tv House Lawmakers Debate 2022 Reconciliation Bill CSPAN September 14, 2021 9:03pm-2:07am EDT
>> buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> today, the house ways and means committee held their third day of work on the president's $3.5 trillion budget proposal. here is a portion of today's hearing. watch the full hearing tonight at c-span.org.
the chair has determined a quorum is present. today we meet to continue our consideration of this committee's contribution to the build back better act. before we turn to today's business, i want to make a few brief reminders. first, consistent with regulations, the committee will keep microphones muted to limit background noise on the webex platform. members are responsible for muting themselves when they seek recognition or when recognized five minutes. second, members present remotely in the proceeding must have cameras on. if you need to step away to attend another proceeding, turn your camera and audio off rather than logging out of the platform . finally, please be advised consistent with the advice of
the office of the attending physician, staff and guests present in the hearing room must wear a mask when recognized to speak. i appreciate everyone's continued patience and cooperation as we take reasonable precautions to keep our families safe and communities safe. now, let me turn to today's business. we continue our markup of the build back better act after a truly historic today's last week. last thursday, this committee advanced investments to provide 12 weeks of paid leave and medical leave for all members of the american families. we took action on affordable childcare, and we have expanded opportunities for workers to save financially for secure retirements. on friday, we approved funds to strengthen pro-worker trade
programs, expand health care benefits in medicare, grow our health care workforce, and protect america's elderly and people with disabilities in nursing homes. millions of american lives will change for the better thanks to these provisions. this week, we will build on that progress. the proposal we will consider over the next two days includes investments in the american family and american economy. emphasis on the term investment. we will invest in the development and deployment of clean energy, take bold steps in the fight against climate change, create good jobs, lower prescription drug costs, close the medicaid coverage gap, enable greater infrastructure development, and broadly help americans live healthier and more financially secure lives. we will do this while responsibly funding our investments. those who in the 2017 tax law
left behind all sorts of the hardest financial hits during the covid crisis. meanwhile, the big, strongest, and wealthiest americans who saw the most substantial benefits from the 2017 tax law fared much better. as the stock market rebounded quickly and soared to new heights, we saw greater concentration of wealth. we all read the reports of widespread stock buybacks and ceo bonuses in the tax code. business didn't use her savings to lower consumer prices or raise wages. corporations did not need that law to stay afloat. we celebrate success in this great nation that we all of. we can also ask the biggest companies and ultra-wealthy to contribute more to the common good. that is why our proposal today
asking those in this nation doing well to pay a bit more to support the services and infrastructure on which our society and your business and investments rely. while the increase we propose today will go along way in responsibly paying for a planned investment, the rates will remain lower than they were in may 2017 tax law. despite the rhetoric we will hear, we have made sure to protect middle-class americans and small businesses from experiencing tax increases. we can argue and discuss the issues of greater wealth concentration in america as to how it happened. but we can't deny is it did happen. the arguments over worker skills , globalization, the decline of unionism in america, and advances of technology, have all
contributed to the greater concentration of wealth. we take steps today to help provide a broader opportunity for the american family. the proposals we consider in this day are about expanding opportunities, increasing equity, and demonstrating our commitment to fairness. we will hear arguments about punishing success. no. it is about infrastructure. this is about infrastructure. we are going to hear a series of arguments about the proposals we have today and the conclusion is the following, this is about infrastructure. i look forward to describing them in greater detail shortly. allow me now to recognize the ranking member, mr. brady, for the purpose of an opening statement. >> thank you, chairman. this is a historic day. never has our government wasted so much to kill so many american
jobs, drive prices even higher, and make a whole new generation of four on government dependency. this is an economic surrender. china, russia, europe, and japan are cheering. trillions of dollars of wasteful government spending to fuel inflation even further. this will raise taxes on the middle class and small businesses. it is easily the biggest economic blunder on our lifetime. don't look for so much can't -- common sense here. they are going faster than paychecks each and every month president biden has been in office. how did he find more spending to drive prices of higher and last longer? when businesses are fighting to recover from the covid pandemic, how will raising their taxes get them back on their feet and get americans back to work? as the u.s. leapfrog's the most competitive economy in the world following republican tax reform, what are we thinking?
saddling american businesses with higher tax rates than communist china in most of the world. especially when it guarantees u.s. jobs, research manufacturing and investment, and overseas. it happened all the time during the obama-biden white house. who gets hurt most? workers and communities face the price when jobs move overseas and businesses are forced to send their money to washington to be wasted rather than invest in their workers and local communities. how does it make any sense to take more of what small businesses worked so hard to earn, leaving them less to spend on growing their business in hiring more? why in heaven's names are democrats exposing more family aren't farmed own businesses to the impacts, forcing them to sell land or business to pay the irs rather than hand down a lifetime of work to the next generation? this hurts multigenerational farms and women and minority owned businesses.
