in the nature of a substitute. chair smith: thank you. does anyone want to ask a technical question. >> let me start with a simple question. what has the gct reported as the fiscal impact of this bill that is being considered by the committee today? >> as reported, tax provisions only are in gcs 22 and it is made available to all the members and reported the total for fiscal years 25 through 2034 as minus $3.819 trillion. 2090. as you know, is the standard practice for gct to report the cost of tax bills over a 10-year budget window. i have noticed the documents that you cited in one of those 10 years that included physical

2025 even though the fiscal year is now almost over, but have -- what a boat that is being considered in may of 2025 normally include 2025 and the budget window box and similarly, with the score instead include the equal 22 -- 2035 in the window. mr. barthold: into a routine course, we would report through 234 consistent with the congressional budget office. for the budget period. , reporting here is under the rules for the current budget reconciliation. rep. neal: so let me ask you today is. has gct prepared an estimate of what this bill would cost under our standard budget window rather than what has been requested by the republican college? mr. barthold: i do not have that at this time. we will be working on that and it will be provided to all the

members of the committee as soon as we were able to do so. rep. neal: so it seems clear that my colleagues use the standard budget window, it would be in excess of $4 trillion. that is not even counting the gimmicks that are used to make much of the policy temporary. so let me move on to the republican claims that notwithstanding eye-popping gct score, which by the way if -- is even higher of this total. there -- they are being fiscally responsible. now one of those ways a republican claims that these tax cuts will drive so much growth and they will increase revenue, the chairman of the budget committee claim that the tax cut that you see here would drive so much economic growth that it would generate $2.6 trillion in additional revenue. let me ask you this, mr. barr sold, does the gct believe that the growth of these tax cuts will generate $2.6 million in revenue? mr. barthold: mr. neil, this

legislation would be considered major fiscal legislation and will require us to make -- take a macroeconomic analysis. we have started that since probably -- it is probably inappropriate for me to prejudge. rep. neal: how about one -- 500 billion? mr. barthold: again, i should differ and not my colleagues to the public. but we will report that to the house. rep. neal: you are pretty good at this. i have worked there for a long time. the effects of these tax changes on the economy are really not in us right now. there's no want to trust more about cutting the edge of the research that is done by gct. submitted that in mind, maybe might be able to name respected economists other than those that are on this dais. and that is anybody suggested that these tax cuts being

considered would raise $2.6 trillion in revenue? mr. barthold: our friend news accounts from economists who have said that there will be large increases and i believe the white house office the advisors and i do not call the -- rep. neal: that is really important that they would say that. have you seen what the deficit financed tax cuts will actually reduce growth? mr. barthold: i have been in the report that you are referencing the issue is, additional borrowing particularly in the short-term crowd out some potential for private investment, which could diminish future growth. rep. neal: so i'm assuming, tommy, when this analysis comes in, way, way, way too .6 trillion. eric gullickson chrysti idle --

aisle will accuse you of having no idea of what you are talking what you are talking about. let me say this. you value the honesty from gct. and the facts don't matter to us. this is going to blow under that massive hole in the budget debt because of the borrowing from 2,017 to four and a half to -- that will be borrowed when they raise the debt ceiling because of this legislation. i yield back my time, chairman. chair smith: , additional members have technical questions. i will recognize myself for a technical question. mr. barr home, i want to ask you a couple questions to make sure we understand the scope of the no tax on overtime proposal that is within the legislation. good friend of mine in missouri is a hard-working lineman and the electric co-op. he makes $40 an hour for an annual salary of just a little over $75,000 a year.

under this policy as my friend -- is my friend eligible for the new overtime tax deduction? mr. barthold: yes, because the only taxpayers are excluded are those highly considered -- compensated as determined. i believe the threshold is $160,000. so your friend, alignment, would qualify. chair smith: he often has to work overtime. last year, he worked more than 200 hours of overtime. if i have this right, he could claim a deduction for his premium pay which would be $20 per hour, and multiplying that by 300 hours and you get $6,000. he could claim that $6,000 deduction in addition to the standard deduction, mr. barthol, do i have that right? mr. barthold: that is correct. host: thank you.

chair smith: thank you. addis-mills technically for one of the hardest working people that i know and there are millions and millions of workers like him across the country. additional technical questions. mr. snyder. >> thank you. mr. barr sold, thank you. i'm glad that they clarified the official score underestimating the true cost. to emphasize, what is the standard window normally use those used in evaluating legislation? how many years? mr. barthold: back to the congressional budget office, 10 q, baseline which went coach edmonds three fiscal year 2035. >> and that is not what is done here? mr. barthold: another instructions, we are looking through fiscal year 2034.

mr. barthold: cutting off a full year of what this would actually cost. i think there's other real costs, it seems like colleagues on the other side either willingly or nicely by deluding themselves. believing that they are doing something fiscally responsible. part of that comes from the mind-boggling number of $2.6 million made up. but as there's another part comes from the fact that so much of this bill is temporary and we have seen this script before that we are talking about here in the 2017 bill. the republicans put all sorts of arbitrary and artificial nice into the tax bill that in 2017. and here we are presenting rentals -- pretending like those don't exist. virtually they either had a sense of what is being given, if it had a sense it, is now being extended. tax increases that were to go

into effect are now being turned off. why on earth do we think that the republicans on the other side of the aisle would change their behavior at the end of these sunsets? let me ask you this, has gct estimated the cost of this bill if all the provisions with artificial sunsets are indeed made permanent like they are doing to the 2017 bill? >> at present, we have not. i can prepare and deliver to the members estimates of making permanent those provisions that have identified as temporary but we have not worked on the interactions that would be involved. for so each estimate would be as a standalone if you were to make the exclusion for overtime permanent. what would that be? if you made the exclusion for

tips, what would that be? we have not right on the interaction effects with both of them together interacting with the changes in the standard deduction and the -- but i can prepare and we will deliver to all the member offices during this markup unless the markup concludes in the next 45 minutes. >> i'm confident it will conclude but that will be useful because we have seen what they did last time. they are making permanent as if there was no cost. and to be clear, if we can get those numbers on the traditional tentacle budget window, so the normal -- mr. barthold: mr. snyder, i don't have anything when out through 2035. the best we can do this through 2034. >> some of the scores the committee has gotten in the past on these policies is pretty

clear that we are for the republicans will try to make everything permanent and the estimate committee for responsible budget is saying that it will cost well over $5 trillion over a 30-year period, the estimate is that these will cost $45 trillion adding 40 federal dollars to our national debt at $36 trillion. that is an unfathomably large number and just to put it may be into a context and maybe instead of using dollars, we should be using astronomical units just as an example. the nearest star to us, it is 25 trillion-dollar miles away. to travel to that star and it would take four years traveling at a speed of light. >> there and back and he would have -- have the size of the debt we will have been 30 years because of this bill.

so in a few short months, we are adding to the deficit. we are adding to the debt the president's feeling trade economic agenda has already devastated the economy and is putting small businesses over a barrel, raising costs for working families. many the comments are running for the potential of the -- an economic downpour or impending recession. that really should concern us all. i want to take a minute to talk about the broader impact of the potential recession on our economy. mr. potholed, this economy has endured for what were the impacts on revenues? tran16 the income tax receipts the client sometimes quite substantially. rep. schneider: so it is more

than just income taxes. it is across the board. which would raise concerns from all of us in light of the chaos and havoc we are seeing from the president on the economy. it is not just me saying this. goldman sachs has said it. bank of america has said it. so many economists are putting that we are headed toward a recession. chair smith: mr. snyder, your time is expired. rep. schneider: i go back. chair smith: mr. thompson? >> thank you. mr. potholed, are you going to have -- we have dissipation tables for this hearing. mr. barthold: yes, my colleagues are trying to finalize the distribution. >> how long do you how long do you think that will take? mr. barthold: 90 minutes? >> 90 minutes. mr. barthold: 90 minutes. >> thank you. mr. barthold, the bill that we are considering, how many people will lose their health care for this bill becomes law?

mr. barthold: i will have to get back to you in a second after i check with my colleagues. >> 13 plus million. close. mr. barthold: if by the bill you mean the actions under the entire budget which involves work from the energy and commerce committee, i'm not familiar with what is happening in energy and commerce and the effects of that. or the effects -- >> is the bill that we are marking up today adding to our national debt? mr. barthold: the attacks the league provisions as to mr. neil over the budget period would reduce revenues by approximately $3.8 trillion in our

estimations. >> a minimum of 2.8 trillion. is the bill that we are marking up today and tax on social security? tran16 legislation and reconciliation does not change any benefits or taxes paid into the trust funds for social security. >> for the first time, our interest expense exceeded are discretionary and non-defense spending. and they projects are total defense and non-defense spending will be $2.2 trillion. $2.2 trillion and our interest payments will be $1.7 trillion. that is a scary fiscal picture. mr. barthold, he reported the cost of this bill as $3.8 trillion. at would know that as mr. neil and mister both pointed out the real cross is more like 5.3 trillion. so that being said, i would smith that even the 5.3 trillion

number is not the real cost. clickers and we will look, tell me if i'm correct. the cost cited in the conversation you had did not include any additional interest the government will have to pay to serve us all this new data. is that correct? mr. barthold: that is correct, mr. thompson. we do not report on changes in interest that will be required if the debt increases. rep. thompson: thank you. tonight mr. barthold, why should our committee or why should the american people care about interest payments on the debt? what is the economic impact of the growth of interest payments? mr. barthold: book it there is of interest payments as you just pointed out, the cost to the federal government. they potentially crowd out other items that members might think

are pretty in terms of physical activities in the federal government. it is an increase in government outlays which either at some points should be offset by increased revenues or reduce spreading or a culmination of. rep. thompson: make no mistake about it. with the committee is doing with their deficit finance tax white. it will cause soaring trees. this is for school, for our country, our debt and our deficits are sewing and interest payments will as well. without a doubt, crowd out any growth aspects you might hope to receive from this tax bill that we could've done -- we could have gone a different way here today. we could've work together and to protect 98% of americans who earn under $400,000 a year.

probably could have ensured that they will not receive a tax increase and work together for a responsible way to pay for the cost of that smaller bill. instead, we are maxing out our credit card, passing the on to future generations. the also applying for three more. this is the height of your responsibility and i can only hope we don't pay for this in the credit markets also i remain hopeful i am concerned. concerned. thank you in i go back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so in my friend and colleague would like to know what the interest rates in terms of u.s. treasuries have increased over the last of four years since president biden malaise in office. mr. barthold, do you know what those payments on our debt was when president biden took office?

mr. barthold: i'm afraid i don't have -- >> roughly 300 billion ring a bell? does it sound relatively close? it was around $300 billion. you know what it was when president trump took over after four years -- 40 year high inflation after record spreading, do you know what those payments were? is almost a trillion dollars to cut to the chase. we are talking about a triple the interest payments because of the policies of the peak previous demonstration. we will see what we as republicans with unified republican leadership could do about that and so far, the prices have come down. the recent inflation with -- are they going up or down in terms of inflation? mr. barthold: quant inflation has moderated. it is coming down closer.

rep. arrington: that is remarkable to me. is it going up or down in terms of economic output? mr. barthold: the gross domestic product is continuing to grow. rep. arrington: it continues growing. do you know about the job participation rates of the last four years under the biden administration, kello what we had pre-covid. are they going up in terms of -- or they going down? mr. barthold: i honestly do not know the current labor force participation. rep. arrington: we are talking about a 100 days into this new demonstration. my friend and making member it made mention of the growth rate assumptions. suggesting that they, i think fairly suggesting that they were not -- i hope this is fair to say, suggesting that they were

-- that they were not based in any rationale of accomplishment in any recent historic terms. 50 years. what is the average of 50-year gdp growth in this country? do you know what it was, the average annual growth rate in this country of the last 50 years or 30 years. mr. barthold: historically, it is, a break war ii growth noted about around 1973 to 1975, the time of the world crisis and stagflation. rep. arrington: so the average is three-point said -- 3%. mr. barthold: it is lower now than it was. rep. arrington: so it is 3% roughly. and there were a couple of decades where we had over 4%. do you know what the annual average growth rate was for this

country and our economy under president biden, controlling for the first year, $2 trillion, and you know what the last three years work for president biden? mr. barthold: i don't have the figures. rep. arrington: 2.7%. you know what the growth rate annual average growth rate of president trump was before covid? mr. barthold: i don't have the figures. rep. arrington: it was 2.8%. you know what the assumption was of the budget committee in terms of the annual average growth rate for the purposes of budget reconciliation? 2.6%. so we are actually more conservative than both president biden or the gross rate under president biden and under president trump. remarkable, isn't it? cell last question, growth

rates, you know what the growth rate increase was from one chris d'entremont took over when it was at 1.8% and just prior to covid and are present trip and unified republican leadership, you know what that doctor was in terms of wealth? mr. barthold: i don't have those figures. rep. arrington: it was 1%, which was the 2.8 on average. and are 2.6, if we had maintained one person, would have had $3 trillion in additional revenue. did we have record corporate revenue for the following year or two? mr. barthold: yes, we did. rep. arrington: record revenue, record low unemployment and record low poverty rates, record investment, record repatriation, record job growth, 1% gdp

growth. annual average of two points in. chair smith: i will call on you next. >> time has expired. >> thank you. >> thanks, chairman. what that gentleman has suggested the record this, record debt, no. none of what he has suggested comes close to what was produced during the clinton administration. none of it. record growth, balanced budgets, party down, revenue through the roof. so that is a misstatement of fact. are you my time to back. >> thank you. mr. barthold, is there anything in the current no tax on tips second that would stop a related party like a family member it from falling 20,000 -- 25,000-dollar gift payment a tip just to get the tax break?

mr. barthold: the legislation does have several guidelines. and tips have to be qualified in have to be reported on a wage statement. and also the chips are only qualified tips if they are in industries in which taping has been historically customary. so for example, hospitality industry suggests any employee could not mentally claim that some thinking -- income plus tip income. mr. horsford: i do know that there are a number of necessary guardrails to ensure tips are not used as loophole and while i'm glad to see that there are no tax on tips is in the bill

albeit temporarily, i would ask that my republican colleagues join me to prevent tips from being used as a loophole. and so we will be coming back to that later. my concern overall is that this bill benefits the wealthiest. millionaires are getting a tax cut while those earning under 50,000 per year are getting just pennies. meaning the people of nevada and the rural part of my district whose median income is $24,000 0 are getting pennies while billionaires are getting gold bars. and i think there's even more to this story didn't affect mr. barthold, can you briefly describe for the committee but this bill does to the estate tax? mr. barthold: another legislation before you, mr. horsford, it increases the exemption amount to $15 million

effective for gifts and estates for a request. in 2026. and indexes that $15 million amount. that is an increase relative to present laws or 2025, the estate and gift tax exemption amount is $15.99 million, just under $14 billion. it also is indexed if it were extended with indexing. it would be somewhere in the $14 million range for 2026. so it is an incremental increase beyond simple extension of what was enacted and the 2017 legislation. rep. horsford: how much did that cost? mr. barthold: the 2017 legislation. i don't recall offhand. our estimate for the effect of

the legislation is $211 billion over a period of 2025 through 2034. rep. horsford: and all those changes to the estate tax outline reflected in those dissipation tables? mr. barthold: because the estate tax, this is a real wonky answer. it is a tax on a stock, a transfer of wealth and everything else that we are looking at is really looking at flowers, be it a flow of income or a flow of conception if it was an excise tax. it is not really cricket to weave the two together. that is a long answer to say the answer to your question is, no, changes to the estate tax will not be reflected in the distribution tables that will be made available later in the day. rep. horsford: thank you. so these are not in the distribution tables, put the

benefits certainly go to the will of individuals. let me ask you this, mr. barthold. for 2022, how many people paid the estate tax who had an estate of over $100 million. mr. barthold: i will have to respond later to you on that. and know that we have done some analysis. rep. horsford: approximately 200. mr. barthold: i will respond to all of the members of the committee. rep. horsford: doesn't this bill gives those $100 billion plus estate, doesn't this bill gives those estate tax benefits of millions of dollars? mr. barthold: absent this legislation, the estate tax exemption will follow up substantially. so yes, would provide an additional exempt amount for all large estates. and more modest estates. rep. horsford: thank you. clearly the estate and gift tax

provisions benefit very wealthy taxpayers. isn't it fair to say gct data underestimate just how much this bill benefits wealthy taxpayers than? mr. barthold: air again, as i explain why we don't distribute the effects that it does not reflect the effect of transfers of wealth. that is correct, sir. rep. horsford: grand strand to the other side of the distribution tables, the lowest in the income scale. strip all told, there are other committees that have also have instruction around the reconciliation process and one of those committees as an instruction to raise income $880 billion. how are they going about doing that? chair smith: , barthold, i will let you respond to this, but we are made it over and that your time is expired. mr. barthold: mr. horsford, i'm

really not up to speed on what is going on. this committee has been keeping us -- rep. horsford: the art medicaid cuts. it is the largest "to healthcare in the history of the country. is what is happening in the other committee, the exact same time this committee is marking up the biggest tax cut for billionaires. i yield my time. chair smith: there was nothing to you, mr. doggett. i just. >> i want to be sure that it is clear the enormity of what is at stake. you indicated a belief that the tax cuts, the estimated $3.8 trillion. is that correct? mr. barthold: that is correct. >> and it is $1.4 trillion. mr. barthold: i have not made that estimate. rep. doggett: and of course, that is not even considering the

interest he had over a trillion dollars in interest payments, more than defense and we are going to have hundreds of billions of dollars there and just to understand how big that figure is, it is about if you make these tax cuts permanent, it is twice the size of the entire social security trust fund. that is what is at stake. is more the entire gross domestic product of germany, the strongest country in europe. let's talk about the enormity of the harm that is being done for people on their healthcare. is it correct, mr. barthold, that this legislation fails to extend the enhanced tax credits to lower the cost of insurance for millions of americans to purchase their own coverage to the marketplace. rep. doggett: that is correct. mr. barthold: and went with the republicans prevent these credits to expire, what is the effect on health insurance premiums for those individuals that rely on the marketplace today?

