Transcripts For CSPAN3 House Ways Means Tax Reform Markup 2

CSPAN3 House Ways Means Tax Reform Markup November 8, 2017

Eastern. And well have it for you on the cspan networks. By the way, you can read the rest of that story at politico. Com. We also have this from the hill. Lawmakers rallied against former ceos of yahoo and equifax over Cyber Security breaches that occurred on their watch and floated potential policy solutions to crack down on the hacks impacting hundreds of millions of americans. Frustrated members of the Senate Commerce committee pressed former yahoo ceo, Marissa Mayer and former equifax ceo, Richard Smith and his current ceo, paulina de riggers barrows on how their company allowed so much breaches and pushed for answers. Lawmakers rallied against the massive Cyber Security breaches on their watch and floated those policy solutions. They also said we have not been able to identify the intrusion that led to that breach. And that quote from the former yahoo ceo. Read the entire story at thehill. Com. Incidentally, that hearing took place earlier today. We do plan to show it to you later on the cspan networks. You can also watch it online at cspan. Org. Again, standing by, waiting for the house ways and Means Committee markup session to continue. Theyre in the midst of a brief break now. Again, were live from capitol hill as ways and Means Committee members continue to slowly float back into the room to continue their markup of the republican tax plan. Most of the democrat members, well, they were there. They have been there and apparently were ready to go. Some of them have left now. Republicans could be discussing strategy before they return here. In any case, well have live coverage of all of the deliberations here on cspan3. The hill writing today, repealing obamacares individual mandate will save 338 billion over ten years. Thats according to a new analysis from the congressional budget office. The analysis comes as republicans are pushing for repealing the mandate within tax reformulation as a way to help pay for tax cuts. The idea has met resistance from some Republican Leaders who do not want to mix up health care and taxes, though. That story from thehill. Com. The hill also reporting earlier today that the republican tax bill would add 1. 7 trillion to the National Debt over the course of a decade. And increase the countrys debt to gdp ratio by 5. 9 percentage points. Thats according to the congressional budget office. The cbo analysis relying on the joint commit of taxations fighting the bill would cut revenues by 1. 4 trillion. That falls within the level republicans allow themselves in their budget resolution. You can read the rest of that story at thehill. Com. While we wait for members to return here to the markup of the tax reform bill, well show you some of the deliberations that took place earlier today. Are there any other additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, i reserve a point of order. Mr. Reichert reserves a point of order. Mr. Thompson, if youll suspend while the amendment is being distributed. Mr. Reichert . I withdraw my reservation. Mr. Reichert withdraws his reservation. Mr. Thompson, on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment prevents a tax hike in this bill, a tax hike thats on middle classworking families pursuing the American Dream of Home Ownership. My amendment does two things. One, it extends the tax relief for struggling homeowners who receive a mortgage debt forgiveness. This would apply to people who have home damage or lose their home in a fire or a hurricane an earthquake, mudslide, flood, whatever. And they get their mortgage reduced, because of this. And then they turn around and they get a tax hike on that on the amount of the reduction. So not only do they get the reduction, they get a big surprise. And thats a tax increase. And this comes when americans are struggling the most, trying to figure out how to get into a new home, how to put their life back together again. And this is the last thing that we need to do to these americans who are hardworking, middle class, and all they want to do is see the American Dream of Home Ownership. This is a bipartisan measure. Its been coauthored by members in this committee, mr. Reid was a coauthor in the past congress. I think theres 180 coauthors, bipartisan, the last time this was introduced. The second thing that it does, it under current law, theres a 500,000 for family, 250,000 for individual exclusion for homeowners who are trying to move up. They sell their home, they want to move up to provide more a better home, a bigger home, because they have a family. They want to move up from a studio to own their own home. And what this bill does is it increases the number of years that you have to live in your home. Currently, its two of the last five years und. Under the republican bill, it increases that to five out of the last eight years. Thats patently unfair. This amendment or this provision in the republican bill hurts working, middle class families by lengthening the amount of time they have to stay. It puts the American Dream of Home Ownership and proved home, better home, further out of their reach. And we should be figuring out how to help middle class working families, help them achieve the American Dream of Home Ownership, better Home Ownership, Greater Family opportunities in the home, rather than taking this away from them in order to help the wealthy and to help corporations. I would hope that my republican colleagues would see the value and the merit in this amendment and join me in helping the middle class working americans. Mr. Schweikert on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This is one of those occasions where i have a little bit of expertise, at least on part of this. So, you know, for the gentleman offering the amendment, i want to actually sort of walk through one of the mechanisms here and one of the things on our side we were actually hoping would actually help create some stability in neighborhoods. Understand, current