who thinks it makes sense to give up american sovereignty of our tax code so we look more like foreign countries favoring foreign companies and workers over american ones? make no mistake, the biden tax bill raises taxes on the middle class. ask the liberal tax policy center who states nearly three force of middle-class tax workers will see higher taxes starting next year, and up to 90% in the future. the joint committee on taxation also grieves, lower middle-class families bear a real burden for the corporate tax. with so many families struggling with devastating diseases like cancer, als, muscular dystrophy, parkinson's, how does it make sense for congress to stock up on cures for these diseases so democrats can pay for huge green welfare subsidies for the wealthy and big business? in this bill, democrats go out five times more in green welfare
subsidy than americans spend on basic research at the national institutes of health each year. where in the world are there priorities? speaking of outrageous green welfare, it allows a near millionaire family to buy a $75,000 beamer, jaguar, or bands luxury electric vehicle, and they are forced to send a $12,500 subsidy. this bill also hands out $1000 checks to buy a electric bike, likely charged by coal and fossil fuel, rather than simply a normal bike powered by say, calories? why are blue-collar workers, nurses, teachers, and firefighters subsidizing the wealthy and big is this with a quarter of a trillion dollars in green welfare checks? aren't there more important priorities? like curing cancer, more affordable health care, or safer neighborhoods? since china dominates the manufacturing wind turbine and solar panels and rare earth
minerals, you are welcome, china. speaking of workers, with mainstream businesses struggling to stay afloat and stop rising prices, how does it make sense for congress to his stand -- expand child tax credits no longer tied to work? it's an important incentive treated by congressional republicans into a welfare program. it discourages americans from reconnecting with their job and hurts everyone. make no mistake, while it is not in here yet, democrats are planning to repeal the $10,000 salt cap to give a huge break to millionaires and give them a tax shelter against tax hikes. today, 80% of americans oppose these tax hikes on businesses coming out of covid. when they learned the green new deal really just means a lot of green new subsidies for the wealthy, they will oppose it, as well. let's use common sense. coming out of the pandemic, the
last thing america needs are higher prices, fewer jobs, and the largest expansion of our welfare state in our lifetime. i yield back. >> pursuant to notice, we will turn to consideration of our budget reconciliation legislative recommendations related to a variety of tax and health measures. this committee print is by far the most reaching and luminous of regulations we have had during this process. i'm quite certain there will be spirited debate over the next two days commiserate with the magnitude of what we are about to undertake. put simply, these are investments promising to shape the lives of americans for the better for generations to come. for starters, this proposal will make substantial investments to the development and deployment of clean energy to do our part in fighting the climate crisis while creating good, well-paying jobs across the country. climate change is one of the most catastrophically dangerous challenges confronting our nation and the world. it's already causing increased
wildfires, flooding, and severe storms. if we don't take bold action, these phenomena will only increase as the planet continues to warm. greener energy sources and job creation are just the start of our work to bolster the economy and strengthen communities. the pandemic placed a tremendous strain on cities and states making an extremely difficult for them to provide critical services of which residents rely. in april of 2020, i joined the u.s. conference of mayors for a roundtable discussion and heard directly from the mayors of arlington, texas, dayton, ohio, columbia, south carolina, pittsburgh, pennsylvania, and santa fe, new mexico. they all had the same message, we need federal assistance to keep our cities afloat and recover from this crisis. the relief packages congress passed over the last 18 months provided some crucial aid. but we can do more. the build america bonds, which i have long championed and
advanced refunding bonds will help states pursue public-private partnerships and make new infrastructure investments. as a former mayor myself, i know how impactful these financing tools can be in spurring development and creating more prosperous communities. we also seek to expand proven tax credit initiatives that encourage affordable housing and economic investments in areas that are most in need. programs like the low income housing tax credit, the new markets tax credit, historic tax credit, and the new neighborhood homes tax credit, are able to attract capital to underserved areas. especially those historically overlooked in communities like tribes and territories. when combined, the whole of these credits is greater than the sum of their parts. the proposal in front of us ensures every tax tool we have the benefit our community members and create jobs will work together more effectively
across our entire country. over the past few months, we have seen a particularly powerful example of how the tax code can be used to benefit people's lives. we expanded the child tax credit and american rescue plan, and provided it to families through monthly advanced payments that began in july. it has worked. the money allowed folks to keep a roof over their heads, put food over the table, pay for diapers, medicine, school supplies for what kids need. it lifted millions out of poverty and pumped life into the economy as more people could afford to spend money again, hence creating greater demand. today, we are proposing to expand expansions through the end of 2025 and make it permanent. the american rescue plan also expanded the earned income tax credit and child dependent care credit. change further supporting families and rewarded work. we will consider our plan to make these expansions permanent