mr. barthold: or that our staff has done in conjunction with congressional budget office suggested that premiums will increase for individuals, their. rep. doggett: is it true that this failure on the part of republicans who raise premiums not just for those -- they will raise them for everyone in the marketplace but not just for those who receive the subsidies. mr. barthold: that is correct. that is part of the analysis. rep. doggett: if my understanding is correct, failure to practice policy will result in an increase in the number of uninsured americans. is that right? mr. barthold: that is correct, sir. rep. doggett: and i have received data. i ask you to include this letter from cbo saying that 4.2 million americans will lose their coverage in seven months if you are successful with this bill.

chair smith: is it jermaine? rep. doggett: it goes to another question i have for mr. barthold because mr. barthold says he cannot tell us the macro economic effects and not tell us who gets what out of this bill and we think it is mostly billionaires but who gets what because mr. barthol, you only got this full well within the last 24 hours or so yourself, didn't you? mr. barthold: mr. doggett, i think you know that we do work with the chairman and that develop policies -- as they develop policies. rep. doggett: that is one of the other reasons it is so important. let me ask you also about another entirely different section of the bill concerning the energy and pdc provisions. in these investment credits that have been so important.

if i understand it over the past 15 years. when clean energy, a production in investment credits being guaranteed someone could begin construction, that you consider the notion that your facilities are placed in service, not to conclude that the construction began. is that correct? rep. doggett: yes. mr. barthold: yes. rep. doggett: and with the predictability and the tariff taxes, the supply chain difficulties and the natural disasters that are made worse by climate change, all this chaos, no product developer most of the salt could guarantee to win the facility. mr. barthold: there is more substantial uncertainty. rep. doggett: under current law, if a taxpayer started instruction sale on january 1st of this year, and maintain continuous construction, would they be eligible to claim that credits if their facilities placed in service in 2032?

mr. barthold: yes, sir, another begin construction will. rep. doggett: and if the proposal today it was amended to maintain the 15-year precedent these credits are paid -- are based on but republicans still chose to face the credit out, what the taxpayers still be eligible? mr. barthold: no, sir, not if it is phased out. rep. doggett: wouldn't it be best if you maintain it the way it is. mr. barthold: yes. it. rep. doggett: instead, under the text before us today, the value, they will be entitled by changing that is zero, right? no benefit. will reject the 15-year way of handling the important facilities. many of which may already be under construction. they are doing their due diligence. but suddenly, this bill will wipe them out. thank you, and i yield back.

chair smith: the gentleman yields back. mr. miller is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. my friends across the aisle appear to be opposing tax cuts to expired presidents from both mr. barthold, is it true that doubling the standard deduction in 2017 helps simplify the tax code and lower taxes for millions of americans? mr. barthold: the increase in the standard deduction reduced the number of atomizers substantially from around one-third of tax filers to the neighborhood of 10 to 15%. many people consider that a substantial certification. rep. doggett: the answer is yes -- >> the answer is yes. what happens to the standard deduction that so many everyday americans live on if this bill passes and this provision expires, mr. barthol?

mr. barthold: , that one that back? if the standard deduction is not extended? if the standard deduction is not extended, a substantial number of taxpayers again will probably choose to itemize and it requires an additional record-keeping gently more complexity. probably backed up again one-third of tax filings. >> thank you. and we have added for a year of inflation. is that correct? >> the standard deduction, a couple other provisions and modifying the inflation adjustment effectively giving an extra year of inflation in the calculation, increasing the values. rep. miller: thank you. so we have a boost from 1,000 to 2,000 starting in 2025 fox. mr. barthold: well, inflation is calculated year over year. it is just and getting an extra

year's boost from the relative to that base. rep. miller: it is still 1,000 to 2,000. the answer is yes. this is helpful for our constituency as the vast majority of the country uses standard deduction in the house seventh congressional district, 93% of my constituents use their deduction. so if this were not to continue, 93% of my constituents would be hurt by this expiration. is that correct? mr. barthold: 93% will have a smaller standard deduction, not everybody necessarily has lower -- would have an increase in taxes because of the other provisions that would be inspiring to expiring for years, a substantial number of people will lose the benefit of the higher standard picture. rep. miller: they keep pretty much. chair smith: we recognize nick sanchez. excuse me.

my apologies. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to barthold. are barthold. i wanted to talk about the child tax credit. you likely recall the changes democrats made to the child tax credit as part of the american rescue plan. we increased the value to $3,000 per year and $3,600 per year for young children, mr. barthold, that number were those numbers higher or lower than what is proposed by republican in this legislation? mr. barthold: this legislation for temporary period would have child tax credit at 2500. it is lower. mr. barthold: and democrats also ensured by making the credit fully refundable that the full credit went to all taxpayers, especially the ones with the lowest incomes and the families that arguably need the credit that most. mr. barthold, does the republic -- this republic in will ensure that children in the poorest families receive the same

assistance as children in families that make $400,000 a year. >> no, there is a phase in of the credit which is based on earned income. is limited by the -- >> cell no, under this bill, a family making $400,000 per year, gets 2500 per child. a struggling family where maybe there was a job loss or even a family when both parents are working full-time earning minimum wage, this could -- they are still scraping to get by and just get a fraction of that. mr. barthold, thus gtc know how many low-income children would receive the full value of the $2,500, the credit under the republican bill? mr. barthold: i can provide the committee with an estimate of that.

i don't have that on my fingertips. but i will get an estimate. rep. delbene: and it is true that some children may not get access to the credit. mr. barthold: again, for the points you raised because this could be a limitation on the fungibility based on the income of the household. there can be some households where there is not fungibility. rep. delbene: lastly the american rescue plan ensured that taxpayers would get delivery of the child tax credit on a monthly basis to ensure that once were available to meet families' monthly needs. does this bill, that. mr. barthold: does not provide for monthly with portability, no? -- no. mr. barthold: and if a family has a baby on january 1st, does that family receives the child tax credit before the child turns one year old.

mr. barthold: no. no. and if i don't recall he did just pass me the information that we have on number of children with social security numbers, will not receive the full value of the 2500 child tax credit and estimate of that for tax year 2046. professor next here would be approximately 17 million children. rep. delbene: thank you. and then -- but if a family had a baby in november, at what they received the child tax credit before the child turns one back year old? mr. barthold: yes. rep. delbene: so inconsistency. in the legislation [inaudible] so it certainly seems like the child tax credit is woefully bis woefully inadequate, does not reach all the children and families who have needs, and does not prioritize children and families who need it the most.

thank you. i yelled back. i yelled to mr. thompson. rep. thompson: thank you. my friend has made a point that middle-class families will get something out of this. isn't it true that this committee can write a tax bill the benefits people in that proverbial middle class if they make less than $400,000, without having at the same time to give a huge tax cut to the richest people in the country? mr. barthold: mr. thompson, as the members have often chosen to -- rep. thompson: can we do that. can we target a tax bill -- write a tax bill that targets the middle-class people? mr. barthold: of course you can do that. you can target as members choose. rep. thompson: without a big giveaway to the richest people, people who do not make the biggest amount of money.

thank you. i yelled back. -- i yield back. >> is removing tax care benefits to illegal immigrants, i think that title does not match the actual language of the bill. mr. barthold, my understanding is that these actions may change as to whether lawfully present individuals can access premium tax credits, is that correct? mr. barthold: yes, ms. sanchez, that is correct. rep. sanchez: so we are talking about lawfully present individuals? mr. barthold: yes, ms. sanchez. rep. sanchez: lawfully present individuals are not illegal immigrants, are they? mr. barthold: no, they are lawfully present. rep. sanchez: ok, so the title, removing taxpayer benefits for illegal immigrants is actually false, yes? mr. barthold: well, i did not make the title. rep. sanchez: is it

inconsistent? mr. barthold: i think you established that under the legislation, there could be some lawfully present individuals who are denied. rep. sanchez: do these sections make changes to illegal immigrants eligibility? are any of the categories of immigrants covered in this session, those that are illegally in the united states? mr. barthold: those individuals already are not eligible, ms. sanchez. rep. sanchez: right, illegal immigrants are not eligible, but i'm asking whether the sections in the bill we are marking up today make any changes to illegal immigrants'eligibility. mr. barthold: no, they not. rep. sanchez: no, they did not. are any of the categories of immigrants covered in this section, those that are illegally in the united states? mr. barthold: no. rep. sanchez: know, so the title is patently false and misleading. do these people pay taxes?

mr. barthold: lawful residents present in the united states can have jobs, they make pay payroll taxes, income taxes. rep. sanchez:rep. sanchez: so if they're in the country legally and they are working, they generally pay taxes. so the title of part two, removing taxpayer benefits for illegal immigrants is patently false, is misleading, but nevertheless is removing benefits from legally present individuals, i would note that a similar change made with respect to medicare, again, pertaining to legally lawful and present individuals. is that correct? mr. barthold: i don't know about the medicare piece, ms. sanchez, but yes, related to the provisions here in the internal revenue service. rep. sanchez: ok, so they say they are thinking we benefits

from illegal immigrants, but the section solely deals with lawfully present people who are paying taxes into the system, and now are going to be denied those benefits. really great work, guys. mr. barthold, can you describe the rules that the republicans placed on the child tax credit, related to identification requirements when they enacted their bill in 2017? mr. barthold: -- no, in 2016? yeah. uh, yes, pardon the delay. the 2017 legislation provided that the child had you have a social security number. rep. sanchez: the child had to have a social security number, proving in fact that the child is a citizen. can you explain the role that has been added to this bill in contrast to that bill? mr. barthold: both the child and

the taxpayer and taxpayer's spouse have to have social security numbers. rep. sanchez: so under this bill that is in the text contained a polite child with a social security number, a citizen of the united states, is going to be denied by the support of the child tax credit, that the child tax credit provides commit one of the parent does not have a social security number? mr. barthold: that is possible, ms. sanchez, yes. rep. sanchez: i don't think that's possible, i think that is a whole purpose of this section of the bill is to penalize these children, even though they are united states citizens. can you provide is committee with a number of the citizen children that will be denied the child tax credit as a result of this provision? mr. barthold: yes, but it will probably take me a couple of minutes can to find it. rep. sanchez: ok. i wanted to make this last point in closing. the 2016 tax bill, we were told

many things about how great the tax bill was, and we were sold on the many benefits, but if might add that never materialized, one of which was going to be it was so easy that people would be able to file their income tax on a postcard. mr. barthold, do people file their income taxes on a postcard? mr. barthold: ms. sanchez, no to the postcard, and my colleague did provide an estimate that we have developed an answer to your question, and we estimate, again, looking ahead of your 2026, we estimate that approximately 2 million children with social security numbers will be denied the child tax credit. rep. sanchez: 2 million children who are citizens of this country are going to be denied the child tax credit. i would just say, this bill is more inflated promises, but the reality is game for american families and gain from millionaires. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. barthold, my colleague on the other side l describe the child tax provisions -- on the other side of the aisle described the child tax credit provisions. when is that in effect? mr. barthold: 20 year. -- one year. rep. yakym: so when the democrats potentially have a chance to make them permanent, they chose to allow them to expire after one year, is that correct? mr. barthold: one year, yes, sir. rep. yakym: thank. mr. chairman, i yield back. chair smith: thank you. the chair now recognizes mr. --

>> thank you, mr. chair. one thing we have is for the earned income tax credit, which lists nearly 6 million people above the poverty line every year. 2021, ways and means democrats led the charge to strengthen the earned income tax credit by significantly expanding the text. this ensure that workers not being taxed into poverty by the federal government. so, mr. barthold, let me ask you this question. other than a purple heart recipient, you also learned ssdi. does the bureau today make any changes to the earned income tax credit to better help single workers, younger workers, older workers, foster use, homeless youth? mr. barthold: mr. davis, the

legislation before he does not specifically address any of the categories of workers that you mentioned. it establishes, infection 11 -- in section 112206, certification for the program of a qualifying child of the taxpayer. as you noted, it does make change for purple heart recipient, but it does not address specific categories of those. rep. davis: thank you very much. let me ask, am i correct, or correct me if i'm wrong, the then appointed 17 republican tax bill change the way we adjusted for inflation causing growth in the earned income tax credit to slow down? mr. barthold: the 2017 legislation change for almost all purposes in the individual income tax standard deductions,

and as you know, the earned income tax credit. it went from the regular cpi to what is referred to as the changed cpi. the changed cpi generally grows at a slower rate than regular cpi, so the short answer is yes, the result is that the parameters declining your the earned income tax credit do more slowly, as do the parameters of the value of the standard deduction and the rates. rep. davis: so as a result of the tcg a, have there been fewer tax credit payments than before? mr. barthold: yes, sir, that is correct. rep. davis: by roughly how much? mr. barthold: we looked at some research on this in 2021 and

2022. the estimated difference due to be indexed using regular cpi, versus the changed cpi was about $1.5 billion to $2 billion in aggregate. rep. davis: so, while my republican colleagues seem intent on showering their wealthy donors with tax cuts, they are doing nothing for the vast majority of our poorest workers, even while the poorest continue to feel the consequences from their original deal. similarly, i would like to ask you about child. as you know, ways and means democrats significantly expanded the child and dependent care credit in the american rescue plan and made the credit refundable, so all families would benefit from it. mr. barthold, as childcare

prices skyrocket, does this deal enforced today do anything to increase the child and dependent care credit? mr. barthold: mr. davis, this legislation does not address the child and dependent care credit. rep. davis: and so the priorities reflected in his deal are truly disappointing, whereas democrats report supporting working families at the top of our priority lists, my republican colleagues are ignoring these struggles while showering those at the top with tax cuts once again. i yield back. chair smith: the gentleman yields back. i now recognize mr. larson for 10 minutes. rep. larsen: thank you. mr. barthold, how long have you been doing this? mr. barthold: actually two days from today will mark my 16th

anniversary as the chief of staff of the joint committee on taxation. [applause] rep. larsen: and i think you can tell from the applause the enormous respect that people have. when did you receive this bill that we are asking you all these questions on, the full bill? mr. barthold: the final, completed version of the bill was delivered to us when it was delivered to you yesterday afternoon. now, to be fair, and as you know from your experience, we work closely with all the members come up with the chairman and his staff. rep. larson: i want the viewing audience to know that when you actually received this, you are supposed to answer all of these questions. i have some technical questions that i wanted to ask, how you were saying in a bill, sometimes things can get crowded out by

the changes that occur from a 28-page tob over 400. but, how many, because initially, we had heard about this social security tax on income, that it was going to be eliminated altogether, but how many individuals will still be subject to tax on social security income after accounting for the what is now called the senior deduction in this? mr. barthold: well, let's see. under present law for 2026, we estimate that there will be about 56 million tax filing units with social security benefits. 32 million have social security benefits in their adjusted gross income, because there is an exclusion for a number of taxpayers, and about 27 million have social security.

under the proposal for 2026, about 26 million tax returns are estimated to have social security benefits, included in agi, and owe any income tax. that is in part because they have other income. about 24 million tax returns that have social security benefits, including the agi, that exceed the $4000 additional seniors deduction, and also below owe some additional income tax. rep. larson: so, essentially, this deal does not do as president trump promised, to eliminate taxes on social security, because in some seniors will receive no benefit or less than full benefits from the additional senior deduction from this bill. believe it or not, mr. chairman, we do have a solution to that in a bill that we would like to see us sometime, at least be heard.

but, mr. barthold, at what income amount does someone stop paying fica contributions to social security? mr. barthold: for the present year, it is $176,100. rep. larson: thank you. so someone who is making, let's say, i won't go to the $500 billion that our favorite person, mr. musk, is getting, but you've $.5 million in annual wages, do they pay fica throughout the year? mr. barthold: fica is collected until you reach the maximum, so at that substantial rate of pay, no, you do not pay fica. rep. larson: so in the case of mr. musk, who receives a compensation package of more than $50 billion but has never received a salary income, how much would a person who makes

millions or billions in compensation to stocks contribute to social security each year? mr. barthold: capital gain income, return on equity, equity grants, are not wages subject to fica. there are certain stock compensations subject to fica, and are not specifically familiar with mr. musk's. rep. larson: so is there anything in this legislation that would increase the amount of those making over $400,000 to contribute to social security or insolvency? mr. barthold: no, sir, there is nothing that would increase contributions. rep. larson: so this bill raises the deadly over four trillion dollars, yet -- chair smith: the gentlemen's time has expired. rep. larson: yet does nothing to improve the social security benefit. chair smith: the gentlemen's time has expired. i now recognize ms. chu for

five minutes. rep. chu: mr. barthold, not only does this cut trillions in taxes, but it does nothing to address the trump mass firings at the irs. does funding to the irs result in higher or lower revenue for the federal government? mr. barthold: the funding of the irs, just to be precise, the analysis that is carried out by our colleagues at the congressional budget office, the congressional budget office did as part of the analysis for the legislation recognition in 2020 that increased expenditures in different areas of the irs, such as modernization, customer service, other different aspects, would have an effect of increasing collections by the irs in excess of the investment in human and ip resources that

would be necessary. rep. chu: thank you. if this legislation were to be enacted, with this increase the federal budget deficit? mr. barthold: again, drawing only on what the joint committee staff has reported in 22-25r for the tax provision, the tax provisions, as we conventionally equate them, prior to alkyl economic analysis, would increase the deficit by $3.8 trillion over the budget period of fiscal 20 25to 2034. rep. chu: yes, so it will increase the budget deficit by three $.8 trillion. mr. barthold: yes, ma'am. rep. chu: not only will this bill/taxes for the wealthiest people in the country, but it will also make it easier for the same people to avoid paying the

taxes they do owe because the irs's ability to audit those returns and address this law baking -- breaking has been greatly diminished by president trump in his administration. mr. barthold: well, ms. chu, again, i have to rely on colleagues at the congressional budget office, the effects in terms of expenditures and allocation of resources within the irs. and i believe we are just in the process of making available our distribution analysis on this legislation, and the member of its should be getting it, and you should be getting it soon. so i cannot really comment on the first part of your question, about the distribution of the tax benefits under the administration. rep. chu: well, if this bill is enacted, will this bill compound the fact that the budget deficit would be made considerably worse at a time when it is already rising and threatening the long-term solvency of programs like social security and medicare? mr. barthold: well, just to