law right now is really easy to gain. And heres the gain. Buy a house. Rent it for three years. Live it in for two. The gain on it is taxfree. So you have this sort of gain going, where youre constantly rolling houses. Sometimes in the same neighborhood, where you live in it, you know, you buy two houses. Fix one of them up, live in the other. Live in it for two years, then turn it into a rental for three and then roll it. And so the if you actually look at the time line on it, its basically meant to slow down the sort of game of swapping back and forth, back and forth. So youre gaining the gain on the flipping. Would the gentleman yield . Absolutely, mr. Thompson. So i dont necessarily agree with your analysis of this. Mr. Thompson, tell me just in part of the dialogue, tell me what part of that mechanism i have wrong. I dont represent a lot of people who are gaming the system. That wasnt the question. Mr. Thompson, the question i just want to make sure were being absolutely honest that it right now the law is five years, you have to only live in it two. Correct. So at least we have our facts right. So. So if you are correct and there are people who are doing this gaming, as you call it, are you telling me that its okay for them to game it if they just stay there a little longer . Mr. Thompson, if you actually take a look then at the mechanism of if i had to live there a little bit longer, my ability to do that concept where im renting this property while living in this one and then swapping them. And its that mechanism that is sort of hiding the gain. But it would be okay if you lived there for a little bit longer. Yeah. And that may be where intellectually we can find something where were doing just what we i think both want to do, which is the stability for neighborhoods, and not incentivizing this sort of in and out, in and out game that actually creates the disruption. And the provision of my amendment that would remove the opportunity to hurt people who lose their home in a Natural Disaster . Yeah, well come back, because at some point hopefully here we can discuss the when youve actually had your debt abated, that thats always been a taxable event. And we actually gave a for barn bearance during the mortgage crisis for lots of people. But on this one, i believe your motives are honorable. Do understand, i actually see honorable enough to include you as a coauthor of my amendment . We can talk back acome back about it. Mr. Chairman, i know im out of time, i yield back. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. Thompson. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. Pursuant to Committee Rule 19, further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. Are there any additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of the substitute . Miss chu . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, i reserve. Mr. Reichert reserves a point of order. Miss chu, would you suspend while its being distributed . Mr. Reichert . I withdraw my reservation. Miss chu, youre recognized on the amendment. Mr. Chair, there are things we could do in a tax bill to actually help the middle class. Unlike the republican bill, which primarily helps corporations and the rich get richer. We can help those in need by expanding the earned income tax credit to childless workers. Right now, in our tax code, working childless adults and noncustodial parents are the only groups that we allow to be taxed into poverty. Specifically, about 7. 5 million childless workers are taxed into deeper poverty by federal income and payroll taxes. Why does this happen . Well, right now they are largely excluded from the earned income tax credit. Or the eitc. The eitc is one of the strongest and most effective anti poverty efforts that our country has to offer. It rewards work and provides support to the most vulnerable amongst us. Yet eitc for childless workers is currently so small that none of these incentives make a tangible impact. Take the situation of a 21yearold just starting out in the work force who does not yet have a child. Making Poverty Level wages of about 12,500 for manual labor. This worker has 956 in payroll taxes du taxes deducted from his paycheck and pays 214 in federal income taxes. The worker receives zero eitc, because childless workers under the age of 25 are ineligible. He, in fact, is taxed 1,170 into poverty. That is the taxes leave him 1,170 below the poverty line. Expanding eitc would have a broad reach, helping taxpayers from every walk of life. If eitc were expanded to include childless workers, the credit is projected to reach about 716,000 veterans and military members and 971,000 workers with disabilities in the first year alone. In the past, republicans and democrats alike have lauded the expansion of this credit. In fact, our current speaker of the house, paul ryan himself, expanded the idea in his white paper just a few years ago. But this republican plan ignores this idea entirely. It completely fails to provide meaningful assistance to individuals without qualifying children. The amendment i offer today would correct this problem. My amendment would lower the ainage for the eligibility for the credit of childless workers. And it would ensure that working people, and not just the well off, have a path towards creating more wealth. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i yield back. Mr. Reichert, on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment. In a Human Resources subcommittee hearing in september, we examined the causes and consequences of men not engaging in the labor force. And heres what we found. There are roughly 11 million noncustodial fathers in the United States with close to 25 of them having no earnings. And therefore, theyre unable to support and care for their children. Some of the contributing factors include lack of post secondary education and training, resulting in lower wages, growing dependency on Public Benefit programs, discouraging work and marriage to support their families. Drug and alcohol dependency rising prevalence of criminal records alongside unmet Child Support orders. The absence of available jobs in many depressed communities. And the weakening of social and cultural norms that expect ablebodied men to go to work. Increasing work and earnings of childless adults is important, but this amendment to the tax code is the wrong solution, because it doesnt actually address any of the underlying issues. Instead, we should be more directly engaging these childless workers in more effective ways, which we will be discussing when the Committee Moves into welfare reform. Back in Washington State, i worked with a group called divine alternatives for dads services. Or dads, as they refer to themselves. Which does truly amazing work. They assist fathers by providing resources to help them develop a sense of self, family and community responsibility. This is all done with the purpose of preventing family violence, broken homes, drug addiction, gang violence. And this is supposed to be focused on strengthening families and their communities. And thats where we need to put our energy. Marvin charles, the co founder of dads, a personal friend of mine, was one of those men who put women on the street to sell their bodies. And he has changed his life through this process and has changed the life of many young men and women in the seattle area. He said one of the biggest problems that our nation faces today is fatherlessness. In september, the Human Resources subcommittee, we held a hearing on this challenge. The comments from the witnesses made me think about the consequences for families and children of workingage men not participating in the work force. For these men, the possibility of being unable to financially support a family or contribute to the upbringing of their children has a negative Ripple Effect on the entire community. We simply have to tackle the underlying issues causing this challenge, and the tax code is not the only place where we can do this. We need to make sure we are engaging fathers in the home and outside the home at every step of the policy that we develop. I look forward to working with the hr subcommittee to ensure this happens. I yield back. Mr. Neil, on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think that mr. Reicherts position is offered in a very sincere vein. Theres no question of it. I want to support miss chus amendment. The problem largely in applying the earned income tax credit is needless complexity. Offering it to single filers makes a good deal of sense. Overwhelmingly, the problem remains in tax preparation. Fraud implies a deliberate effort to move past the law. In this instance here, its the complexity of the earned income tax credit, which we all ought to be able to agree on simplifying. Ronald reagan saw it as a great vehicle. Tip oneill saw it as a great vehicle. You know what the best part about it is for all of us, the earned income tax credit rewards work. I yield back my time. Mr. Smith of nebraska. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the remarks that have been offered already. I appreciate the intent behind the amendment itself. One thing, though, that i think is important to note is our bill does not pull back on the earned income tax credit. Perhaps it doesnt go as far as some would wish that it would go. Of course, that could be a number of things that i would say in other places in the bill. But i think we need to really take a deep look at how we can truly assist people out of poverty. Yes, there are some good things about the eitc. But when we really look at the struggles that families face, its a cash flow issue, not a once a year payment would fix. And so as families face these monthtomonth expenses, lets look at that. How can we help them. To me, the best way to help them is to expand the economy. Create more jobs. As i mentioned yesterday, the best way to increase wages is for a job applicant to have two job offers rather than a group of politicians saying what a wage should or should not be. Or what should or should not be included in compensation for an employee. But that dynamic of a growing economy that can create opportunity and a brighter financial future for folks all across the country rather than having to check in with politicians on various wages or other dynamics. Thank you, i yield back. Mr. Bloomen our. I agree with my friend from nebraska. We want the earned income tax credit, which is why it was so strongly supported by people in both parties, including president reagan, is because it goes directly to people to reward work. It rewards work. And my concern from the outset has been, if we knew that we were going to be able to spend borrow 1. 4 trillion or 1. 5 trillion or 2. 3 trillion by the time you pay for interest, where would we prioritize . And i think expansion of the earned income tax credit would have been prioritized by most people on the committee in advance of inheritance tax for billionaires. It would be an opportunity for us, rather than expanding some benefits for some business through the small through the passthrough provision, which dont help most Small Businesses. We could have restructured that. A couple of good hearings here, and an honest discussion about our committee priorities. What would help the most people directly . And i hope that we can, if not unlikely this is going to pass. But i hope that we as a committee can return to things that has been a tried and true premise to reward work, simplify the earned income tax credit and be able to help more people directly. I yield back. Miss willarski on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I too support the earned income tax credit. And i share the speakers initiative, as well, in developing a bridge out of poverty. So for the last two years, i chaired a subcommittee in the ag culture committee, and it was on nutrition. But it was we held 17 hearings in two years. And we looked at the entire country of what worked and what didnt work, and the bridge out of poverty. And what we found as best p

© 2025 Vimarsana