to provide americans with greater stability and financial security. today isn't just about financial help. it is also about investing in people's physical health and ensuring they are able to have access to the care they need. 12 states have not expanded medicaid under the affordable care act, depriving more than 2 million people of access to health insurance and quality, affordable care. my staff alerted me to the following statistic yesterday. 99% in massachusetts have helped insurance. 98% of the adults in massachusetts have health insurance. more than the high 70 percentile is approved of the care they are receiving. politicians at state levels are unnecessarily preventing vulnerable individuals from gaining coverage for political reasons. we propose to finally close the gap and provide americans, 60%
of who are black, latino, asian, or pacific islander, with meaningful help and economic gains. the american rescue plan included unexpended premium tax credit to lower health insurance costs, a change we now seek to make permanent. it helps people keep more hard earned money by reducing prescription drug costs. americans pay significantly more for medications than their counterparts in other similar nations. it is simply not fair. the proposal allows the health and human services secretary to negotiate lower prescription prices providing people with tremendous savings. these investments will improve americans abilities to support themselves and their families to stay healthy and access affordable care and to leave the planet cleaner, a better place for their children, and grandchildren. i urge my colleagues to wholeheartedly embrace these proposals to have life-changing -- that they offer. measures we are considering are
a lot of good, but do it responsibly by raising the revenue needed to provide for the programs we propose. we are unafraid to secure revenue when we demand it, and it does so in a manner that is sustainable, economically rational, and equitable. the individual income tax increases come at a context of several decades of rising income and wealth distortions, as i have noted. the tax system has not done enough to stop it. instead, our tax system lost its progressive power at the top end because many of the wealthiest taxpayers in america have had a chance to play by different rules than those of ordinary wage earners. we are taking a significant step toward leveling the playing field. specifically, we proposed to increase the top individual rate to 30 96, an increase the top capital gains rate to 25%, and
at a tax for individuals making over $5 million. the previous administration had no interest at the beginning in a cutting that top individual rate. i know. they talked to me about it. it was only the complications created by the salt tax that made them move in that direction. the 199a deduction will be capped at $500,000 to remain targeted to small business owners that it was originally intended for. in line with president biden's pledge and our parties values, we have ensured none of these tax increases will affect households earning under four hundred thousand dollars. for the past few decades, the average american family has weathered multiple storms of economic uncertainty while the wealthiest among us have really enjoyed a smooth sailing and the corporate sector has seen many times. this year, a record share of the s&p 500 companies beta earnings estimates, which is terrific.
the market continues to set all-time highs, which is good. we applaud these achievements. it makes fundamental sense these large, profitable entities should help pay for the infrastructure that makes their loud about success indeed possible. the proposal to raise the corporate tax rate to 26.5. i know the history of that issue, as well. former president obama had 28%. republicans by and large on this committee at time were at 25%. that is the reality of it. we found a path at 26.5 percent. still considerably lower than the 30% tax rate in effect in 2017. of course, the success of america's corporations is due in no small part to their preeminence around the world. our tax law plays a powerful role in shaping the economy. we want to continue promoting that economy and make sure our
companies global competitiveness stands without harmful incentives to move jobs overseas. to that end, i publicly celebrated secretary ellens success in the outline of a global minimum tax at the oecd. a remarkable what she did. the international provisions will set a model for the kind of minimum tax we expect our peer countries to adopt. we proposed increasing the guilty rate to exceed the threshold, rationalize the beat, so it applies to companies making payments to low tax jurisdictions, and cleaning up aspects of the tcja that were frustrating for many taxpayers. . like the treatment of carryforward and losses. finally, we take serious that no matter how well-designed our tax law is, it will mean little if the irs doesn't have the resources to enforce it. to that end, we propose a long,
overdue investment in the technology and human capital needed for complex audits. no one likes raising taxes. but things to the strength of our economy, we can afford to do this. we cannot afford to skimp on the critical investments through this proposal. i urge you all to support these essential and responsible revenue programs. let me recognize the gentleman from texas for the purposes of offering an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you will hear claims today that need to be fact checked in advance. you will hear that this has no impact on america's small businesses. that is not true. raising the individual rate raises the rate on small businesses, most of whom file individually. passing through small business tax deduction that impacts 30 million small businesses hurts
those pass-through businesses, as well. increasing the expanding investment tax across america to all small businesses means to have less money to invest in a company, workers, and growth. taking the owner's death tax back to what it was before the tax cuts and jobs act means more family-owned farms and businesses will be forced to sell off their land or property, pay their taxes to uncle sam rather than pass it off to the next generation. how is it fair americans work their entire life to build up an estate to have uncle sam swooping and take nearly half of it? you will hear today president biden doesn't break his pledge on taxing americans making less than $400,000. but that is false, as well.