repeat, in terms of the analysis of the tax provision, setting aside what might be happening in terms of reduction in spending or other potential offsetting receipts, the tax provisions would contribute to a higher deficit. i did not know the total effect of what would be reported under the budget resolution. rep. chu: but it will result in a higher deficit. i would like to repeat that. will anything in this bill improve the solvency of social security, medicare, and strengthen those programs that americans pay into them for their entire lives can count on receiving the benefits when they reach retirement age? mr. barthold: this legislation makes no changes to social security. rep. chu: thank you. this clarifies quite a bit about the bill, which would not only cut taxes for the ultra-wealthy but also give wealthy tax cheats the knowledge that they can break the law without

consequences, because our tax law enforcement has been defined by the trump administration. together, these conditions will worsen the budget deficit and do nothing to protect social security and medicare, which are under attack. i also would like to ask you about something that thousands of my constituents have been calling and writing to me about since the start of this administration, which is president trump's decision to let elon musk an unconfirmed, unelected billionaire, into the government's most sensitive systems, including the irs records. now, these are most private and sensitive taxpayer information for our constituents. how the government pays social security benefits. so, mr. barthold, is there any provision here to keep doge employees out of the treasury payment system, that includes taxpayer information, which is required to be confidential by

law. chair smith: the gentlewoman's time has expired. i now recognize ms. sewall for five minutes. rep. sewell: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. barthold, my question is regarding section 25f and pertains to the qualifying elementary and secondary education scholarships that are found on page 57 in the amendment and the nature of the substitute. can you elaborate on the tax benefits that donors to private school voucher programs would receive from this measure, and is it possible for taxpayers to receive more than one dollar benefit from taxpayers if they donate one dollar? mr. barthold: ms. sewell the, way the provision works is the program praising nonrefundable income tax credit equal to the aggregate amount to qualify contributions made by the taxpayer. rep. sewell: so 1:1, if i give a

dollar, i get a one dollar tax credit, is that right? mr. barthold: the credit allowed cannot exceed the gross income, but yes. give a dollar, get a credit for a dollar. rep. sewell: can the taxpayer also seen a credit from the state, that same dollar that they donated? mr. barthold: the legislation does not define state law in any way, so i guess that would be possible, ms. sewell. rep. sewell: so it is possible that you can get a dollar to these scholarship funds -- in line mr. barthold: let me correct, it would be reduced by the amount allowed on a state tax return. rep. sewell: what about a deduction? can you get a state adoption for that same dollar? mr. barthold: yes. rep. sewell: you can. basically a person can give a dollar a get a benefit of more than one dollar on their taxes

if you combine both federal and state. what is the income amount for qualified students to receive these scholarships? can a student whose parents makes over 100,000 dollars received one of these scholarships? mr. barthold: there are no restrictions on students at these schools. rep. sewell: so that karen can make over 100,000 dollars, and they can still get a scholarship from the scholarship fund? mr. barthold: yes. rep. sewell: so, basically, you can give a dollar to the scholarship fund, and then those people, the students who received those, that scholarship can have, parents can have an income of unlimited amounts of money, is that right? mr. barthold: yes. as you laid out the possibility.

rep. sewell: so is there a provision within the tax code that would require that teachers at any of the private academies receiving these vouchers be certified or accredited? mr. barthold: i'm not aware of a section. rep. sewell: is there a provision in the tax code that requires these private schools to provide special education or to educate disabled students, like you have to do in public schools? mr. barthold: generally, again, no no requirements. rep. sewell: so, as a contribution to churches get the same kind of tax treatment as this program described in this bill? mr. barthold: well, a donation to a church may be deductible as a charitable contribution, and itemize misers might be able to claim the charitable deduction. rep. sewell: but they are not going to be able to get the same kind of double dipping. mr. barthold: no, ma'am.

rep. sewell: so my parishioners, the parishioners that tithe with me at the brown chapel ame church, gets a less generous tax benefit than those who give to this scholarship fund, is that right? mr. barthold: as you've posited the situation, yes, ma'am. rep. sewell: so what makes me concerned about this is house republicans have set aside up to $5 billion a year to go to scholarships for private and religious schools. this is an unprecedented effort to use public money for private schools. the program would fund -- be funded by donors who contribute money or stock, and the students who receive it can have parents that make as much money as elon musk, right? mr. barthold: there is no income limitation on the donor. rep. sewell: that's right. what makes me particularly concerned about this is in the

deep south, where i represent him alabama, many of those private schools are segregated schools that are all white. chair smith: the gentlewoman's time has expired. rep. sewell: and you will be getting a public benefit to private schools that promote segregation. chair smith: the gentlewoman's time has expired. i now recognize ms. moore for five minutes. rep. moore: thank you so much, mr. chairman. mr. barthold, i'm going to ask you a lot of questions, and i don't want all my time consumed, so just follow me and please be patient. i want to ask you questions about code section 199a. this is a section that my colleague just talked about, helping families and workers. this one is the one that my colleagues like to refer to as the small business deduction. first of all, how much did this bill cost, will it cost, to extend this code section 199a? and i realize you don't have the 23%, and if you have only 20% over, that is acceptable.

how much will it cost? mr. barthold: ms. moore, as we report in 22-25 the permanent extension plus the, expansion of code section 199a was estimated at a cost of approximately $818 billion over the cause of the budget period. rep. moore: $818 billion is the cost to help these small businesses. can you please tell me how -- you have data for 2020i understand. can you tell me how, what was the total amount of the deductions claimed for section 199a? mr. barthold: a little over $216 billion. rep. moore: ok, thank you, two hundred $16 billion in deduction, $818 billion in loss of revenue, that they lot of money. what we will do to help small

businesses we ought to do. ok, now, i like to talk about helping only the 1%, and a 1% makes may be about 650,000 dollars a year, is that right, mr. barthold? mr. barthold: in reported adjusted gross income, that is about right, ms. moore. rep. moore: ok, so the top 1% of taxpayers by adjusted gross income claimed what percentage of the 199a deductions? the top 1%, how much did they get out of the whole package? mr. barthold: rep. moore: the top 1% got 50% and these are small business benefits? wow, half of it. say a business that has $200,000 of agi, what is the average amount of a deduction that that

kind of business could claim? mr. barthold: just to clarify, agi applies to the taxpayer so it can be income from multiple sources. rep. moore: this is all qualified business income. mr. barthold: $200,000 under present law, 20% deduction, that would be a deduction of $40,000. rep. moore: ok. mr. barthold: but if your question was taxpayers with agi's of around $200,000 with qualifying business income, qualifying business income being -- rep. moore: that was my question because i'm running out of time. mr. barthold: i'm sorry. it's about 6500. rep. moore: it's about $6,000.

if you had $10 million, there were 10 taxpayers -- $10 million and they got how much on average? mr. barthold: adjusted gross income from a $10 million. not all of which is qualified is this income so on average, those tax payers claiming about a half million dollars in deductions. rep. moore: a half million dollars in deductions. i'm going to skip some because it's taken a long time. there are taxpayers in my state who made over $100 million. they claimed deductions. can you tell me how much that they received as a deduction? mr. barthold: 100? rep. moore: $100 million of these small businesses.

mr. barthold: in 2022, that was in the neighborhood of 800 taxpayers with adjusted incomes exceeding $100 million who claimed a deduction under section 199 a and the average deduction was around $11 million. chair smith:chair smith: the gentlewoman's time has expired. rep. moore: 84% of these businesses -- zero employees. so they did not create jobs. thank you so much for your indulgence, mr. chairman. thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. the goal of my question is to elucidate how current law operates and how this legislation proposes to change current law. current statute prohibits the president and secretary from initiating an irs investigation on any specific taxpayer. which states, and i quote, this will be unlawful for any

applicable person that is the president, vice president, any employee, secretary of the treasury, other members of the cabinet to request directly or indirectly any officer or employee of the irs to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation with respect to the tax liability. can you confirm it would be illegal under current law for the president or secretary of the treasury to initiate an irs investigation on an organization's nonprofit status? >> that is correct. correct thank you, sir. under current law, if a taxpayer has demonstrated it is operating outside the requirements of its status and there is an investigation by nonpolitical irs civil servants and due process from the organization involved, isn't that correct? >> yes. there are situations where an

investigation could involve chief counsel at the irs and chief counsel is a political appointment. >> thank you. i want to turn to the legislation. they claim to combat -- that provide material support for terrorism. considering the trump administration's clear what i sheen of government to pursue political enemies, i want to make sure i understand how this proposal would operate if it became law. the language in this section states the term terrorist supporting organization means any organization which is designated by the secretary had -- as having provided material support to a terrorist organization so the secretary must notify the organization of the designation and be provided material support as determined by the secretary. does this language requiring the offending organization be convicted in a court of law for providing material support to an organization before losing it tax-exempt status? >> no, the language does not

require conviction for providing material support. >> the only requirement is if the secretary determines an offense has taken place in the secretary can do so on his own authority without any judicial determination at all, correct? >> that is correct. the proposal does not require judicial determination. corrects the secretary must provide a description of such missile -- such resources except to the extent the secretary determines a disclosure of such description would be inconsistent. could the secretary assert documentation of that is classified or sensitive and therefore provide no substantive description let alone evidence to an organization on their alleged offense? if this legislation were law, are there scenarios where an organization could have no opportunity to review the evidence against them in order to meaningfully respond to the allegations? >> well, the proposal

contemplates and allows the secretary to withhold a description of the nature of the material support provided by the organization if the secretary is determined doing so is inconsistent with national security. but the secretary must note he has made such a determination in a notice to the organization so than the organization may seek a judicial review of that determination. >> thank you. so in summary, this legislation will allow the secretary to determine if they provided material support to a terrorist organization without any prior judicial review and he could do so without providing even a description of the alleged offense to the accused organization. the constitution requires that branch to faithfully execute the law but we have seen what contempt this administration has for due process. there are current cases where

federal officials are being threatened with criminal contempt and operating in bad faith. the track record has taken -- this will allow the treasury department to rescind the tax-exempt status from law-abiding organizations without due process, without judicial determination of guilt and without providing evidence for the alleged offense. if this legislation were passed into law, the trump administration and any future ones would be allowed to target political enemies through unsubstantiated claims of supporting terrorism without providing evidence to revoke -- revoke the tax-exempt status. if a -- if they disagree with the administration, they risk their tax-exempt status. >> the gentlemen's time is expired. >> thank. new outback. >> five minutes. >> ok. some technical questions for you but first, i want to point out an op-ed piece from senator josh

hawley from missouri, the chairman's home state, when he said republicans are having an identity crisis. will republicans be a majority party of working people were a permanent minority speaking only for the c suite? mr. trump has proposed working class tax cuts and protection for working-class social concerns -- insurance such as medicaid. a noisy contention of corporatist republicans is urging congress to a more on that and get back to the good old time religion. corporate giveaways, preferences for capital, and deep cuts to social insurance. this wing of the party wants republicans to build our big beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. my argument is it is both morally wrong and politically suicidal so with that in mind, the president has said we have massive deficits and they will be reduced to practically nothing international, north carolina. -- nashville, more carolina.

chairman smith said if you don't reduce the deficit, we will spend more on debt than we do national defense. the chairman of defense said this trajectory of the deficit is unsustainable and arguably the biggest threat facing our nation. he said we have to reverse the crispy he said the reconciliation bill must not add to the deficit and there are other quotes from murphy and aaronson and buchanan and adrian smith and mike kelly who says it is a threat to international security. in good friend said we have to have a balanced budget amendment. my question to you regarding the deficit, does the bill before us and this committee right now increase the deficit? >> the legislation before you come as we have reported, the tax provisions would increase the deficit. >> does the president authorize as part of the bill before this

committee to borrow $4 trillion? >> yes. that's correct, sir. >> the president said when coming to the national county during the campaign, he says i will turn it around. i will get salt back. i will work with the democratic governor and they are and make sure the funding is there to bring new york state back to levels it has never seen in 50 years. does this bill before us restore the entire state and local tax deduction? >> no, it does not. >> the president has said we are the party of the working class and chairman smith says we are the party of the working class and other people said the other party of the working class. financial times reported on may 9 of this year trump and johnson agreed to a new tax bracket for earners making more than $2.5 million. president trump on seat -- on truth social said he will graciously accept a tax increase in order to help lower and

middle class families. i am ok if they do it. is there an increase in the tax rate for the wealthiest people in the united states of america? >> the legislation before you extends permanently the top bracket at 37%. >> so it does not restore it to what it was before, to 39.6. >> that is correct. >> said this is a tax increase for the wealthiest americans in our country or a continuation of the previous tax decrease for the wealthiest americans. is that correct? >> that is subject to interpretation. >> the president has said your tips will be 100% yours. does this continue the payroll tax on peoples tips? >> yes, it does. >> the president said your overtime will be tax-free. does this bill continued the payroll tax on overtime? >> it does not exempt overtime from payroll tax. corrects the president said he will remove taxes on social security. does this bill remove taxes on

social security benefits? >> it provides increased exemption amount. >> does it remove taxes on social security benefits as promised by the president? the president and republicans made a very big deal about the importance of tariffs. tariffs are essential, they say, in order for as to balance the budget, to do things to help bring money into the federal government so we don't have to cut as many things. we need to bring money in from tariffs. does the ways and means committee have the sole jurisdiction on tariffs? >> i believe that is so, sir. >> is there anything in this bill whatsoever, this massive 400 page bill, this important bill that is looking at the finances of the united states of america, does it have a single thing in it about setting tariff policy in america? roxanne life my colleague. >> the answer to that question is yes. >> what does it have? >> the gentlemen time is expired. >> it eliminates the law and tariffs would be applied to any

packages that received de minimis treatment under which you do not receive payment. >> all the other things we have been talking about have not been discussed. >> five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for your patience in dealing with us in answering these questions. we know that this information was given to you at a very short time. i listened to my colleagues just recently discuss the amount of money that is given to the largest bracket. you said that that was a reduction in how much for the top bracket? >> absent this legislation, the top bracket would revert to a

rate of 39 point six and this extends the 37 percent bracket that was established in 2017. >> it extends the 37 bracket. and then what is the next bracket of individuals in the tax code? >> 35 is next down. >> and who is within that group? what income bracket is that? >> i will have to check the brake points. i am afraid i don't know them of the top of my head. i will get that for you. corrects and know we just received the chairman's amendment for the budget reconciliation, legislative recommendations related to tax and this chart shows us in calendar year 2027, income categories and change in federal taxes in those categories. i am not a math person. i actually went to georgetown foreign service school because they told me there was no math requirement. i even applied early to get in

and then i got bamboozled when i found out there was two years of econ so i will need you to help me with the math here. it says here that for those individuals in the income category of 80 to 100,000, right, what is the change to them in this new bill? what are they going to be receiving? >> you want to know the provisions that affect them? ok. well, remember, absent this legislation, tax brackets would generally increase. the standard adduction would decrease. the child tax credit would decrease so many taxpayers in that bracket, in the income group, would have a change in tax rates, a decrease in their standard deduction, a decrease in child tax credit if they -- if their household had children. on the other hand, they would -- some might be more likely to itemize and could claim --

>> individuals making 80 to 100,000 will be itemizing, sir? >> yes, some individuals. quickset is a small percentage. >> it is a smaller percentage. itemization under prior law and under current law is typically in the upper half of the income. >> let's talk about what percentage those individuals are going to be getting. people within the virgin islands , our medium income and the amount of income to people on the virgin islands are going to get is going to put them in the 60 to $80,000 range where the 80,000 to $100,000 range and that is for a household income doing pretty well in the virgin islands. that compared to individuals in the 500 to the $1000 range, what is the difference between those two and what this bill is going to be giving them? >> all right. well, as you can see in the very first column to the left of the income categories, it reports

the change in federal taxes under the legislation and on the first page, it shows for the income category of 80,000 to 100,000 that the aggregate reduction in federal taxes would be approximately $31.3 billion. if you compare that to $500,000 to $1 million category, the average -- the aggregate reduction is 73.1 billion dollars. quickset is overall. that is overall what we are going to get. but that is not going to tell us what the average individual is going to get. >> well, some of the average effect you can see in the last two columns where it reports the average tax rate so for your category of 80,000 to 100,000, under present law, the average tax rate that those taxpayers

pay is a little bit over 15%. under the proposed legislation, it would fall to 13.5% so a reduction tax. by comparison, since he wanted to compare, the reduction in average tax rate for the half-million to the million category is from close to 30% to closer to 36% or greater. >> how about this -- this is what i have heard. the top 1%, .1%, stands to gain about $278,000 per year. that is $762 per day. while the average family is going to get $1000 a year, that's about two dollars a day. is that correct, sir? >> the gentlemen's time has expired. i recognize mr. murphy. >> can he answer the question? that was a yes or no. >> i will allow a yes or no answer. >> i cannot verify the mathematics.

i am not doubting it but i just cannot verify. >> mr. murphy is recognized for five minutes. >> thank, mr. chairman. a point of clarification. i think it is important just that we have frames of reference with who pasted -- pays the taxes in this country. do you know what percentage the top 1% of earners in this country pay in taxes? >> excuse me. >> the top 1%? if you look on page five, we have tried to provide income and you will see that we report the 99 to 99 point ninth percentile and then the highest .1% and in about the middle column, you can see that under present law, that

those -- so that would be the top 1% of taxpayers would pay 13.6% plus 11.9% which is 25.5% of all federal taxes. >> i was looking at something here on google that said it was 40%. >> don't believe everything you see on google. >> 26%? >> 25.5%. >> ok. the top 10% said it accounts for 72% of all federal income taxes paid in 2022. >> again, i would prefer if you look at my page five and then you would be looking at the last four rows of that middle column. >> can you help me with the bottom 50%, how much they pay in taxes? >> ok.