businesses don't pay taxes, they collect them. those burdens land on their workers, customers, retirees whose retirement depends on their success, and the communities they live in. we saw all of this prior to the tax cuts and jobs act, where it seemed every week, americans would read about another u.s. company moving manufacturing jobs, research, and headquarters overseas, leaving so many communities devastated. two different groups, the left-leaning tax policy center, as well as joint committee on taxation, confirm it is lower and middle income families bearing a significant portion of the corporate tax rate. their taxes will be felt. in this bill, significant amount
of revenues raised from tobacco and other taxes, where 90% falls on americans making less than $400,000. the biden tax pledge is simply broken in this bill. we should fact-check some of his repeated claims. for example, the one he makes almost every day that the $2 trillion republican tax cuts went to corporations and the wealthy 1%. the fact check is the claim for pinocchios, saying it is misleading and simply wrong. not that you will not hear that multiple times today, it simply isn't the fact. they said the same about senator kamala harris, that the tax cuts and job act, that it was a middle-class tax hike. fact-check.org said they had a
mistweet it was so far wrong. when stacey abrams said the tax bill rigged the system against the people again, fact-check.org called it distorting the facts. in fact, the highest percentage of tax reduction went to those with lower and middle income families. those who benefited the most where people of color, those with low skills, minorities, women, disabled, we lifted millions of americans out of poverty. fact-check.org also gave south bend mayor pete buttigieg another fact-check for suggesting tcj is responsible for trading the nation debt problem, noting america had two of the largest revenue years in american history following the tax cuts.
spending was largely responsible. senator bernie sanders was fact checked strongly when he said 83% of benefits went to the top 1%. fact check.org simply called it misleading. that is not the only areas that need fact checking. if you raise america's corporate tax rate to the highest in the world, jobs will leave america in a big way. when secretary yellen negotiates the global tax agreement that takes our jobs, that takes our tax base, and favors foreign companies and workers over american ones, i guarantee you that is a tax agreement congress will reject. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the committee will proceed the consideration of the committee print consisting of titles f, g, h, and j.
it is red and open for amendment at any point. i offer amendment in the nature of a substitute distributed in advance along with the green sheet explaining it. without objection, the amendment and will be considered as read. and considered based text for the purpose of amendment. let me turn to john barthel, chief of staff on the committee. and amy hall, staff director of the subcommittee to provide the substitute with the changes made since introduction. i asked members hold questions until after their presentation. >> thank you. the committee members have before them several joint committee documents. 38, 30 9, 40. they describe the underlying type titles f, g, h, j. and jcx 43 and 42. the sheet describing changes
from the amendment and nature of the substitute, and the overall estimate of -- revenue estimates of the provisions in the bill. i know the members want to proceed to questions and debate, but i will take a few minutes to highlight some of the provisions across these titles. it is fair to say many of the provisions make modifications to existing law with which the members are familiar. i will try to highlight the new provisions. in subtitle f, the infrastructure title, there is a new credit for government owned and operated and maintained broadband facilities. a 30% credit to be paid to the local government. there's also a new credit for rehabilitation of owner occupied housing and low income high poverty neighborhoods.
it is a credit taste on the state allocation. as noted in the chairman's amendment, there is a new credit for employment in the possessions, puerto rico, the virgin islands, american samoa, guam, and it provides tax credit for 20% of wages and qualifying fringe benefits up to $50,000 of those wages and fringe benefits, and in the case of certain defined small employers, the credit is increased to 50% of wages up to $109,500. subtitle g provides a number of incentives related to alternative energy. the production tax credit and investment tax credits of sections 45 and 48 are extended, but the credit rate is now conditioned on certain labor
standards and mastic content standards in the construction and operation of those facilities. section 48 investment tax credit is expanded to add batteries and battery storage facilities at qualifying facilities, investing in tax credit would be enacted for electric transmission property. there is a new tax credit to promote production of sustainable aviation fuel and clean hydrogen fuel production tax credit. subtitle h relating to social safety net provisions, as was noted in the opening statement by the chairman, would extend the child tax credit expansions and acted in the american recovery plan act through 2025, providing for full refund ability on a monthly basis. the tax credit would be made
fully refundable on a permanent basis. the chairman's amendment also provides for a new payroll tax credit for employers of childcare workers. it would be up to 50% of $2500 paid in wages quarterly. the amendment also provides a new tax credit for caregivers of up to 50% credit on up to $4000 for qualifying expense for individuals who help qualifying individuals with activities, daily living, and care. as the chairman had noted, the amendment would make permanent the reduced household contributions for health care through the premium tax credit and make other changes to that provision. it creates a new public university research
infrastructure credit and modifies the tax on endowment income implementing a financial aid test. subtitle i provides the corporate tax rate would be increased to 26.5%. places new limits on deductions, in particular, where multinational enterprise is considered to be over levered in the u.s. with respect to multinational enterprises, the global intangible low tax income, or guilty tax, would be modified to do the accounting on a country by country basis, rather than a blended worldwide basis. reduces the qualified business asset investment deemed to return from 10% to 5%. lowers the overall deduction allowable for qualified income, which increases the effective marginal tax rate on so-called
guilti income. the amendment also modifies the ace erosion anti-abuse tax. changes the treatment of net operating losses and tax credits the taxpayer may claim on a regular return. it eliminates the applicable threshold test, potentially expanding the number of enterprises subject to the tax. it would increase the deep tax rate. also provides a foreign tax credit. imitations would be calculated on a country by country basis. with respect to individuals, it would restore the 39.6 percent tax rate and lower the entry threshold, increase the rate of tax, maximum rate of tax on capital gains income, and aligns the threshold breakpoints we've added with ordinary income. the amendment also expands the