well, i had to take it. >> i'm looking at google again. and we don't want to believe google. >> what we are trying to measure here is the effect of payroll taxes, income taxes, federal excise taxes, and the corporate tax. the one tax that is not federal tax. it is left out. that's the estate gift tax. >> fair enough. are there provisions in this bill where those in the higher income bracket have fewer deductions? >> yes, as noted in the walk-through, in the extension of the 2017 legislation includes extension of a number of limitations on itemized deductions, sustained local income tax, mortgage interest. it creates in addition a new limitation for those who itemize

limiting the value of the benefit. >> top bracket will actually end up paying more in taxes. >> they will have those limitations. some taxpayers will pay more and some will pay less. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yelled back. >> i now recognize mr. evans with a technical question for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i would like to yield. >> thank you very much. at the beginning of this hearing , the chairman told us that his priority was the working class and it sounds a lot like what president trump has said in all of his broken promises that he is concerned with working people and now that we have, which we didn't have earlier, these green sheets, i would like to ask you about how much good they have done for the working class. first of all, given the last questions you just answered, there is not any law of physics or tax law of any kind that says if you really want to help the working people of this country, you got to get -- give big tax

breaks to the people at the top. there is no such law, is there? there's no reason we can't focus this tax relief on the people who are out there working hard for a living, not the elon musks of the world. >> i'm sorry. once let me shorten it a little bit. there's not any requirement under the tax laws that you have worked on as chief of the joint committee on taxation that say that if we want to help working people, if, as the chairman told us, his priority is the working class, that the only way we can do it is to give huge tax? once as we discussed earlier, the members can choose to target tax benefits. >> we can target it if we want to but we can also target it to the limousine lobbyists and powerbrokers in our country who already have so many loopholes

and advantages. let's see how well, based on the information you gave us, just now, that we did not have earlier, how well this republican majority has done in prioritizing the working class. if i understand your numbers, it looks to me like it's about $263 per taxpayer for those who earn less than $50,000. is that about right? this is in year 2027. >> you are ahead of me. >> first of all, in year 20 to seven, those who earned over $1 million a year are going to total -- they will get $96 billion in tax cuts, won't they? quotes above one million. the change and the proposal is

about 100 billion. yes, sir. >> $100 billion and all of those below $50,000, if you add them up, it comes out to about 19, doesn't it, in the first year? >> we are looking at the differences. >> by my calculations, we are talking about something like 310 times the average tax cut for taxpayers under 50,000 for those over one million. does that sound in the range of about what it is? once again, to do these calculations, we provided the number of returns on page 15 so you can compute the average. by category. i don't want to overstate or understate a result here. >> i appreciate your objectivity. i am using your numbers and it looks to me like we are providing, under the republican

bill, the average tax cut for a taxpayer who is making more than $1 million a year, somebody who is pretty comfortable in our society, more than $1 million in a single year, they get 310 times the average tax cut for taxpayers making less than $50,000 a year. i don't call that prioritizing the working class, wherever you came from. prioritizing the people that are out there, providing the services that make america go. i call it more trickle-down economics that a little will come dribbling down to those who are working hard from elon musk and all the people who were on the front row behind the president at his inauguration. it is pretty clear where the focus is, where the whole purpose of this tax proposal is. it is not to help working america. it's to take from those who are working, the health care, their future, and use those proceeds with trillions of dollars of debt to provide more benefits to

the billionaire class and it is wrong and it should be rejected. thank you for your answers and for this data. parks the gentlemen's time is expired and i now recognize mr. hearn for five minutes. >> i will not need five minutes. the gentleman from texas talks about the tax code only, the income tax and the change. how much is the tile -- child tax credit scored at? >> the extension of the child tax credit. >> just roughly. i don't care about pennies. >> i was trying to look for the specific line on the table. over the ten-year period, almost 800 billion dollars. >> is that going to the billionaires? >> no. >> what about the no tax on

tips? how much does that score? >> no tax on tips? it's almost $40 billion. >> no tax on overtime? quotes over time? 124 billion dollars. >> is either one of those going to the billionaires? i'm using the billionaires because that is what my colleague from texas pointed to. >> there is no income restriction on chips but i don't know that there's a lot of those billionaires. >> the reality is that while we are talking specifically about the tax rate here staying permanent, on these other provisions that we put in there that president trump has talked about that they are wanting to demagogue that these are the ones to affect a lot. hundreds of billions of dollars to folks that are making on the lower end of income scales so i

just want to point that out for the record. thank you for all your work. >> thank you. i will ask my question and proceed. if other members wish to ask a technical question. mr. sneed, i wanted to talk about the minimus provision. do you see a risk perhaps this provision could possibly or not conflict with the trump administration? >> thank you for that question. as constructed i do not see significant risk of that but i think it is important context. president trump has acted in this area to eliminate the de minimus exemption for products from china and that has taken effect as emergency action under

the international emergency economic powers act. this provision in today's legislative recommendation is not conflicting with that and is ending it on an emergency basis on shipments from all countries. i don't see immediate conflict with that. if there were nearer term relevant to china there might be more questions and challenges as far as how these fit together. there is some litigation about ieepa and its connection to tariffs. this approach takes an approach of creating long-term certainty while providing room for the president to act. he has already acted on china and intends to act sooner with other countries but this approach ensures doge does go away from commercial shipments from all countries within the next two years.

rep. hern: to clarify for the sake of information, a traveler coming back to the u.s. with purchases, souvenirs, that limit would be as proposed how much? mr. snead: that would be unchanged, a $200 limit, a separate provision in the law and we are not looking to change that. rep. hern: i yield back and recognize mr. gomez for five minutes. mr. gomez: thank you. mr. barthold, can you help me on this? i was looking at the chart and it says in calendar year 2027 someone making less than $15,000 will see an increase in federal taxes by 18.7%. is that correct? mr. barthold: yes, mr. gomez. that is a consequence of loss of

premium tax credits, health care. rep. gomez: in calendar year 2020, anybody making less than $15,000 season increase of 53.5%. anybody making $15,000 to $30,000 season increase by 11.7%. is that correct? mr. barthold: what calendar year? rep. gomez: 2029, the next page. mr. barthold: yes. rep. gomez: the next page in 2031, anyone making less than $15,000 -- check this out. i thought this was a mistake. i thought i was not seeing this correctly. an increase in their taxes of 74.3%. from $15,000 to $30,000, 26%. is that correct or did you make a mistake? mr. barthold: no mistake in the numbers. important thing to remember is

in lower brackets, it is hard to measure the denominator because there are some taxpayers getting refundable tax credits for example, some with negative tax rates. you are adding negative and positive tax rates. so it is dividing a changeover by zero. rep. gomez: here is the thing. this is what your own tax brackets suggest. one of the things my republican colleagues are saying, hey, we are not doing tax on tips, which is limited. we are not doing x, y, z, but are screwing over people making less than $30,000 a year. i find it offensive. my parents never made more than $38,000 a year in their lifetime after working four to six jobs to make ends meet.

then we have trump and his chaotic, reckless tariff policy creating so much uncertainty that it is driving up the cost of living in this country. at first it was $4900 a year, then $3800. either way, the people at the lower income brackets are getting screwed over by a republican majority that does not give a damn about them. on top of this, people under $30,000 a year are likely to be on medicaid, live in rural areas, more likely to be in urban areas that are the working poor. but then they are bragging about -- top income brackets make the most money so we give them the highest amount of refunds. that is insane. and they have no shame about it. you have no shame when it comes to hurting working men and women in this country!

i'm somebody that was supposed to not go to college. ended up working at subway and target, making $700 a week working from 5:00 in the afternoon until 9:00 the next day. i had zero health care. you tell somebody in my place, you know what, we are helping you out. but the billionaires are the ones that make the most money and deserve the most help, that is your logic? i like to quote one billionaire. warren says a lot of people should not be punished because it was not determined on what they did. it was a happenstance of their birth. but you want to tout a tax plan that increases taxes on people making under $30,000 a year? the folks that are struggling, and then cutting their medicaid on top of that?

but yet you want people to have more babies. that is the most insulting thing i have ever heard in my life. with that, i yield back. >> are there additional members with technical questions? seeing none, we will move to strike the last word. are there any members that wish to strike the last word? mr. doggett has recognized to strike the last word. rep. doggett: this big, beautiful bill is nothing but an ugly lie old on a mountain of lies preserved today through a process that is a lie and in blatant violation of the rules of this house of representatives. republicans can talk fiscal responsibility all day long and they usually do at their campaign rallies, but they are practicing incredible fiscal irresponsibility by adding trillions of dollars to our national debt and endangering

the future of what elon musk condemns as a ponzi scheme of what most americans, generations of americans, recognize as social security and a respectable retirement. it is a lie first to claim this bill shows fiscal responsibility because republicans are following their cult leader, the self-described king of debt. when it comes to more and more tax breaks for those of the very top, too much is never enough. even when it meets total physical response building. republican have a one-size-fits-all solution to loopholes that allows the most profitable corporations in the world to pay so little on their taxes. their solution? widen the loopholes and that is what this bill does. let them avoid even more of their fair share of paying for our national security and other vital services. second, it is a lie this bill is

focused on tax relief for the middle class. we have just seen not. 310 times more relief for those who earn over $1 million a year than for those who earn $50,000 or less. this entire bill could be half its total size if we were not providing benefits to those at the top, the billionaire class they hope will eventually come down to the rest of our society, but which it never has. guess who does this republican tax bill treat better? someone who trims hedges for a living or someone who is a hedge fund manager? if you guessed the hedge fund manager, it was not very difficult. but under this bill, most of these wall street titans put most of their income through carried interest and pay a maximum rate of 20%.

multinational corporations are paying an average of about 7.8% tax rate, far below the tax rate for a nurse or teacher. whenever incentive or reward these republicans think hedge fund managers and major corporations need to do their job, shouldn't that tax incentive applied to those who nurse the sick, who educate our children, and those who keep us safe? i think the answer is quite clear. the ideological attacks on clean energy will leave families paying the bill. a coalition of 23 retired four-star generals and admirals just this week advised the committee that it was vital to both our economic security and national security to preserve the incentives we enacted in the democratic congress which they propose to wipe out. third, this bill is based on a lie that this bill protects our health care and access to a

family physician. republicans are turning safety net programs into more hole than net. gaping holes that will deny 14 million americans access to a family physician. after more than 60 repeated failures by republicans to repeal the affordable care act, they are at it again. they are sabotaging it, trying to deny the access our countrymen need to get health care. 14 million alone will lose coverage because of the failure to extend the affordable care act enhanced incentives. the beauty of this bill may be in the eye of the billionaire class, but to the rest of us, it is just another dangerous swing using the wrecking ball that donald trump keeps using to wreck our economy and democracy. if all the lies were not enough, if our tax code not already look

lick a block of swiss cheese, republicans are creating more loopholes to benefit every special interest from tanning studios to tobacco companies. even as they shut down the department of education and slash billions from pre-k to 12 funding, they are pushing a $20 billion tax credit over four years, effectively a federal voucher land to encourage parents all over the country to remove their children from our valued book schools. all of it is a package of lies that must be rejected. i yield back. >> mr. thompson is recognized to strike the last word. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have to hand it to you. your bill touches just about everyone. gives an incredible amount of big dollars to people who need it the least. it takes health care aware from 13 million people. it passes the bill on to future generations.

mr. chairman, this republican tax bill to extend the trump tax cuts for billionaire donors ike elon musk is a bad deal for the american people. the extension of these cuts will disproportionately benefit those who do not need the help, while failing to prioritize hard-working americans. the reality is, democrats have been behind some of the most significant middle-class tax cuts we have seen in a generation. by expanding the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and the dependent care tax credit. in other words, when democrats cut taxes, we focus on those who need the help the most, not our large donors. people making over $1 million a year are not the ones that need a helping hand in today's economy. they simply get their priorities backwards and it is the hard-working american people who

are getting left behind. if republicans were serious and willing to abandon their goals of cutting taxes for their largest donors and focus on cutting taxes for the middle class in a responsible manner, a lot of my colleagues on this side of the aisle would join them. instead they are slashing and burning our tax code, social safety net, hurting taxpayers in high salt states, dismantling our nation's ability to lead the world and green energy and domestic manufacturing, and hurting kids who need food and nutrition programs, and cutting health care for working people. these tax cuts will come at the expense of real lives, costing real hurts to rip -- to all our constituents.

a constituent of mine from yolo county, california, kate has rare and chronic conditions that have resulted in extensive hospital stays. the need for a motorized wheelchair and in-home health services, much of it paid for by medicaid. her treatments, in-home care and wheelchair allow her to have a quality of life and contribute to our community. let me be clear. without these specialized treatments, she will die. from listening to and watching the actions of this administration and some of my colleagues, she believes many would not care. we all know people like kate. we represent people like kate. we also know people who have been down on their luck and need a look -- a little extra help to put food on the table. we all know people who worked long hours and multiple jobs to care for their families.

we have a moral responsibility as members of this committee to ensure our tax policies work for everyone, not just the well off and well-connected. that is why this is a bad bill and we should all vote against it. i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. larson. rep. larson: i don't know if you have been to -- in east hartford, an incredible institution -- a shout out to the staff on strike near the airport for fair wages. you get practical straightforward questions and answers from them and they would be somewhat confused about this. for example they do not talk a lot about jermainen -- germane

ness. you heard the discussion at the beginning with regard to what would be ruled germane and what would not be. we will see as we go through the night basically germane ness is what people do not want to vote on. whatever is put forward by this side of the aisle will not be deemed germane and therefore not voted on. i guess the disheartening thing is -- listen, everybody on this side of the aisle, they are good people. decent, caring americans who love their country as much as we do. that is what makes this so difficult. when you look at how

disproportionate this bill is because what it is simply is fulfilling a trump promise to make permanent the tax cut of of 2017, but to do that, he charged elon musk with finding cuts. so they looked to 70% of the budget that includes social security, medicare, defense, and decide that is what they are going to do. in this bill, what we find is that, while the top percent gets the bulk of the tax cut, they pay for it, pay for it, by cutting people's health benefits.

14 million americans get cut, their health benefits, so that billionaires can have more? how much more money does elon musk need than $500 billion? i guarantee you the billionaire class is embarrassed i what is being proposed here. the largest cut to medicaid in its history. imagine, 42 million americans will see lower food assistance and snap benefits so that billionaires can have more? this is, at the core of what

makes america -- and i have had public hearings throughout my district. one from driscoll says she does not know what she would do without medicaid and snap. she is a wartime veteran and a single mother of four boys. this is who we are talking about. the people who will be directly impacted. by this bill. you are good people. you know this. and yet, we are going to persist and take this to a vote. our amendments will be ruled not germane and won't go forward and you will take this to the floor. one said we have a 39-year-old son who was born intellectually disabled and asked me, if we

cannot take care of the innocent in our society, how can we be called christian? judith said, my daughter with mss, should mr. trump or his 1% cronies get more, my daughter and thousands of others who do not need to suffer because of unbridled greed. can it be possible maga really stands for make america great again? i yield back. >> has recognized to strike the last word. >> moved to strike the last word. >> thank you chairman smith and to my ways and means republican colleagues in the dedicated committee for this landmark legislation which delivers for american families, workers and small businesses. as a member of ways and means we were tasked with leading the charge to build on the successes

of resto's tax cuts and jobs act and deliver meaningful tax relief for hard-working americans and their families. as someone who voted yes on the 2017 tax cuts and jobs act, from upstate new york there has been nothing in legislation better for upstate new york than the tax cuts and jobs act for our small business community, our farmers and middle income taxpayers and lower income taxpayers. i'm looking forward to making these permanent and some anyways. it has been a long and winding road to get where we are today. house republicans on this committee have spent hours deliberating these changes, poring over data, numbers, making informed decisions, and meeting with individuals, businesses and communities. this led to the strongest economy in decades and we are poised to extend critical tax relief for american workers, the very people who work for me and their families, and include new

policies to drive growth and prosperity. something we lacked over the last four years. i commend the chairman for crafting this bill, considering the difficult choices that had to be made to get this here in a partisan way, because not a single democrat in this capital complex will vote for tax cuts for the american people. while we would like to see all the work we have done come to fruition we acknowledge the reality that we are working within limited parameters and individual priorities do not take precedence over insuring american families, workers and businesses do not face tax hikes in 2026. while this is an impressive package i expressed concern over the wind down of the nuclear production tax credit. nuclear power represents nearly a quarter of new york's electrical supply and my district is home to all four of new york's reactors.