net investment income tax to corporation shareholders, limited partners, and llc members not currently subject to either taxes on certain distributed shares or income. it applies to individuals with joint returns in excess of 500,000 dollars, an agi surcharge of 3% on modified adjusted gross and access of $5 million would be imposed. the state tax under present law that has an exemption amount, which is due to be reduced after 2025. it would accelerate the reduction amount effective next year. it would be approximately $6 million. the amendment and nature of substitute also doubles current tobacco bull excise taxes and
includes nicotine products, such as those in e-cigarettes. that concludes my brief overview of these titles. there is also the excise tax and subtitle j relating to drug prices. ms. hall will explain the substitute for subtitle j. i would be happy to answer any questions members might have related to these revenue provisions. >> thank you. we will proceed to ms. hall and offer opportunity for members to ask questions. >> thank you, chairman neil. i'm going to talk about two components of the amendment in a nature of a substitute before us today. subtitle h includes part six. the pathway to practice training
program. section 137601, 1899 c of the social security act for the rural and underserved pathway to practice training program for postbaccalaureate and medical students. it incentivizes those from rural and underserved communities to become physicians and practice in those communities. through a collar ship and stipend for qualified doodles to attend medical school or postbaccalaureate and medical school. there are 1000 scholarships per year beginning in 2023. section 137603 amends section 1886 of the social security act to incentivize additional residents get training by increasing physician residency training to certain applicable hospitals recognized by the accreditation council for graduate medication for committing to train for missions that meet the above requirement. there would be 1000 slots per
year for these residency positions. the amendment in the nature of a substitute makes no changes to these provisions. finally, subtitle j includes 4 major parts. part one is lowering drug prices for fair price negotiations. this part establishes a new fair price negotiation program and title 11 of the social security act, whereby the secretary would negotiate fair prices on prescription medication. part two provides for medicare parts b and d prescription drug inflation rebate. it requires manufacturers to have a rebate for drugs covered under parts b and d of the medicare program and have price increases faster than inflation. these rebates take into account commercial sector units and prices. part three is the part d improvement and maximum out-of-pocket cap for medicare beneficiaries, which would provide an out-of-pocket map by part d drug spending of $2000
per year. it would also redesign the part d benefits to better align incentives in the program. part 4 addresses a rebate rule and title fraud and abuse removal of safe harbor protections involving prescription pharmaceuticals and a new safe harbor protection for safe price on prescription pharmaceuticals and benefit manager service fees published. that was november, 2020. the chairman amendment in the nature of a substitute does not make changes to subtitle j. it includes my walk-through, and i'm happy to answer questions. >> we will now begin the opportunity for members to raise questions. let me recognize the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith, to proceed. >> thank you mr. chairman.
we've got a lot of work to do here. it has been interesting, as perhaps comparisons have been made, to what we are doing here and the gravity and magnitude compared to what we have done in the past and the amount of time granted and so forth. i will reserve more comments for later in this process. i do want to talk about a few technical items. good to see you, welcome. starting on page 226, it creates a new fuel credit for sustainable aviation fuel. on page 227, the amendment and nature of substitute defines what a qualified mixture of sustainable aviation fuel and kerosene is. it says "one such mixture is produced by the taxpayer in the united states." along with other requirements, i'm wondering if it means the
components going into this mixture must be produced in the u.s., or the components must be mixed together in the u.s. to qualify? >> am i live? mr. smith -- it is a mixture credit, it must be mixed in the united states, but components may be produced abroad. >> i appreciate that clarification. so if this credit is enacted, and you have a company purchase sustainable aviation fuel from malaysia or brazil, and they get their kerosene from saudi arabia or kuwait, they can still access the credit as long as they mix them together in the u.s.? >> that is correct. >> on pages 228to 229, it says the server to haitian -- certification methodology must use the scheme for international aviation adopted by the international civil aviation agreement with the u.s.
because this model is somewhere between 10 and 15 years out of date, u.s. grown corn and soy do not qualify. if u.s. grown corn and soy don't meet the standards, the fuel produced from them would be ineligible. is that correct? >> i don't know the particulars about u.s. corn and soy. but under the statute, if the components don't meet the standards, they would not qualify. >> i would like to ask unanimous consent to include in the record a letter from the renewable fuels association, filed the support, corn and soybean growers, and others expressing concerns relating to the language in the bill. i realize there is quite the rush to get a sizable stack of
text here approved and moved to the process. to the point where i know there is bipartisan concern about the rushed nature of these very technical, very detailed, in-depth. requirements. i'm very concerned we are heading in the wrong direction. moving forward, section 138-210 on page 59th of amendment six, valuation rules for transfer of nonbusiness assets includes rules for -- assets. my district commonly uses structure for cattle operations to oversee the cattle in operations and oversee the land held in a separate entity, releasing it to the cattle operation. under a structure like that, with the landholding entity received as a nag entity, or what would be the impact it would have? >> mr. smith, i will have to
respond later on that, since you are asking me about specific tax situations. i will help one of -- have my colleagues to help me review it and respond to you and the chairman later today. >> i appreciate that. i think it speaks to my concern about the detailed nature of this, that we have folks across america concerned about what this language would do to their own operation. i greatly respect your work, your knowledge, and insight, but perhaps the language of the bill is not as straightforward as some would claim. >> let me recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for being here. some of the corporate tax would be borne by workers? >> yes it does.
in the short run. less so in the long run -- in the short run. >> any idea how much? >> for the modeling purposes, and we are relying on fairly middle-of-the-road economic analysis, in the immediate short run, we modeled a change in the corporate tax rate borne by the owners of capital, primarily the owners of the corporations over a longer period as investments change, rates have returned, and opportunities change. literature suggests 25% of the burden of the corporate tax may be borne by labor, in terms of diminished wage growth. 25%. >> who is going to bear the brunt of this? >> labor workers. >> the higher corporate tax rate
in the bill is $540 billion tax increase. how much of that would apply to individual taxpayers earning under $400,000? >> mr. kelly, i don't have that at my fingertips. my colleagues are presently working on preparing a distribution analysis of the overall bill at the request of a number of members. we hope to make it available later today. >> it is difficult to tell from what you have to work with, is that what you're telling us? >> what i have at the table with me, i cannot answer your question. >> maybe you can get back to me later. can you give us any detail about the number of small businesses that would be affected by this bill? >> the bill makes changes that affect small businesses in a number of different ways. for example, the corporate tax
changes, in addition to taking the top corporate tax rate to 20%, it re-imposes the tiered tax structure. for example, corporations with a taxable income of $400,000 or less, 18% tax rate. in 2018, there was something less then 1.5 million c corporations that had taxable income under $400,000. the second tier of taxable income under the proposed legislative structure is for taxable incomes between $400,000 and $5 million. in 2018, slightly less than the 15,000 corporations that would fall in that bracket. how many between $400,000 and $5
million? >> that was about 50,000 for 2018. year in, year out, over the next few years, roughly the same. >> the total number of these corporations, going from 400,000 to 5 million? >> going from zero to 400,000, about 1.5 million. most c corporations are very small. the bulk of the corporate income tax is paid in the neighborhood of $15,000 to 20,000 larger enterprises. >> how many pass-through owners would be subject to either the 199a limitation or the expansion of the obamacare surtax? >> the limitation at $500,000 on
the deduction under code section 199a, we estimate would affect approximately 42,000 taxpayers. i do not have an estimate at hand, but i will ask my colleagues to work on one to answer your question related to that. >> that would be helpful, because i think at some point, we have to realize these tax increases are impacting a lot more people than we may be talking about and thinking you don't understand, it is not going to affect people who make less than $400,000. so there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. sometimes i think the detail is -- the devil is always in the details. this is exactly where we are in this. what we say going into something isn't always what it ends up being. has jct ever created the
distribution table for the green energy tax credits? >> as i noted, we will try and provide members with the distribution table for the overall bill. the subtitle g, the energy title, has provisions that are at the individual or household level, as well as business level. it is a general analytic matter, the business level taxes reduce either corporate income taxes or business income taxes. those will be part of our distribution of the effect on business tax receipts and burden on business tax. >> thank you. i have run out of time. thank you. i do wish we had more time and more discussions way before we drafted all of this. i think it almost every member
would have a better understanding. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think one of the things we are missing in a huge way, the world i grew up in, when you look at -- we talk about corporate rates, we talk about individual rates, but pass-through entities and small businesses don't get the recognition they deserve. the numbers i'm looking at, 99% of all u.s. businesses are small businesses. they employ over 60 million people. and when you look at pass-through entities, according to the brookings institute, 95% qualify as a pass-through entity. my question -- a couple of things. in terms of raising the rate from 37% to 39.6%, that rate alone, they claim it is 170
billion dollars. what percentage falls on pass-through business entities compared to individuals? because there are people that work at a job every day, they may have a great job, make $2 million, god bless them. but i'm concerned about the small businesses that have 50, 100 employees that this will impact, my number is $170 billion based on what i have seen, and will raise taxes. i want to know individuals compared to small pass-through businesses. >> i do not have that information available right now. i will ask my colleagues to see if we can make a projection of the number of taxpayers who would be in the 39.6% bracket who report income. >> you understand what i'm saying?