those reactors are critical to the power of our region and state and should be considered separately from our conversations on renewable energy. this is an issue i will continue to work with the chairman to ensure continued success in the nuclear sector. before i close there are many issues i would like to highlight. some -- i can't list them all. these are priorities that unfortunately did not get in the package because of limited space. i will continue to work with the chairman to pass. first, the permanency of the new markets tax credit. cosponsored by the representative from alabama, a critical tool in rural districts like mine. ensuring domestically manufactured fuel cells are treated on par with other initiatives under the electricity investment tax credit. supporting technologies and energy delivery options will continue our country's efforts

to prevail in the artificial intelligence war with china and ensure we combat the catastrophic policies in states like mine were energy intelligence is not available. also the motorsports fairness act to sustain the long-term financial health of sports facilities by making the seven year cost recovery period permanent. the par act by striking golf courses, especially small family owned entities that are dotted all across new york state, and allowing eligibility for financing using tax-exempt bonds. i hope the president who is an avid golfer will consider making golf great again in the state of new york. the basic act promotes further investment in establishing new production facilities to manufacture semiconductors to spur job growth, advance science, technology, engineering and ensure the u.s. can compete

globally and maintain dominance over adversaries like china. this is critically important to central new york. and high-quality charter schools act to expand school choice by creating a new tax credit. last but not last, many, the susan monthly act to restore salaried pensions. they have waited for congress to provide reprieve in this reconciliation bill is a great opportunity to deliver it. i encourage the committee to take this bill up under their title of the one big beautiful bill. i want to thank all my colleagues on the republican side to bring us where we are today and look forward to supporting this bill with those he has some for american families and workers. those especially in new york's. i yield back. >> recognize to strike the last

word. >> thank you. >> this legislation is about providing relief for our working americans, senior citizens and middle-class families. that is the core of what this legislation is about and who will benefit. one of the most important provisions ic is a bonus deduction for senior citizens that would provide $4000 for individuals, $8,000 for married. for those earning $75,000 or less if they are individuals or $150,000 if they are married. i don't know how anyone can argue that goes to benefit the wealthy. it phases out when income reaches $175,000. the increase in the salt deduction. critical to the people i represent in staten island and brooklyn. it will be tripled to $30,000 and it will have an income limit

so that weight is truly benefiting the middle-class. it is interesting to hear the democrats and governor of my state of new york, who is the reason why we need salt relief to begin with because she keeps hammering people to death with high income taxes and refusing to put it cap on new york city property taxes, saying they want an unlimited cap. unlimited would benefit the billionaires. we are focused on the middle class. i do hope we will see that relief take place to address 2025 so my constituents can benefit in 2026. increases to the standard deduction, expanding the child tax credit. these are also provisions that benefit the middle class. no tax on tips, helping people who work with their hands, working overtime, first responders. no tax on american loans, auto

loans for american vehicles. preventing the return of the alternative minimum tax. this is huge for the people i represent. it is the reason so many of my constituents could not benefit from salt. it was never indexed, adjusted and you saw increasingly middle-class families being hit with that alternative minimum tax. additionally if you are a new employee and come out of college with debt your employer will be able to know permanently be able to give you up to $5250 tax-free to help you pay off your loans. this legislation i'm proud to sponsor. the educational choice for children act. this will deliver scholarships for families that need it most so they can attend private and

parochial schools. again talking about poor children, giving them school choice, access to education. does not benefit the wealthy at the end of the day. this bill actually benefits middle-class families, working families like the ones i represent in staten island and brooklyn. i'm proud so many of my provisions i have championed have made it into this bill. i want to thank the chairman who has been a good friend to the people of new york. i understand everybody here has different districts than i do. i might be the only salt caucus member on this side of the dais. but this committee and chairman have worked with me to get to a median we are continuing to work through this, but i believe we will get to a place that truly represents the hard-working

people in staten island and brooklyn and the $30,000 deduction on the table we will be voting on today actually covers 98% of my district. so i'm very happy i can go home and tell everyone i was able to triple their deduction. and that those who want unlimited, and there may be an amendment here that will support the millionaires and billionaires, but that is not who we are fighting for. the republicans are fighting for the working class. we are fighting for the middle class. that is who we are delivering relief for today. thank you to my colleagues who understood where i was coming from as a new york city republican, and working with me to address and provide much-needed relief for my constituents. thank you, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. davis.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. the good book teaches care for the least among us. in medicine doctors are taught, do no harm. yet the republican budget we are dealing with today does harm to every category of individual and group in our country except the will -- the rich, the wealthiest and most secure. billionaires get tax cuts while tens of millions of children, seniors, people with disabilities and workers, suffered deep cuts to their health care, food, education and housing. that is not right. americans want their government to help them and they expect the

wealthy to pay their fair share. while trump's tariff taxes force families to pay almost $4700 more a year on essentials like groceries, cars and appliances, the gop blesses ceo's. let's tax cheats run wild, tell children they can't have a toy, ignore the work of not-for-profits, lay them off, shut them down. kicks millions of seniors off medicare, rips tens of millions of people off medicaid, evict people from nursing homes so that the nursing home has to become your home. even if one manages to keep that health insurance, this bill

makes their health premiums skyrocket. the republican priorities are shameful. the plan bestows immediate, permanent and monumental tax handouts to seemly affluent individuals and corporations. but the crumbs they give to hard-working americans vanish. leave out the poorest children from the child tax credit and the poorest workers from the earned income tax credit. rather than directly giving family leave and child care assistance, this bill bestows riches on businesses again. in my district alone this cruel republican plan threatens to cut health insurance from other 240,000 people on illinois medical assistance.

including over 102,000 children and 26,000 seniors. thousands of seniors and persons with his abilities would lose their nursing home coverage. this ruthless plan also would increase hunger for thousands of people in my district who could lose snap. and over 80,000 children who will not have a free lunch. government should help people, .not should make it easier for the vulnerable that ask for help to lift their burden, not exclude them from assistance with successive barriers, only to freely shower the wealthy with trillions.

government should encourage charitable service and education, not terrorize them. as does a good con artist, republicans use sleight-of-hand tricks to make believe they are helping when they are hurting. nothing can justify the biggest medicaid cuts in the history of this country. nothing can justify taking snap benefits from hungry children. no, we are not helping the wealthy. we are not helping the wealthy. we need to help the children, save the babies. thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. ms. sanchez you are recognized to strike the last word. >> here we go again, republicans

once again choosing billionaires and big corporations over working families. this bill we are marking up is an insult every hard-working american, it sends a very clear message that you will pay more and receive fewer services just so billionaires can pocket another tax cut they really don't need. american families are struggling. under president trump and republican leadership they have seen nothing but chaos. they have watched elon musk take a chainsaw to vital programs they rely on like social security, medicare and the v.a. travel is less safe at airports because they are left in disarray due to cuts to air traffic control systems. prices for everyday necessities like food and clothing and diapers and formulas keep rising because of trump's tariffs. premiums for health insurance,

car insurance and housing are going up, making it harder and harder for families to make ends meet. rather than providing real relief, republicans look at this chaos, put it into law and call it a one beautiful bill. all to pay for more tax cuts for the rich, while adding millions to our national debt. nearly $20 trillion in debt over the next 10 years by republicans, your own members,. estimates not our estimates, their estimates. americans are worried about their future. consumer confidence is at a record low and people are worried about losing their jobs, health care, student aid and food assistance. this bill compounds that pain. 14 million people will lose health care coverage under this plan and for what? again so billionaires can get richer while we all drown in debt? this is outrageous.

billionaires already have more money than they could ever spend and can afford to pay their fair share. what is equally disturbing is that you're not being honest about the fact you are meting out crumbs to the most needy while helping the most wealthy. don't buy the bullshit that tax cuts for the rich create more jobs or better wages. it has been the excuse by every republican administration in the past half-century to pass more and more tax cuts to the rich and it has failed to deliver on that promise each and every time. the wealthy just got richer while the working families got harmed. all while piling on more debt families will have to pay off. i'm outraged this committee is focused on doing more for the richest in this country while destroying the means of survival for the poorest. this bill doubles down on that assault on those seeking the american dream by stealing tax

benefits and services to working people who are paying taxes. it would deny the child tax credit to 2 million u.s. citizen children. even worse, it would deny medicare coverage to those who worked and paid into the system. how dare republicans say they are for the working class when they are making it harder for those struggling to get by? enough is enough. my constituents are fed up, tired of republican tax cuts that only benefit the super wealthy. our tax code needs to be about fairness and balance. it should support families, not the rich. but this bill does the exact opposite. to my republican colleagues, please stop this insanity. you have to lie about what is in this bill, otherwise your constituents would be writhing in the streets. how about putting your constituents first for once

rather than the people who donate to your campaigns? but i guess that is asking a little too much from people who have completely lost their moral compass. i will be voting no on this bill. i hope someone on that side of the aisle sees the light and does the same. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. chairman, strike the last word. >> you are recognized. >> i want to stress my strong support for this profamily, pro-worker, progrowth, pro-america one big beautiful bill before us. it makes tax cuts permanent for working families. it also increases the child tax credit. it increases incentives for employer provided childcare and the standard deduction. a family of four could see well over $1000 in additional tax cuts.

that is real money in indiana. not mere crumbs as my colleague across the aisle just said. for workers we are delivering on president trump's promise of no tax on tips and note tax on overtime. we are expanding 529 accounts to cover post secondary credentialing for americans looking to advance in their career or tool up for a new one. and giving businesses certainty to invest, incentivizing research and development to be done right here in america. we are incentivizing buying new equipment and building new factories so we can manufacture things here in america. we are also putting disastrous democratic policies in the rearview mirror. no subsidies for china, no more.

we are ending president biden's global tax surrender that send billions in revenues to foreign countries. we are also repealing the 1099-k gig worker role which would bury americans under paperwork for the simple act of reselling tickets or buying something on ebay. it was so poorly thought out even president biden's irs refused to implement that policy. there are so many other great provisions. increasing the adoption tax -- savings accounts for newborns. tax relief for seniors and no auto loan interest rate no tax on auto loan interest. also note tax credit for recycling talking points. we have heard the same tired complaints from my friends on the other side of the aisle about giveaways to the rich. they said the same things about

the trump tax cuts in 2017. it was not true then and it is not true now. the new york times admitted as much in a 2019 article titled "face it, you probably got a tax cut." which said most taxpayers got a cut, quote, but there is a good chance you don't believe it. why is that? to quote, to a large degree, the gap between perception and reality on tax cuts appears to flow from a sustained and misleading effort by liberal opponents of the law to brand it as a middle class tax increase. let's be clear. our one big beautiful bill will deliver real tax cuts to families in south bend indiana and to seniors, to manufacturers , to innovators in places like

warsaw, indiana. it will deliver real tax cuts to farmers in marshall county, to farmers and small businesses on main streets. it will deliver real tax cuts to people working out of a garage and starting a small business. these tax cuts are real. trust your bank accounts, not lying politicians. i want to thank chairman smith and his staff for fostering an open and collaborative process throughout the course of putting this one big beautiful bill together. i urge my colleagues to support this profamily, pro-worker, crow growth, pro-america one big beautiful bill. with that i yield back. >> the gentlemen yields. you're recognized to strike the last word. >> my colleagues let's be honest

about why we are here today. we are here because according to president trump, elon musk and republicans in congress, the wealthiest individuals and largest corporations are not wealthy enough. this committee could be working to help americans deal with the high cost of living, working to make health care more accessible and affordable, working to strengthen social security, supporting small businesses reeling from president trump's reckless tariffs. but what we're doing instead at the direction of president trump? we are marking up a bill that would give $4 trillion worth of tax giveaways to the wealthy, well-connected and well off. and how are we going to pay for it? not by reducing the billions we spend to subsidize oil industry. instead my republican colleagues would rather take 14 million

americans off their health care, cut off food stamps and food assistance for small families and bankrupt small businesses because of the terra for. it is outrageous and unacceptable. in alabama half of all births are covered by medicaid and more than half medicaid recipients in alabama are children. 60% of the nursing homes in alabama have medicaid beneficiaries. so, let's be clear. the facebook medicaid are our children, our seniors and the disabled. when our republican colleagues cut $715 billion from medicaid it is our children, seniors and disabled that will pay the price. mr. chairman these cuts are about more than just statistics, they are about lives and livelihoods, real people impacted by the actions we take. last friday i had the chance to

meet with one of my constituents, latoya. her beautiful six-year-old daughter harper has sortable palsy. she is one of the 3 million american children living with disabilities. it was because of medicaid that harper is able to live at home with her family, surrounded by her loved ones. without it she would be forced into an institution. to strip children of harper of their health care in order to cut taxes for trump's billionaire friends is an outrageous betrayal of our american values. it is shameful. everyone in this committee has a harper in their districts. representing tens of thousands of americans who rely on medicaid to make ends meet. we should be standing up for them instead of ripping the rug out from under them. the people i represent are good

and honest americans. they work hard every day. they make enormous sacrifices to support themselves and their families, but they are hurting. they are being crushed by the high cost of living and many are living paycheck to paycheck. what are my constituents to do to make donald trump care about protecting their health care? they can't afford to bribe him by funneling millions into crypto schemes. they can afford to buy him another jet. the american people sent us here to speak up for their needs, not to do the bidding for the billionaire class. as members of this committee we have the opportunity to build an economy that works for all americans. but we are failing them. my constituents deserve to have a voice in this democracy and i will fight each day to provide

them with that voice. this is a sad day on this committee, a sad day for congress and the american people. i'm a hard no on this bill. actually, i may -- i'm a hell no on this bill. i will fight to make sure those most vulnerable have a voice. we have to speak up and speak out for the least of these. i will continue to do that and ask that my colleagues do the same. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. >> recognized to strike the last word. >> thank you, i moved to strike the last word. this bill is one big broken promise. republicans promised when elected they were lower costs for american families, but that is not what has happened. families have seen the cost of basic goods like households and

groceries go up because of trump's trade war. a trade war he had no authority to start because he did not get congressional approval before imposing sweeping tariffs against some of our closest allies like canada and mexico. these tariffs will raise costs on families by thousands of dollars a year. while the president has paused some tariffs, it is only temporary. he changes his mind all the time. that uncertainty itself is damaging to businesses that cannot plan or invest for the future, further raising prices and straining supply chains. meanwhile the republican members of this committee have been silent. they won't stand up for their constituents because they work for donald trump. that brings us to this bill which will make life even more expensive for families. republicans are trying to move this bill through, even going through the night, because they

do not want the american people to see it. but the american people do see what they are doing. they see you are giving another massive hand out to the ultra-wealthy. they see your time to pay for it by ripping away health care and food security from millions of americans. they see you will saddle future generations with even more debt. a constituent of mine from kirkland wrote to me sharing she was horrified to see what republicans are trying to do to programs americans rely on. she raised her family with the support of medicaid, snap, and the child tax credit. her children grew up to be a nurse and an aircraft mechanic. she was able to give back to the community through nonprofit work helping people with dementia because she had the resources from these programs when she needed them most. these are the people that will

suffer because of this tax bill. hard-working everyday americans just trying to get by and raise their families. while costs increase because of the president's recklessness republicans are cutting programs that are supposed to help families make ends meet. i was here in 2017 last time the republicans moved a tax bill for the ultrarich. they promised they would pay for itself. another broken promise. instead it ballooned our national debt. they said it would stimulate the economy and benefit workers. another broken promise. a recent study that included jct economists found the corporate gains flowed to shareholders and executives, not to 90% of the workers. you continue to break the promise to make life more affordable for americans.

on top of the price hikes from trump's tariffs you are raising health care bills by taking away medicaid and affordable care act coverage. this impacts every american because when people don't have coverage, hospitals cut services or close entirely. er wait times will swell, which means the difference between life or death for some patients. you are away food assistance which will lead to more families going hungry. washington's governor bob ferguson and governors from 22 other states said it would be impossible for states to pick up the tab from these cuts. there was a way we could do this together. last congress we approved with overwhelming bipartisan support a tax package that would have made a real difference for americans by investing in our children, building more affordable housing and supporting innovation. it was a compromise for both sides, but that is what americans want us to do, to

compromise and put them first. i know that is a dirty word on the republican side right now, but people want us to find a way forward together to improve our communities. unfortunately that is not what is happening today. i urge my colleagues to reject this massive broken promise because the american people deserve better. i yield back. >> strike the last word. >> i move to strike the last word. republicans are trying to spread the lie that there will be tax relief for everybody in this bill. but this is far from the truth. this is a bill that gives billionaires gold bars worth of tax giveaways and what do hard-working families get? pennies. in this bill the top 1% stand to get tax giveaways of $278,000

per year. a family earning less than $50,000 a year gets tax relief of $273 per year. it is laughable if not tragic. what it means is that billionaires get 1000 times more tax relief than working families. yes, billionaires get the gold bars. working families get the pennies. this bill could have been an opportunity for republicans to get serious about correcting the damage they caused since their original tax plan was enacted seven years ago. they could've reversed 40% cuts that corporate tax rate that flowed entirely to executives and largest shareholders instead of workers. they could have recognized that giving millionaires tax cut 288

times larger than for those making under 50,000 per year was hideously unfair. they could have worked to protect social security or medicare. they could've stopped the president's senseless trade war that has turned our economy upside down in a matter of weeks. they could've revisited their decision to give a 20% deduction on take-home pay to some of the richest people in the country, instead of making this giveaway even larger. but republicans did none of these things. they chose to once again give tax giveaways. $5 trillion of tax giveaways to the richest people in the country and the largest corporations. that is not even the worst, most irresponsible thing about this

budget reconciliations can. the worst part is that they are taking this money out of the pockets of those most in need. they are doing it with the most devastating cuts to health care benefits for low income and middle income people in our nation's history. through draconian cuts to medicaid and the affordable care act that together will leave almost 14 million people without health care coverage. that is the entire population of l.a. county and orange county combined. this will devastate so many, but especially children, the elderly and disabled. 40% of births are paid for by medicaid. medicaid pays for two out of every three nursing home residents.

and on average cover 28 days of hospitalization. after that who pays for it? medicaid. people all across the country are in fear of what could happen. such as one from my district in monterey park. when he heard of republican plans to cut medicaid he called my office and said, i'm a 74-year-old who has worked as a warehouse workers. after decades of hard work i rely on medicare and medicaid for life. especially after undergoing hip and spine surgery. on top of all this, republicans are cheering the president as he wages a senseless trade war that is turned our economy upside down. the bottom line is this. to my constituents watching this, you're paying the bill. when you pay more for basic necessities, when you lose your

snap benefits, when your small business is forced to close, when you lose medicaid coverage or benefits for health premiums, know this is the reason why. it is so elon musk can get another yacht. it is so donald trump and congressional republicans can give another tax cut to themselves and their friends. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. thank you very much, and good evening, ways and means. mr. chairman, call me old-fashioned, but i love robust debate. but do we have to do it with profane words and cuss words? we are better than that. we are the ways and means. let the record say i object. that's keep it clean, classy. for everybody out there who is going to be writing a headline or a byline, you are going to

have a choice. it is your headline going to be? are you going to buy into the hype that we are giving tax cuts just for billionaires? can buy into the hype or you can read the bill, because do you really think elon musk is working for tips? no, it is the waitress that is raising her kids, trying to get by. that is who we are bringing tax relief for. do you think it is the billionaire who was trying to make ends meet by working overtime? no, it is the family who is struggling, whose husband or wife says i will work extra to make ends meet. it is the american taxpayer. a family household under $50,000 is going to see their taxes reduced by 60% in the coming years under this bill.

america, if i can reach you, the taxpayers that probably are not watching anyway because they are working right now, trying to restore the damaged done by the previous administration, so we are trying to like this economy on fire so that everybody can have a chance at the american dream. for the people who are paying the bills, working overtime for tips, trying to buy a car, do you think the billionaires are financing their cars? they are not. the people trying to make ends meet, they are. that is the target of this bill, to bring hope and prosperity to those who are quietly paying the bills and trying to get by. so yes, the right answer on this bill is yes. we are determined to stay here as long as it takes to get the job done. i just had my first cup of coffee. i am to jump into round two. with all that, i am fired up and ready to go to bring real relief to the american taxpayer. let's go get them.