individuals employed, a lot of people make a lot of money in different parts of the world, but i'm focused on 50 to 100 employees, the impact they will have. the second question is the elimination of the 199 tax -- there is a 20% reduction for small business. we seem to get so caught up in these other taxes, but that will be another $78 billion thrown on the backs of small business. is that true? >> the provision limits the deduction to under $500,000. >> i'm talking about in the past. in the past, we had a 20% reduction for small business? i had a bill where i was trying to get parity with the corporate world. small businesses should have the same consideration. if you want to take a percentage
of 21% or 26%, and you have pass-through entities, some of them with 39.6%. the fact he will not be able to have the deduction for businesses that qualify means they will lose 6% or 7%. they need that to grow and expand. that is gasoline, the way they move forward. numbers i've got, $78 billion, in terms of going forward, is the additional tax that i think is in the documentation. i just want to have you verify that is the case, in terms of eliminating the 199a, or businesses 500000 and above -- $400,000 and above, which most to have 30, 40, or 50 employees need to make that minimum,
otherwise they cannot be in business long term. that is my sentiment. is it a true statement? they are going to pick up $199 billion in additional tax on the back of small businesses? >> mr. buchanan, regarding the limitation on the deduction under section 199a, you are referring to on page seven of the revenue table, jcx 42 under part ii, item four, limitation. which as you reported, we have estimated it to raise approximately $78 billion. >> on the surtax, they say $127 billion. what percentage will land on the backs of small business? the surtax of $127 billion? >> i will try to respond to you and the chairman later with an estimate of the number. >> i'm looking at what it was
and what it will be going forward if it passes. i'm trying to get a sense on the back of businesses, what will it cost them? $375 billion just for starters, and you have business losses for another $167 billion. i don't know, $1 trillion on the back? small pass-through type businesses, some small, some large. i just wanted your thoughts. >> i understand your question, and i will try to get a response to you and the rest of the committee later today. >> let me recognize the gentlelady from west virginia, miss miller, to inquire. >> thank you, mr. chairman. democrats have set the cut off for the ev tax credit at $800,000. what is the income level for the top 1%? >> misses miller, we estimate
that the top one percentile is around $625,000 of income, as we measured with the expanded income concept. who would benefit from a change to the cap and how much does the average taxpayer save if it gets increased or repealed? >> first of all, there is no provision in the legislation before us related to the current law limitation on state and local taxes. a number of different members on the committee and off have made different proposals but to answer your question, you will need a specific proposal. i would be happy to -- the happy to respond but specifics.
thank you very much. chair: chair is prepared to proceed to offer the last question. i strike the last word. ok. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. smucker, is recognized. rep. smucker: i have questions. thank you. my question is do u.s. companies pay state level corporate taxes in addition to the federal corporate tax? >> yes, they do. rep. smucker: i wonder if you could tell us the rate the oecd uses as a combined u.s. federal and state corporate tax rate? we would like to make apples
apples comparisons across other countries and i think -- you would think it would be fair to add the state and federal to make that comparison, correct? >> the oecd, when they present cross-country comparisons, it does add subnational cat -- taxes, particularly for the united states where state taxes are more important. rep. smucker: i am having trouble hearing you. >> the oecd does include u.s. state level taxes when they make cross-country comparisons. in recent publication, the oecd measured the u.s. corporate tax rate including average state tax burden to be an effective rate of 25 .75%. rep. smucker: 25 and three
quarters percent for total federal and state. what is the corporate tax rate in china? >> it is 25%. rep. smucker: 25%. >> yes, sir. 25%. rep. smucker: the effective rate in the united states is already higher than a company in china. >> by the oecd's measures, yes. rep. smucker: do companies in china ever pay less than 25%? >> i understand china has a certain special deduction, particularly for technology sectors. for example, for their defined technology sectors, the 25% corporate tax rate is reduced to 15% and again under certain determinations, i guess it is software sectors. the tax rate may be 10%. rep. smucker: the corporate tax
rate in china could be as low as 10% in those situations. mr. barthold: i understand for software development, generally for technology, 15%. rep. smucker: what is the capital gains rate in china? mr. barthold: on individuals, sir? rep. smucker: yes. mr. barthold: i do not know. i will see if one of my colleagues can find out and i will respond to you at the rest of the committee later today. rep. smucker: i would be interested. the u.s. already has a global minimum tax called guilty, as i'm sure you are aware. it does china impose a global minimum tax on their companies? mr. barthold: i do not believe china imposes a global minimum tax. rep. smucker: are you aware of any other countries that have a guilty type global minimum tax?
mr. barthold: not at present, sir. not at the present time, sir. rep. smucker: no other country has a guilty tax similar to what the u.s. has. mr. barthold: that is correct, sir. rep. smucker: thank you, mr. chairman. chair neal: let me recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. evans, to inquire. rep. evans: i don't want to inquire i'm not interested -- i would like to speak on the last word. can you hear me? i wanted to speak on the last word, mr. chairman. chair neal: we are doing general questions so you can ask a question and then we will move to strike the last word very shortly. rep. evans: thank you, mr.