i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, and don't have another coffee yet. [laughter] >> ms. moore, you may strike the last word. >> thank you, mr. chair. i move to strike the last word. mr. bean, you admonish those of us who might believe the "hype" that this big, beautiful bill would harm families, small businesses, and workers. well, i think this big, beautiful bill is just a big bonanza for billionaires. i'm going to tell you, when historians, researchers, and scientists study this bill in this country's fray and fall, this day, may 13, 2025, and the markups of energy and commerce, the ad committee, and this prestigious ways and means committee will be exhibit a of

the breach of the american social contract, the e pluribus unum envisioned by our founders as we dismantle health care benefits for at least, minimally, 14 million people, we destroy the health care infrastructure of hospitals, nursing homes, home care, community health centers, as we undermine the affordable care act and medicare, as we take food from the mouths of babies and older adults, as we interrupt breakthrough medical research, as we retreat from saving our planet from climate change and other things, and as we add $5 trillion in upwards to our debt -- and upwards to our debt, all of this to provide moneys and breaks to the ultra-wealthy. these are choices that we are going to make, but i am saying to my republican colleagues this, no matter what you have done in congress, this will be

your legacy, and as liz cheney warned you, donald trump will be gone, but this, when people google you, when you're descendants google you, this will be your legacy. let me say all these talking points, all this wordsmithing, these are the facts right here. you are not doing this because of debt reduction. you add trillions of dollars to the debt for these tax cuts for the rich. you are not doing it for economic growth. the trickle-down has not worked for 40 years and it just has not trickled and it ain't going to trickle. trickle-down economics has been debunked. this is not about work and work requirements. if it had been, we would have been expanding the third income tax credit.

this is not about helping small businesses. we would not be increasing the deductions instead of doing something meaningful for working families. don't tell me that this is what the maga base wanted. the maga base, as steve bannon told us, need medicaid. this is not what they asked for. and i'm telling you, anybody with basic understanding of math , including our colleagues in the freedom caucus, can tell you that this is not going to reduce our deficit at all. i just want to say you can fool yourself, but you cannot fool the real numbers. the thing that is so outrageous is to hear people talk about how this is going to help families, boost the child tax credit.

it is a trick. you do it temporarily so you can get through the 2026 election cycle. good luck with that. and then these benefits for children and elders and workers disappear. wow. the tax benefits to the ultra-wealthy so -- soar. three months into president trump's term, the chorus of maga and others is growing louder. this is not what they signed up for, and they are realizing this tax reconciliation bill is coming after them and will hurt their families. not only are you taking health care away from people. it will have access to fewer goods and services because of the tariffs. the promised jobs are not going to materialize.

i believe, as democrats believe, as democrats believed, in building from the bottom up. this means that none of our kids go hungry, that they all have access to higher polity education -- higher quality education, not just some of our kids. i urge our colleagues -- my colleagues to join me in voting no on this big an answer for billionaires -- big bonanza for billionaires. i yield back. >> well, here we are. the president's big, beautiful bill for billionaires. tax cuts come almost all of which go to the top 1%, paid for by the biggest cut to health care in american history. don't take my word for it. just days ago, the nonpartisan congressional budget office confirmed that at least 13.7 million americans will lose their health care because of this bill.

that is historic. i went back and checked. no other previous bill, no other previous law, no other previous event paused so many millions of americans -- caused so many millions of americans to lose their health care. not even the great depression. so congratulations, this is one hell of an achievement. and why? all to pay for tax cuts for the richest people in america, the top 1%. now, you can understand by many of us on the democratic side -- why many of us on the democratic side are attacking this awful proposal. but it is not just us. just yesterday, conservative republican from missouri senator josh hawley called cutting medicaid and the other health programs "morally wrong." he is right. but that is not all.

it turns out after cutting medicaid and the affordable care act and nutrition assistance and educational programs and on and on and on, even after all of them, all of those cuts, as large as they are, only pay for about 25% of the tax cuts for the rich. so how does this legislation pay for the rest of it? more added to the national credit card. our national debt will explode as a result of this. to the tune of almost $4 trillion more added to the national debt. i never want to hear ever again anyone on the other side lecture us about deficits and debt. no single piece of legislation in my time in congress will do more to add to the national debt than this one. the american people get it. they were asked in one opinion

poll do you support cutting medicaid to pay for tax cuts. 81% of the american people said no. that was before the congressional budget office confirmed that over 13 million americans will lose their health coverage. you can spin numbers and statistics. our twain once said there are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics. he will not be able to spin the 13.5 million americans losing their health care as the result of this bill. no amount of spinning will convince them to believe something contrary to what they are actually about to live. i say to all of my colleagues here, we can do better. we can ensure that we have tax relief for almost every american, and we can do it in a way that does not rip away health coverage for more than 13

million americans. i urge all of my colleagues to reject this big, beautiful bill for billionaires. i yield back. >> i moved to strike the last word. -- move to strike the last word. top-heavy tax cuts paid for by low income benefit cuts. president trump and the republican majorities in congress were narrowly elected by a little more than 1% with the simple hope to the american people that it would lower costs. the president declared he would bring prices down on day one. trump republicans are now breaking that promise. in fact, thanks in part to the unprecedented taxes trump has imposed on the american people through his nonsensical tariff plan, prices remain high and consumer inflation expectations have surged. americans are seeing the evidence of this broken promise everywhere. if you buy a cup of coffee or a used car or dozens of eggs, we

pay more now than before trump took office. on top of that, our economy took a nosedive the first quarter of the year, the first time it has contracted in years. many other indications are flashing red. economic uncertainty is at an all-time high, and conversations around the kitchen table are the same. everybody is scared. that brings us to today. my republican friends are hoping this multitrillion dollar giveaway to the wealthy will somehow dig them out of the hole the president has gotten himself into. if history is any guide, more tax cuts for the rich will not do much, if anything, to put the economy on further footing, to provide lasting assistance for working and middle-class americans. their model is the 2017 tax cuts and jobs act. trump and the republicans want to extend here, but it failed across the board. wages did not rise any faster, the economy did not grow any faster, and the bill did not pay for itself.

it just exploded our national debt. and like last time, the benefits in this bill overwhelmingly skew towards the ultra-wealthy. it is nice to have my friends talk about the tax cuts on tips, the tax cuts on overtime. this is a tiny part of this bill, a distraction from what is going on. they are trying to pull it to pass one on the american people by delivering massive benefits to millionaires and billionaires -- trying to pull a fast one on the american people by delivering massive benefits to millionaires and billionaires and giving tax breaks to the american people to help them get through one election cycle. these are the same folks who do not bad an eye when prices go up on a car or they go on vacation. the ultra-wealthy are the very last people who need a boost on their incomes. and yet my republican colleagues closely attended their needs in this bill, ensuring their tax rates stay low in states where

millions of dollars do not get taxed. making the legislation even worse is how my republican friends plan on offsetting tax. they want to undermine america's most fast-growing energy sources, jack up utility bills for working families, and do their loyal friends a big favor in the process. they want to got food assistance for the poorest americans and are planning on ripping health assurance away -- health insurance away from 14 million americans, including kids, seniors, and people with disabilities. i have a colleague who is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair. medicaid pays for his support programs. without that, his mother would not have been able to work full-time to support her family as a single mom for the past 20 years. these are the kinds of families this legislation will harm. all to help give the richest americans a tax break they do not need and will not change

their lives at all. trump and the republicans have said what their priorities are. at every turn, they choose to help the rich, often by taking money out of the pockets of working americans. this will further does it -- further divide our society between the -- i urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back. >> the gentlemen yields. mr. evans, you are recognized. >> i move to strike the last word. let's make one thing clear. the committee is here for one reason and only one reason. we are here today because president trump wants to make his billionaire buddies richer at the expense of working people. we are here because republican members want to help donald trump find ways to a lemonade

our health care for working families. republicans are not here to help those who are struggling. this bill if it passes will take away health care for millions of americans. i urge all my colleagues to do the right thing. vote no against this bill. i yield back, mr. speaker chairman. >> mr. snyder, you are recognized. rep. schneider: seriously, are the republicans really serious about taking health care away from 14 millions americans? are you ready to demand those earning less than $30,000, many of whom are going to see their families lose their health care because of the medicaid cuts, are you seriously going to vote to increase their tax burden? of those of you who spent your career is fiscal responsibility seriously now going to vote to

increase our national debt by $5 trillion in just nine years? the effect of the matter is there is nothing serious about this bill. this is not a serious exercise of partisan parsimony favoring the misfortunate, and especially the billionaire friends and family members of president trump. let's consider how we got to this moment. republicans were not serious on friday when they offered a 28 page bill that was nothing more than a feint. republicans were not serious yesterday when they dropped a 400 page substituting amendment nearly 24 hours ago that is neither complete nor germane. republicans are cramming us with what they are calling one big, beautiful bill, but it is really just a big package of gimmicks and ploys that will add more than $45 trillion to our debt by the middle of the century.

that is why we are doing this in such a rushed manner. why republicans are holding this meeting out into the dark of night when it could easily be held in broad daylight with constructive debate. in fact, if we wanted to, if they wanted to, we could probably have bipartisan collaboration. mr. chairman, i have received thousands of letters from my constituents terrified of what is going to happen to their families because of the republican bill, and for people dealing with life-threatening diagnoses who wonder if they will be able to continue their battle or be able to see their kids and grandchildren grow up. i have heard from parents of children with disabilities that rely on medicaid for long-term care. medicaid is a lifeline for these families, and they would not be able to afford to give the children the care they need with medicaid taken away. i've heard from one of my constituents whose son is autistic and receives home-based nervous is for medicaid. she cannot afford the support funds for her sons.

what is going to happen to her in her family of medicaid is taken away? i have heard of parents dealing with dementia, and their children wondering if they can provide than the long-term care they need and deserve. how do i tell these people the republicans' billable make their life better when it is so patently obvious that it will make their life harder? mr. chairman, in illinois, nearly three and a half million people are enrolled in medicaid. it is 20% of all illinois -- al. this big, beautiful bill would not make kids healthier, will not suddenly disappear anyone's disabilities, will not make nursing home care unnecessary. people's needs for these services will not go away, but by cutting medicaid, their access to life-sustaining, life-saving health care certainly will. hospitals will close, especially in rural committees already struggling to get care.

nursing homes will either have to close or raise prices, pushing here out of reach for countless seniors. we are here to consider that nearly 400 page bill. the tax policy in this bill is all smoke and mirrors. aliens of americans will be far worse off because of this -- millions of americans will be far worse off because of this bill. it was nothing beautiful in this bill. it is not going to help people who need support, gutting safety nets, and stealing food from families in need. americans will be worse off for generations to come. remember, republicans are adding more than $5 trillion to the national debt in 2020 -- in 2034 and $5 trillion by the middle of the century. a kid born today, before that kid turns 30, this nation will be $45 trillion in debt.

we could keep the current tax rates for 98% of all americans. everyone making less than $400,000 a year for a $1.8 trillion package, and we could responsibly cover that figure with smart solutions that help hard-working americans and families to not just help make ends meet but get ahead and help give their kids a better future. that is what should be doing with this bill. i yield back. >> mr. moore of utah, you are recognized strike the last word. rep. moore: thank you, chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to address a few things. i was not on this committee when the democrats did the american rescue plan, but there were just as many arguments on our side against the nature of that bill, and from that we saw an enormous

amount of relief spending that was put into the monetary supply and subsequently some of the worst inflation we have ever seen. what we are trying to do here is take what we have learned and what we knew from 2017, the tax provisions that took place in 2017, and what that does to economic growth with respect to the entire economy. let me highlight a few things that i think are getting me astounded to -- that are getting missed today in the conversation, and some things we are trying to address from 2017. in 2017, the standard deduction was doubled. the amount that you can write off on your tax liability was increased by 2x, both for individuals and married filing jointly. i don't know how to say this over and over again, how to make this settle in, but that is one of the largest provisions in the bill, along with the child tax credit, that goes directly -- the largest provisions in the bill, and the benefit goes

directly to middle income and lower income americans. this is not a bill for billionaire relief. i'm sorry, it is just a talking point. "the washington post" has refuted this over and over again. this is just rhetoric. you have to look at the actual pieces of the bill. the standard deduction was doubled. that means fewer people itemize. there was an issue with that, because charitable organizations realized fewer people are itemizing, they are less incentivized to give to charities because it is not a tax benefit, necessarily, because they are getting such a great big tax break via the standard deduction being increased so big. so what are we trying to do here? the charitable act, a bipartisan piece of legislation we have worked on for the last several years, the two years that i have been on. it is going to get enacted. it provides an above the line tax break for those people who

are contributing $10 to the salvation army, 100 dollars to their local boys and girls club, and just make sure we are encouraging organizations the united way to still get those small dollar donations that are some important. -- that are so important. we have not been able to do that for the last four years. this is a moment where we can do it because this tax bill, if it gets signed into law. those are the kind of things we are working on. there is making sure that -- i am a big supporter of private and family foundations. there are provisions in here that i have worked on to make sure to reduce the impact. this sector has grown dramatically, and there is already a tax on this sector and there is work being done on this. i have been working really hard to make sure that good work is being shown. there is so much focus in this particular tax bill on making sure that the world that exists

outside of public and private sector, the nonprofit sector is actually supported. lower income, middle income americans are getting a huge amount of tax relief through the extension of what was done in 2017, which is the majority of this bill. and then you add on things, new provisions in this bill that are targeting middle and low income americans. it flies in the face of it being just for the wealthy class. let me add in quickly the 199 cap a provision. this is hugely important for small businesses. you will hear from the economy, full sue are involved in this focusing on llcs -- folks who are involved in this focusing on llcs. this is giving a 20% to 23% increase on qualified business

income release. this is not some massive minutes it -- massive benefit to a small business type of provision. this is key to being sure -- making sure that you talk, for example, is a state that focuses heavily on small businesses. we are the backs of small businesses. it is key that they have tax relief that will help them continue to grow. we did a bipartisan tax bill just last year, last congress that had the provisions of the interest deductibility, bonus appreciation that got unanimous support across the board. those are the types of things we are focused on. a lot of the rhetoric is just going towards stuff that is not accurate. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields. i would like to recognize the ranking member. >> thank you. i had not intended to strike the last word. as the gentleman had a chance to look at the distribution tables? to equate $500 for a child with

hundreds of thousands of dollars that are going to go to individual filers at the top, billionaires, does not make any sense under the magnifying glass of critical analysis. how could we say this is relief for the little person who is going to get a buck a day compared to people who are multimillionaires who are going to derive an enormous benefit. digest the distribution tables. this is the bible of the ways and means committee when it comes to tax policy. i yield back my time. >> i'm going to yield to mr. thompson. >> i just want to add, in regard to the comments my friend from utah made about the talking points we are using, i think the ranking member is correct, we are using the distribution tables. this explains exactly who gets what, and the ranking member was very generous to suggest that

people on the lower end of the income spectrum get a buck a day. they actually get $.72 a day, vis-à-vis those on the other end who get $223 a day. these are not ways and means, democratic party talking points. these are the distribution tables, the coin of the round in the -- the coin of the realm in the tax world. to suggest we are making up numbers in order to make political points is absolutely ridiculous. i yield back. >> mr., you are recognized to strike the last word. >> thank you, mr. chair. we have heard what we could have of this 400 page bill that this legislation guts benefits to working families and gives tax breaks to billionaires, all the while adding trillions to our debt. by supporting it, you are giving up a commitment to this country.

i recognize how difficult it is to advance tax policies and balance physical response ability with economic growth, yet if you call yourself physically responsible or if you call yourself a responsible legislator, you have to realize how thoroughly this bill fails working families, all the while undermining the physical state of our nation. the larger reconciliation bill advances cuts to medicaid, a program that provides health care to over 71 million americans. this bill would institute work requirements that would both cut out care spending and push people to work. i get that there is dignity in work, but the problem is less with that principle than with the implementation of such a program. let's be clear. a few people that receive medicaid do not work. just 8% of working age able-bodied medicaid recipients are unemployed without an excuse. yet it is very difficult to create a policy that targets that 8% that does not sweep

others who are vulnerable. recently, arkansas tried this. it was such a failure that a court stopped the work requirements yes that -- less than a year after it started. why? way too much red tape that led to 18,000 people losing health care coverage, and it did not increase employment. and in 2023, the cbo found a similar house republican plan for work requirements would not increase employment and would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs because of in health care spending. i get the idea of work requirements, but they also feed that ideological urge that medicaid should not be an entitlement. but the fact of the matter is, medicaid is a benefit that working families rely on, yet this bill sacrifices that program for billionaires. you are sticking us with this bill that not only worsens the lives of working families, you are worsening the unsustainable trajectory of our nation. currently our federal debt now exceeds 36 trillion dollars, about the size of our economy,

but this bill would increase the national debt by $5.3 trillion over the next 10 years, something that is unthinkably irresponsible. yet this bill takes the easy way out when it comes to adding to our debt and deficit, so much so that they want to in or the cost of extending the lower tax rates of the tcga. working families will not be able to ignore the consequences of this bill. interest rates will go up, mortgages will go up, and the average american income will go down. this bill is about stealing from peter to pay paul. you are stealing from working families to pay for billionaires. you are stealing not just from our children, you are stealing from the future of this country. by convincing yourself that you are fixing the problem, you are feeling to be honest with yourself about meaningful fiscal reform. by voting for this bill, you are just making things worse. that is why i oppose this bill and so should you.

i yield back. >> mr. gomez is recognized to strike the last word. >> i did not think republicans could get any worse, but here we are. but one thing that they do is finally admitted that this is one "big, beautiful bill." calling it beautiful is like putting lipstick on a pig. you might put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig, and the american people do not want to kiss that swine. at the same time, the american people are witnessing one of the biggest transfers of wealth in the history of this country. in the energy and commerce committee just down the hall from here, republicans are voting to slash almost $700 billion from medicaid, which is the health care for the working class, so that republicans in this room can give trillions of

dollars in tax breaks to billionaires and the largest corporations in this country. republicans are literally stealing from the poor to get to the rich. this is in broad daylight without any shame. they are actually proud of it. and who loses when the republicans cut medicaid? it is you, the american people. 51% of new moms and their babies who are covered by medicaid, they will lose. seniors that do not get enough coverage through medicare will lose. the son or daughter that does not earn enough to cover their parents' assisted-living facility? they will lose. people who live in rural committees will lose as communities will lose. and who represents those constituents? the republicans. the republicans claim to be the profamily party but have hardly passed anything that actually values families. republicans are making it harder for working people to get by, harder for families to welcome a new child, get postpartum care,

or cover basic medical needs during one of their most vulnerable times in their lives. but they do not care. families are struggling. many are working two to four jobs a week to make ends meet. they are already stretched thin by the increasing cost of food, housing, and childcare, and now trump's tariffs are hitting them even more, costing them almost another $4900 a year in taxes. this does not uplift families, it pushes them down. voters sent us here to liver costs and create real opportunity. that is what we should be doing. we should make the child tax credit fully refundable and advance of all, make it to her make it pay out monthly. that is how we cut child poverty in this country by 40% during the one year it was implemented. we should help families by their first home and build wealth. we should make childcare affordable and guarantee paid family leave. but this bill does not do any of

that. that is because the republicans choose the new billionaire establishment that has taken root in d.c. over their own constituents come over the working class, the ones that actually talk, that they fight for. but we know that is bs. we know that is not what they are doing, because the tax cuts do not lie. tax breaks do not lie. and the people who are going to get rich are going to be better off -- you are going to be better off are the folks who are higher on the income ladder. that is who gets wealthy. so it is one big bill. they are absolutely right. and they are cutting medicaid in order to pay for it. they are cutting snap in order to pay for it. they are cutting everything that working people rely on. so to my republican colleagues, i have one -- i have a few questions for you.

are you for the babies or the billionaires? are you for seniors over the billionaires? are you for rural communities or the billionaires? are you for working men and women who are struggling in this economy, struggling to save up, to take care of a senior family member, to put a child through college, are you for the billionaires? words are cheap. it is your vote that matters. and we all know how you are going to vote, and you are going to say that you are not taking from the poor, that you are not taking from the middle-class. i want you to be honest with the american people. stop pissing on her leg and telling us it is raining. with that, i yield back. >> i would like to strike the last word.

economic chaos, cruelty and corruption. that is what lies before us. there is a lot of attention on a $400 million airplane. that is a distraction, taking away from the fact that this bill screws america. the cuts in this bill are raking the game, stacking the deck for billionaires while leaving working families to play with the losing hand. while we are dealing with the chaos in our committee, the other committee down the hall is making the biggest cut to health care in u.s. history. in the other committee down the hall, they are cutting nutrition assistance for children and seniors, and they are planning on doing so in the middle of the night. under the cover of dark, because you do not have enough courage to bring this bill before the

american people to read it aloud and tell them who actually benefits. why are they doing this? to pay for their screw america tax cuts for billionaires. mr. chairman, the committee is not in order. let's break down those cuts. if you are lucky, you might get a thousand dollars, but elon musk will pocket over 300,000 per year because of this big him a beautiful bill. that is $762 every single day. their screw america plans to got 300 billion dollars in new private sector investments in clean energy solutions. how does it screw americans? simple, by repealing the credits , that raises household energy costs $110 a year. that means the so-called has another tax cut for middle-class families is now worth $890.

this bill does nothing to address the housing crisis, nothing. nearly half of the renters in nevada spend an excessive portion of their monthly income on housing. democrats have a plan for that. republicans are handing out another tax break to jeff bezos. rinse in las vegas have risen 30%. what was once $1500 a month is now $1900. because institutional speculators have bought up homes. that is why my home act would directly address this, but republicans just got to the ftc and handed more power to corporate landlords to jack up the rent. so that 890 tax cut that was worth $440 -- now is worth 440 dollars. even a free program to help people file their taxes is on the chopping block. industry estimates show that on

average americans spend about $200 to file a simple return. so this is just more money out of your pocket. and we cannot forget the blanket tariffs, which are taxes that american consumers pay, not foreign governments. president trump is weaponizing tariffs, not to boost u.s. manufacturing and workers, but to punish allies and raise costs on consumers. that is a tax hike, one that could cost the average u.s. household $2800. remember that $440 i talked about? it is now wiped out. you are now losing over $2000. remember elon musk and other billionaires like him? we are still that she is still saving a thousand dollars per day -- he is still saving $8,000 per day. how are republicans planning to give elon musk more money?

by slashing programs like nutrition assistance, like medicaid! 2/3 of seniors in nursing homes are on medicaid. my grandmother lived in a nursing home for 27 years of her life after suffering a debilitating stroke. one out of 10 of our veterans are on medicaid. these are lifelines for more than 500000 and 811,000 nevadans respectively. show me where there is relief for working families, for rural communities. make rural america great again? their method, a tax break for large international corporations. republicans want to give the american people, they want to give you pennies while handing out gold bars to billionaires. as we begin this process, and yeah, i am going to fight all night, mr. chairman, i am asking my colleagues to break from donald trump, break from this

cruelty, break from this economic chaos, and join with us to chart a different path forward, one that ensures that we give permanent tax breaks to moms and dads and small businesses, not to billionaires and big corporations. let's get serious about lowering costs, work with us to hold corporate interests accountable. and if you are serious about serving the people, not the lobbyists in d.c., then work with us and not this screw america bill that inflicts so much pain on the american people. i yield back. >> notes have been called. -- votes have been called. we will recess until the last vote has been taken, and the committee will start immediately after the second vote. [gavel]

>> today the house ways and means committee is considering the tax portion of the budget package. it contains a number of tax cuts proposed by president trump, including temporarily exempting tips and overtime wages from income tax. it also includes a proposal to raise the state and local text induction cap from $10,000 to $30,000. debates are expected through the night. this hearing currently in a break. >> the committee will come to order. >> today the committee will come

forward to deliver tax relief for working families. the one big, beautiful bill is the key to making america great again. this moment has been years in the making. while democrats were defending irs audits on the middle class and tax carveouts for the wealthy, republicans on this committee got on the road to hear from real americans about how the 2017 tax cuts benefited them. this bill was not drafted by special interests k street lobbyists. it was drafted by the american people in communities across the country. we heard from a mother in iowa who can afford the care required for her son living with disabilities because of lower taxes and the double child tax credit, the 2017 tax cuts delivered. we met another iowan, a farmer named jolene, who takes comfort

knowing her sons will not have to sell off the family's farms' acreage, thanks to a tax exception. an accountant for small businesses in georgia shared heavy small businesses tax deduction helps her clients create jobs. anti-north carolina manufacturer , courtney, was able to give every employee a raise, expand her workforce by 20%, and start an apprenticeship program training the next generation because of the tax relief delivered from 2017. after the trump tax cuts went into effect, real household incomes grew by $500,000. rices were stable. 500 million jobs were created. investment poured into every corner of america, and the economy grew faster and

so-called -- fan so-called experts in washington ever predicted. if the trump tax cuts expire, every single american will face on average a tax increase of 22%. democrats who vote against this tax relief will be voting for the largest tax hike in american history. the loss of the small business deduction would shutter doors on main street. working-class communities would be devastated by the loss of more than one million manufacturing jobs. family farms would be sold off. this bill makes the 2017 tax cuts permanent. locking in a low or tax rates for workers, and farmers. these provisions offer the certainty and support small businesses and manufacturers need to invest in america and bring back the economic prosperity of president trump's

first term. the 2017 trump tax cuts gave a boost to workers. the new 2025 tax cuts will provide even more tax relief by delivering on president trump's promise to hard-working americans. it provides that relief immediately. a single long waiting tables will no longer owe taxes to the federal government on her hard-earned tips. the lineman who worked countless hours restoring power in the aftermath of devastating natural disasters in places like north carolina and my home state of missouri will no longer pay taxes on overtime pay. seniors like my aunt, who had to take a job as a door greeter at our local walmart to supplement her social security income after the loss of my uncle, her

husband, will receive much-needed tax relief in this bill. working families will be spared from a $1700 tax hike. parents will benefit from a 25% increase in the child tax credit that will grow with inflation and give help toward the high cost of childcare and education. americans will pay less for health care through expanded eligibility for health savings accounts, the elimination of bureaucratic waste and abuse, and the end of illegal immigrants access to obamacare's premium tax credits. main street will grow again. this legislation makes the small business deduction permanent and increases the -- increases it to 23%. helping small businesses compete

with a lower rate. mom and pop small businesses will power the economy to new heights, adding one million new jobs annually at over 750 billion dollars in growth over the next decade. opportunity zones will ensure low income and distressed communities, especially those in rural areas, share in this surge of new investments, new jobs, and new possibilities. 2 million family-owned farms and small businesses will benefit from a death tax exemption that is larger, permanent, and indexed to inflation, keeping the legacy of family farming alive in america. this tax bill will jumpstart a revival of manufacturing in our country. we are delivering on the president's pledge of lower taxes for companies who make the smart choice to build new factories in america, working-class families buying derrick mein cars will pay no

taxes on their auto loan interest. and business will boom with the restored r&d credit, full expensing, and interest deductibility, creating jobs at home and helping america and abroad. the story of american manufacturing will transform from one of lost jobs, abandoned factories, and forgotten towns to good paying jobs for americans in new, state-of-the-art facilities. this bill also means the end of washington's special treatment of wealthy elites. exclusive universities with the largest endowments, many whom have failed to protect their jewish students, will pay an endowment tax as high as the corporate tax rate. democrats' bad tax policies that shower the wealthy, the big banks, and china with billions of dollars in special interest tax breaks will be replaced by good tax policy, helping the working class.

illegal immigrants will no longer be able to claim the refundable tax credits. foreign nations will no longer profit from the biden-era surrender of our tax revenues. hardworking americans like wait -- waitresses, mechanics and farmers are the one that serves them, not the wealthy and well-connected. a 3.2% boost in long run g.d.p. will translate to $4500 of more income for the average family. my democrat colleagues will continue to ignore the facts and make false claims about who benefits from this bill. these are the same falsehoods

they repeated after the 2017 tax cuts. under which the share of taxes paid by the wealthy increased while lower income americans paid less. i come from a community in missouri of less than 5000 people. today one in six people there live in poverty. i grew up a family of four most of my life in a single-wide trailer. my priority is the working class because i'm a product of the working class. this bill delivers for those american families just like mine who have struggled to get ahead for far too long. where i come from, you work until the job is done. the american people, they expect it. they voted for it. they deserve it, and they are tired of political grandstanding. they want real relief, and congress must deliver it as quickly as possible. i urge all of my colleagues, put aside the politics, focus on the people, and vote to advance this bill.

remember the americans we met traveling on the road and the people in each of your districts who are better off today thanks to the trump tax cuts. together, with the one big, beautiful bill, we can ignite the second trump economic boom and improve the lives of millions of our neighbors back home. i'm now pleased to recognize the ranking member from massachusetts, mr. neal, for his opening statement. mr. neal: thank you, mr. chairman. so here we are, one big, beautiful tax cut for billionaires legislation. the republican pathology with tax cuts for wealthy people continues. the theology for a long time until it was put to rest was that tax cuts would pay for themselves. well, that is just what it was, theology. then we heard in the middle of the iraq war the republican whip

in the house of representatives say, quote, it was patriotic to cut taxes in a time of war. then we were told it would always be about accelerated growth. well, we'll take the clinton growth rates any day. in 2017, our colleagues on the republican side passed a tax cut that was supposed to pay for itself, raise wages and help working families. none of that happened. instead it left everyday americans behind. this bill as currently proposed will cut health care from 14 million members of the american family. now they want to double down on the same playbook. one that rigs the system for billionaires while everybody else pays the price. here's the real kicker. they're going to ignore the baseline for 2017. just make people think it never happened. so they borrow $2.3 trillion in 2017 for a tax cut that did not have greater growth. they don't even want to pay attention to that.

the other part of this, how about raising the debt ceiling by $4 trillion to pay for their tax cut, which will be with borrowed money? let's be clear -- the trump economy didn't work for all american families then, and it won't work now. what we've seen is the continued chaos. no real trade deals, no lower prices, no economic stability, empty ports, anxious markets, and rising costs while the president blames everybody but himself. complain about the debt on monday and then borrow $4 trillion on tuesday to add to the debt. this legislation pours gasoline on the fire that's already burning. americans are buckling under the chaos that our republican colleagues have helped to create, and this bill will make it worse. no wonder a strong majority of americans believe that this could trigger a recession. they're right.

this isn't about growth or prosperity. it's about protecting the ultra-wealthy again. let me point something else out that's really important. we haven't seen the joint committee on taxation distribution tables yet. you know why? because that shows who will get what, and it will give the american people a chance to contrast what's going to happen to those at the top and what's going to happen to those at the bottom who will get a dollar a day in tax relief. 70% of the benefits in this bill go to the top 20% of the american family. that's before the trump tariff tax takes $2800 out of our household budgets each year and then republicans gutting health care that will just drive people to emergency rooms when the hospitals don't close. that's not a tax plan. it's a wealth grab. while the richest americans are raking in piles of cash, they want to gut the affordable care act, medicare, medicaid, and snap. this bill is the greatest loss

of health care in our history. according to the congressional budget office, 14 million americans will lose their health care plan. two in five pregnancies are covered by medicaid. get funds long-term care, addiction services, mental health treatments. we all know people that have those challenges and problems. they're our constituents. cuts like these will devastate families and entire communities, especially in rural areas. and what are they offering in exchange for this pain? the same tired promises that tax cuts automatically will give you more growth even though the c.b.o. says that's false. in fact, extending that tax scam can slow the economy, not expand it. it doesn't have to be this way. republicans have chosen this path. they could have expanded the child tax credit, they could have made the a.c.a. subsidies permanently, they could have made meaningful progress with long-term care and housing. instead another $2 trillion

giveaway to the wealthiest americans. when they start talking about the deficits, don't forget, $10 trillion worth of tax cuts that have never been paid for. they'll use this hole as an excuse to cut medicare, medicaid and social security next. it's the same pattern. blow off the budget, then cut the programs that people rely on. we deserve a tax system that works. we deserve peace of mind and not the fear that our retirement plans will be taken away. we will continue to fight for the future as democrats, and we intend to lay out for the american people precisely what this legislation means. it is a tax cut for billionaires. i yield back my time, mr. chairman. chair smith: thank you. only other business today is consideration of the committee print providing legislative recommendations to comply with the reconciliation directives included in section 2001 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2025 h.con.res. 14. the committee will now proceed to consideration of the committee print.

>> mr. chairman, at this point i reserve a right to object to your unanimous consent request and raise a point of order raising its consideration. chair smith: so the next line is without objection. mr. doggett: it is with objection -- reservation with objection. chair smith: state your objection. mr. doggett: certainly. mr. chairman, i just ask to be heard briefly about the amendment and the nature -- chair smith: speak to your objection. mr. doggett: my point of order is under house rule 16 clause 7 in that your 18-page bill that you filed friday night is now a 389-page bill that includes multiple provisions that were not in any way referenced on friday night from the salt cap to the $20 billion voucher plan to just one provision after another. and under house rule 16 clause

7, it is designed to help the members of congress properly legislate by knowing what's going to be considered before we act. i have people in my district who will spend months researching a $40,000 car. we're being asked to consider a $5 trillion tax bill where we don't have the information since this bill deviates so much from the one that was filed friday night. i have, mr. chairman, the house practice manual, and it makes very clear that on page 565 that the burden of proof is on the offer of an amendment that deviates so fundamentally and that this applies to amendments in the nature of a substitute. so i just ask you to clarify. perhaps your broad definition of germaneness, if that's your definition, will be applied similarly to any democratic

amendment that will be offered. i'm trying to ensure that we don't have one standard that applies to your amendment and another standard that applies to mine or the others that might be offered. so perhaps you could explain why you think this is germane to what you offered on friday night. chair smith: the house substitute that we provided provides with all house rules and so the gentleman is more than happy to discuss any of the conversations when we move forward within the substitute. mr. doggett: so your position is our amendments, for example, that deal with the affordable care act enhanced credits, though they're not dealt with directly in your bill, that germaneness will be permitted to debate all matters on the merits?

chair smith: we'll consider a case by case basis as we move forward. mr. doggett: sometimes your consideration tends to move a little one way. chair smith: you stated your objection. we're going to move on. mr. doggett: all right. my objection -- i raise a point of order that -- chair smith: state your point of order. mr. doggett: the further proceedings on the amendment offered by is not injury -- the amendment in the nature of a substitute includes multiple provisions, salt, the vouchers, the denial of health care -- chair smith: the gentleman will suspend for a moment. mr. doggett: surely. chair smith: the amendment in the nature of a substitute hasn't been called up yet so it's not timely to raise a point of order at this moment on -- mr. doggett: well, you're about to make a unanimous consent request that we dispense with any objections so if you want to make that request i will renew -- chair smith: i was about to say, the measure will be considered as read and opened for amendment at any point if there is no objection. mr. doggett: are you referring to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?

chair smith: we are not there yet. mr. doggett: when you're there i have a reservation of objection and it will be somewhat similar to the one i stated. chair smith: without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. at this time, i offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute which was distributed in advanced, along with the green sheet explaining it. without objection, the amendment -- mr. doggett: mr. chairman, at that point i will reserve an objection and raise a point of order. chair smith: and that is the appropriate time. mr. doggett: thank you very much. chair smith: that is not the appropriate time. does the gentleman wish to reserve a point of order on germaneness? mr. doggett: i reserve a point of order under the house rule that i cited, hoping we can comply with the rules or if you're adjusting the rules that it will apply the same to democrats as republicans. house rule 16 clause 6.

chair smith: the committee is complying with all house rules and we will continue to comply with all house rules. mr. doggett: mr. chairman, you are not complying with house rule 6 clause 7 which applies to amendments in the nature of a substitute of this type. and it's obvious from your expansion from 28 pages to -- chair smith: will the gentleman suspend? mr. doggett: surelysurely. chair smith: after i read this next line the gentleman will have an opportunity to raise the objection. without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point and considered base text for purpose of amendment.

mr. doggett: mr. chairman, at that point i will reserve an objection and raise a point of order. chair smith: this is the time you need to raise it, not reserve it. mr. doggett: well, i'm reserving it because i'm hopeful that you'll give me an explanation that germaneness will apply the same way to democratic amendments as you have applied it to your amendment in the nature of a substitute. and if that's not the case and there's some possibility that our amendments will be rejected as nongermane while yours, which is obviously nongermane, is ok to consider, i'm willing to withdraw the objection. really was hoping to get more insight from you about your approach to germaneness and the vast change in this bill from friday night, which gave us almost no time to prepare amendments or to be prepared to discuss its multiple provisions of a big beautiful bill. i'm hoping that the house rules will be followed while closely

the rule of law has been followed by the administration. chair smith: so the amendment in the nature of a substitute is germane, and we'll move forward as it being germane. mr. doggett: mr. chairman, i raise a point of order against further consideration and request a vote on my point of order as described that the amendment in the nature of a substitute is not germane to the base bill. it legislates on a different subject matter. it has a different fundamental purpose from the bill that you noticed, and the burden is on you to show germaneness and you've done nothing to show germaneness here. you're not only met your burden, you've not even offered an explanation as to why you deviated from a bill of 28 pages and went to 389 pages with more new provisions than you had old provisions. chair smith: ok. so the chair's prepared to rule that this is germane. so you're objecting to that and you want a -- mr. doggett: i want a record vote on it. chair smith: ok. >> point of order, mr. chairman.

chair smith: you can't entertain another point of order while this is pending. >> can i ask a question about this vote before us? chair smith: it's not debatable or discussion. we're going to it. >> no discussion of germaneness, in other words, you'll rule on germaneness without consideration. chair smith: does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point of order of germaneness? mr. doggett: proceed. -- i do. chair smith: proceed. mr. doggett: mr. chairman, when you add multiple provisions that are wholly unrelated to the 28 pages that you presented us on friday evening. that friday evening presentation seemed to be designed to minimize scrutiny of what you were doing. but not included in that 28 pages is any mention of a salt wha whatsoever, a matter that has deemed some discussion in not only the democratic caucus but in the republican caucus.

your expansive definition includes an entirely new $20 billion voucher system that seems to encourage parents to abandon our public schools. you help throw millions of americans out of their health plans. you repeal all the renewable energy credits. that was not in friday night which have been generating so many jobs, especially in republican districts. you've given the trump administration dangerous new authority to impose capital punishment on nonprofit universities, civic, and chartable organization -- chartable organizations. and you have established new category of tax-preferred savings accounts that arwere not in the house bill. this rule helps those on both sides of the aisle. as members of congress be prepared to legislate. it's designed to prevent hasty decisions. mr. chairman, last tuesday it

was speaker johnson himself who said the legislation that we're considering right now would be, quote, the most important, the most consequential legislation that we'll ever be involved in in our lifetimes and arguably one of the biggest in the history of congress. shouldn't a matter of such importance, according to the speaker, be in full compliance with the rules of the house of representatives? as such, a momentous measure we ought to be complying with the house rules and the precedents are clear. under the house, there have been bills brought to the floor that will be vbl -- have been rejected because they did not comply with the house rules. on friday night you set out what we were supposed to be prepared to legislate on tuesday. and then hours ago, you totally altered it. it was you and the president were describing it one big beautiful bill it is one big hidden beauty. you didn't want anyone to be admiring the flawless beauty closely.

by introducing a new subject matter not contemplated in friday's base text and changing the fundamental purpose of measures before us today, this proposed substitute is manifestly nongermane. if you're rejecting the bill that you introduced on friday night and asking us to consider this monstrosity, that is your right, but it is a right that could only be exercised after >> we will leave this and take you like to capitol hill or the house ways and means committee is considering the tax portion of the republican 2025 budget package. includes tax cuts proposed by president trump. debate and amendment votes are expected to run through the night. you are watching live coverage on c-span3. >> a bill for the president and billionaire donors. they want the american people to believe it is a growth bill. jobs bill.

giving money to the rich does not raise wages or grow new jobs. how do we know? because the 2017 tax bill did not grow the economy, did not spur manufacturing, did not bring new jobs. we know this because the numbers tell us that. the 2017 tax bill gave biden and he became president a gross domestic productivity rate of -1.4% when he was inaugurated. this year when trump was inaugurated he was given a domestic productivity rate of 2.7%. private business investments were up to 3.9% when biden left office. while trump's last term, it was

-6.3 percent. trump gave biden a manufacturing drop of -.5 percent. biden was able to raise it at the end of four years to just under 1% growth. this bill makes it even worse. private sector growth stripping out 300 billion dollars in private sector investments in clean energy. doing nothing to support the housing crisis and young americans, middle-class americans face, whether it is through rental or the ability to buy a home. small business, 87% of the pass-throughs my republican colleagues are talking about and want small businesses to believe they will get, 87% is going to the top 1%. not small businesses barely trying to make it that the biden administration supported. health care, 70 million rely on

federal support health care. low income children, pregnant women, seniors, nursing homes, people with disabilities, veterans. to pay the big super pac donors trump elected, they are going to strip 13 million americans of health care, to give those donors additional money. while you may not be on medicaid, it is going to affect you. let's look no further than my home of the u.s. virgin islands. let me talk about what happened in puerto rico. puerto rico has not received sufficient medicaid. we are on a tap, on the block grants everyone is talking about. puerto rico had federal spending up to this amount, and they have had to make it up to that. the trend led to them going into bankruptcy.

with the debt and the burden they had to make. that was all predicated on debt to puerto rico had. in the u.s. virgin islands, our hospitals face a funding gap treating uncompensated patients because we are capped at the amount of money we received from the federal government and have to make up the rest or just don't have it that we have taken people off of the medicaid rolls. so much so that our doctors have said they do not have sufficient blood, oxygen, anesthesiologists to be able to meet their hippocratic oh to be able to function in a hospital. that is what is going to happen with the rest of america if we continue on this trend. and for what? why are we doing all of this? what is the point? the point is to give tax breaks to the wealthy. to refund the top 1% will gain

770 $8,000 per year. america, you are the side chick. we are the side chick to the one person they've married, the donor class they have married and are giving them the real money. they are getting the real money and you are getting the little piece on the side. that is what is happening to us. we are getting less than a dollar a day while individuals who do not need the money like elon musk, jeff bezos, that whole front row at inauguration, the $1 trillion of net worth that was there had to be paid off. that is what this bill is about. i yield back. >> thank you you, mr. chairman. we know our country is divided. people are divided. we see in this committee how divided we are. there is like to complete different universes we are

living in. kind of the same debate going on most of my adult life. republicans are saying it is a big dutiful bill that will get the economy moving, it will be great for everybody. the democrats are saying it is a big oak and promises bill where the deficits are going to explode, we are going to cut health insurance for some of the most meaning people in the country, and we are giving tax cuts to some of the wealthiest in the country that are unnecessary. people are concerned about things like the economy, immigration, taxes, crime. people are concerned about health care. we are fighting with each other all the time. this is an effort to do one party, my way or the highway. democrats have done it before in power instead of us working together. we were concerned about deficits. everybody is talking about deficits. the president talking about how he will dramatically reduce the deficits.

chairman smith concerned about the deficits. others are concerned about deficits. as we heard earlier today, this will increase deficits by $4 trillion. elon musk and doge said we are going to cut things. set a goal of $2 trillion in cuts. then they said we can only come up with $150 billion in cuts. i guarantee you, mark my words, most cuts will end up costing money because they were done in such a reckless manner. why can't we work together to try and find places we can go after wiest, fraud, and abuse, efficiencies in things so we can work together to solve the problems people care about? why are we reducing the highest tax rate, -- keeping the highest tax rate from where it was before? 39 .6 until 2017. under the obama administration,

the clinton administration, the wealthiest americans was 39.6. reduced down to 37% for people making over $600,000. over $400,000, 10% to 35%. why can't we go back to 39.6%? it will not hurt those folks. we will do fine having that back again. and we will not be increasing the deficit and we can pay for those things we should be working on to provide for the american people. why can't we use the doge committee to have democrats and republicans working together to find places for us to find efficiencies? tariffs, they can be good in some instances. what we have seen thus far has been reckless. the stock market to go rushing -- crashing down, people were negatively affected by the way it was implemented. why can't we use this committee

to figure out the appropriate taxes and a way to implement it so we can hold adversaries accountable and get our friends to make markets more attractive for us? let's try and work together to address the problems the american people face. concerned about rising prices, wages, benefits, their ability to make it in america. they are concerned about the border. let's work together on the border. they are concerned about taxes. let's do a reasonable tax policy that benefits the middle and the working class. instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthiest in america who don't really need it. let's focus on public safety and health care. i think if we work together we can get more things done instead of living in this bizarre world where we have this current -- completely different view of what is going on right now. what we see happening is an

accurate portrayal of what is happening. there's a lot of good people on the republican side who want to accomplish the same type of goals we want to accomplish. instead of trying to ram something down our throats, especially for people losing their health insurance, 14 million stories of people going through some of the worst times in their lives, losing their health insurance. it will be awful. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. forgive me for doing this. i wanted to geek out for just a moment because i've had people mention it. given at distributional tables, parts of it -- we need to do work on -- i'm going to try and make a chart. that was actually funny.

for everyone to take a quick look at the first, less than 15,000. as pointed out, thank you for guiding me in the right direction. very small, tiny changes, that when we almost have to set aside and build. if you look at the present law, as it expires, you will actually take a look at multiple layouts of the distributional chart. the numbers are different. chasing down why the numbers are coming up. you also need to understand you look at those charts, particularly when you get into the top 6, 7, that has the pass through income built into it. it is total sort of income.

so we are going to make a little bit of an attempt to chart this because we are trying to get a sense -- most people don't understand in 2017, the rates came down. but it became more aggressive. the top income we are paying a higher percentage of federal income taxes than prior to t cja. our friends here who worry about -- we are going to try and make a chart and demonstrate. i think that nature of the curve has stayed pretty much the same. the generalization, the rates coming down staying stable and popping up at the end of next year. with that, one last thing i want to throw out, i care

passionately about the debt. i'm terrified about interest fragility and those things. i have two pieces alleged -- legislation, one we have been working on since last summer. we have it getting scored. a stunning amount of money because it would reform a big portion of the ma. for those of you, this is not the proper place. some of you really care about the debt and deficits. come talk to me because some democrats have been very kind helping us to look for savings and reform. it turns out when you are doing something complex, it takes time. a lot of talent to help you. i yield back area >> the gentleman for one second. on the distribution table on the first page of the distribution table, it shows the people from

500,000 dollars to $1 million a year. $1 million and above. between those groups, revenues go from about $1.7 trillion down to about $1.5 trillion. approximately, a little bit less. $200 billion a year over 10 years is $2 trillion. you can cut $2 trillion if you did not lower the taxes on people making $500,000. you are concerned about the debt, $2 trillion on the people who make over $500,000 a year. >> good observation. we have to break it down to how much of it is pass through business. >> i know it is pass through. of all things, why should we

provide tax cuts -- >> we also need to understand how much of it may be capital gains. we need to break down and figure out what categories it encompasses. i'm fascinated with the tables. so we will work through that. >> thank you. seeing there are no additional members to strike the last word, we will move on to amendments. are there any amendments in the nature of a substitute? >> i reserve a point of order. >> do you have a motion or amendment? >> will the gentlemen suspend while we look at -- >> gentlemen, proceed.

>> as you can tell, a straightforward amendment that would strike the unprecedented ford trillion dollar debt limit increase in this bill. a $4 trillion increase that is the largest enumerated increase in the u.s. history. while raising the debt ceiling is necessary to avoid, the change of the magnitude does not belong in this type of partisan reconciliation package packed with policies that will be deep in our debt and deficit. during the president's first term, the debt limit was raised three times. each time through a bipartisan agreement and never on the scale and never through reconciliation. most recently congress raised the debt limit through the bipartisan fiscal responsibility act which resulted in $1.3 trillion in primary deficit reduction. this bill would undo that progress and add $2.6 trillion

to the size of the deficit. if senate makes changes in line with the reconciliation instructions, it will be for times as much. now is not the time for a bill that exports -- experts calculate could add an additional $6.9 trillion to the national debt. as it is, the debt stands at a staggering $36.2 trillion. almost the size of our economy. interest payments alone on the debt total one trillion annually. more than we spend on education or medicare. instead of investing in our future we are paying down past debts. combining the fiscally reckless policies and the bill with a historic debt limit increase is irresponsible. it will put us in a deeper hole. especially when it comes to the debt and deficit. 5.3 trillion dollars in

additional debt proposed will hurt working americans. extending the tax cuts and jobs act without offsets will increase the cost of the average mortgage by $600 to $1200 per year. increased deficits will push interest rates higher. from homeownership to business investment. since this president took office, the physical trajectory has only deteriorated. last week the treasury department increased the forecast for the next quarter by an astonishing 317%. it now expects to issue $514 billion in net marketable debt in the next quarter below. we cannot afford it reconciliation bill that can add as much to the deficit as all of the emergency borrowing for covid relief. we are going to stabilize our fiscal outlook, not worse it with another irresponsible debt fueled tax plan. this amendment is very straightforward. it is an amendment that would

ensure we have this critical debate rather than giving the green light to massive tax giveaways with an unprecedented partisan increase. thank you, mr. chairman. >> any discussion on the amendment? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to make the body aware here that secretary besson recently warned failure to increase the debt limit would wreak havoc on our financial system and diminish america's security in global leadership position. in my view, republicans will not let that happen. i will also note minority leader hakeem jeffries and senate minority leader schumer admitted increasing the debt limit is about meeting obligations of the government has already made. in this bill, republicans are taking the first fiscally

responsible step to ensure the country does not default on his obligations. i yield back. >> thank you, on the gentlemen's proposal. is it a widely held position in the republican party these days it is responsible to raise the debt limit? is it only moments like this being used to camouflage a tax cut for wealthy people? i have listened to these arguments for a long time. in my experience we used to do the responsible thing. if you voted for the expenditure you voted to raise the debt ceiling afterwards. that was cast aside. in this chamber. responsible thing is to honor our debts. at the same time i have listened to these arguments on the other side where you can cut taxes, spending, and refused to raise the national debt unless there is a republican in the office of the white house. >> further discussion.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm proud of my colleagues amendment. we are talking about a bill that will add $5 trillion of debt, irresponsibly add $5 trillion to the national account. as my colleague said earlier, we don't need to do this. i'm sure we can do it in a very bipartisan way. look at ways to make sure those making less than $500,000 a year don't see an increase in their taxes at the end of this year. but we figure out a way to start paying down the debt. $36 trillion we currently have. we know a big portion of that debt is because of the decisions to save our economy, save american lives during the pandemic area that was the right

decision then. it is also a decision that the cost of it should be borne by those who benefited from it. not passed on to future generations. it is estimated the bill we are talking about, this one big beautiful giant bill will have $45 trillion to the debt in the middle of the next century. that number is income principle, or should be for most of us. everyone in this room should be saying is this the best we can do for our children and grandchildren? instead, a sentence and a 400 bill in the dark of night. you have a provision that says we will give a blank check to the president and the current congress. we should be working at deficit reduction, not deficit expansion. we have a chance to do that. as ranking member, we've talked about what was now a generation ago under president clinton.

a bipartisan way with the republican congress we balanced our budget. we balance our budget by addressing revenues and expenditures. that is what we should be talking about. instead we are talking about a giveaway to the president's friends and billionaires like elon musk that take away from working families. 14 million americans will lose their health insurance because of this republican one big beautiful bill. should not be burying a debt ceiling clause in the bill. we should be having robust debate about everything rather than in the middle of the night. the facade of a conversation we are having. i support this amendment and i yield back heard >> further discussion? seeing none, the question is on agree and to the amendment offered by mr. pinetta.

the clerk will call the roll. >> [calling roll] >> mr. arrington. mr. estes, no. mr. smucker. mr. smucker no. mr. hurt. mrs. miller. mrs. miller no. dr. murphy. dr. murphy no. mr. good stuff. mr. co. stuff, no. mr. fitzpatrick. mr. fitzpatrick, no. mr. steube. mr. steube no.

missed any no. mrs. fish box. no. mr. moore, no. ms. van dyne. no. mr. feenstra. ms. valle a tacos. no. mr. carey. mr. carey, no. mr. ya come, no. mr. miller. mr. miller, no. mr. being, no. mr. moran. mr. moran, no. mr. neil, yes. mr. doggett, yes. mr. thompson. mr. larson. mr. larson yes. mr. davis. mr. davis yes. ms. sanchez. ms. sanchez yes. mr. bennet yes. missed you. yes.

miss more. yes. mr. boyle. yes. mr. buyer yes. mr. evans. yes. mr. schneider. mr. schneider yes. mr. panetta. yes. mr. gomez. mr. horse for it. mr. horse furred, yes. mr. swazi. yes. mr. kelly. mr. kelly, no. mr. schleicher. >> ms. plaskett is not recorded. yes. mr. arrington. mr. arrington, no. mr. hearn.

mr. feenstra. no. mr. thompson. >> how is mr. hearn recorded? >> mr. hearn is not recorded. no. >> mr. gomez. you are not recorded. mr. gomez, yes. chairman smith. no. chairman smith no. >> how is mr. thompson regarding? >> mr. thompson is not recorded.

mr. thompson, yes. >> mr. schleicher is not recorded. mr. schleicher, no. >> the clerk will report the vote. >> and the yeses are 19, the nose or 26. >> 19 yeses and 26 nose, the amendment is not agreed to. are there additional amendments? >> mr. chairman i have been amendment at the desk. >> i reserve a point of order. >> the house ways and means committee is considering the tax portion of the republicans 2025 budget package. it includes several tax cuts proposed by president trump. debate and amendment of those expected to run through midnight. we will leave the meeting here watching on c-span and on

c-span.org. >> on thursday, the u.s. supme court hears oral arguments in cases concerning whether judges can comes executive order limiting right citizenipor children born to undocumented parents. th is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern can also watch on c-span now, or online a c-span.org quick get c-span wherever you are. with c-span now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy. live and on-demand people days biggest proceeding and hearing from the u.s. risk, white house events, campaigns, and more. from politics all at your fingertips. catch the latest episodes of washington journal, scheduling information for c-span's tv and radio networks, and a variety of

compelling podcasts. the c-span now app is available in the apple store and google play. download for free today. c-span, democracy unfiltered. c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more. including wow. >> the world has changed. today, the fast reliable internet connection is something no one can live without. with our customers with speed, reliability, value, and choice. now more than ever it starts with great internet. >> wow supports c-spans a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> up next, international monetary fund managing director chris billion a euro gave up speaks about the current global economic outlook and the impact