chairman. chair neal: the gentleman from georgia, dr. ferguson, is recognized to inquire. rep. ferguson: question. what is the maximum ev tax credit available under current law? mr. barthold: um, $7,500. rep. ferguson: what is it going to be --what is the new number under the majority's plan? mr. barthold: the maximum amount on the chairman's amendment, the nature to sub to do, would be $12,500 -- cases under present law and under the proposal, it depends upon battery capacity. the number of different factors. it is not a flat number for all possible electric vehicles. rep. ferguson: will all of the electric vehicles, will they
have -- will they all be eligible for the exact same tax credit? mr. barthold: no, mr. ferguson. that is the point i was trying to make good the maximum credit amount is 12,500 but that depends upon the battery capacity in the vehicle under the proposal. it depends upon the assembly location. domestic content. there are limitations. rep. ferguson: you said battery capacity. is it the further you can go over the bigger battery? mr. barthold: you need bigger to go further. rep. ferguson: what if you build a more efficient car that uses less raw materials? we have to buy from china and you can use a small battery that
can go further. the more stuff we buy from china , the more tax credit they get. mr. barthold: there is a bonus for domestic content. rep. ferguson: if any electric vehicle is made in the u.s., anywhere in the u.s., do they get the same tax credit? there is a disney -- difference between assembly in the u.s. and domestic content of the component. they would not necessarily get the same credit. you said if we build it in america, we get the tax credit but if you build a car in china, japan, or south korea, you do not get the tax credit. right? mr. barthold: generally speaking, in the long term, yes,
sir. rep. ferguson: what is the difference with the u.s. manufacturing in the location? would a car that was built in my congressional district or my colleagues from alabama and georgia and alabama, would get -- that get the seat -- same treatment as one built in ohio in california? mr. barthold: whether it was built in georgia, alabama, whether it was assembled in georgia, alabama, california, would not matter. they would get the same treatment. the rep. ferguson: explained to me what the differences. you talked about location and assembly and where it was assembled. what is the difference there? what potentially could be the difference between a tax credit or cars built by georgians at the kia plant in west point, georgia, versus silts that build
a plant in say ohio? outside of cleveland? mr. barthold: under present law and under the proposal, you can import an electric vehicle that was made overseas and it can qualify for credit. under the proposal, the credit will be bigger if the vehicle was assembled in the united states. if it is assembled with a certain amount of domestic content. rep. ferguson: all right. ok. there is no difference -- you said something about labor. what is that? mr. barthold: there is a collective bargaining status of workers of prevailing wage standards. rep. ferguson: hang on a second. you're saying that a union worker in ohio, that plant would be able to get the vehicle built
there would be eligible for the tax credit but the worker that is assembling the plants, assembly vehicles in south carolina, georgia, and alabama that don't have collective bargaining agreements would not be eligible for the tax credits? mr. barthold: the amount of tax credit varies if the different standards are met. rep. ferguson: yea ornate. if your union, you get it. if not, you do not. is that fair enough? mr. barthold: that is an oversimplification. rep. ferguson: i yield back. chair neal: let me recognize the german from nevada to inquire. >> under the text of the bill, small revenue under 400,000 would receive a tax cut. is that correct? mr. barthold: the thresholds on
taxable income not on revenue but there is an 18% bracket on taxable incomes under 4 -- $400,000. there is a uniform 21% tax rate on all corporate income. >> for businesses with income between $400,000 and $5 million, the rate would stay at 21%? i wanted to ask ms. hall about the implementation of the $2000 cap on out-of-pocket costs for seniors. can you explain how that adjustment works under this legislation from current law and the current rate is 36 hundred dollars out of pocket so this would be a reduction to seniors
of out-of-pocket costs of up to $1600? is that correct? >> that is correct. you have answered your own question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. i yield back. chair neal: let me recognize the gentleman from kansas to inquire. rep. estes: last week, we heard that the retirement mandate excise tax would exclude people making less than $400,000 to the proposed -- -- $400,000. do the proposed nicotine taxes? mr. barthold: they are imposed at the manufacturer level and there is no provision to exclude
a purchaser who purchases the final product based on income. rep. estes: there would be a tax increase if somebody used -- mr. barthold: the anticipation is the price of a pack of cigarettes or vaping products will increase. yes, sir. rep. estes: has jct develop a district regional analysis of the tobacco and nicotine provisions to determine how that would impact income levels? mr. barthold: we have and i can provide that to the committee later this afternoon. rep. estes: do you happen to know how much of that would fall on income for households that earn under $400,000? mr. barthold: i do have some information about the present law excise taxes on tobacco which would be about the same. we kind of project that there is
roughly 12 plus million smokers and most of them have incomes under $200,000, like well over 80%. rep. estes: most of that taxes will fall under folks under present law. i would like to see the distribution. mr. barthold: we will provide that to the entire committee later today, sir. rep. estes: particularly concerned with the medium income being less than $70,000 and the impact it will have on folks. as the jct develop the distribution analysis for revising the superfund excise tax? mr. barthold: the superfund excise tax is a tax on inputs and other products generally increases the cost of a large
number of products used by large number of consumers. our analysis of the incidents is the taxes borne by consumers through higher purchase prices of these products. the short answer to your question is yes. the longer answer is our distribution would show the effects of the tax distributed pretty much as consumption occurs across tax filing units and that will be part of the distribution analysis that i had mentioned to mr. kelly that we would be providing letter today. -- later today. rep. estes: doesn't the tax burden fall on middle income households? mr. barthold: as general consumers, yes. is a tax that affects prices of goods for general consumers. yes. rep. estes: particularly since that is a bigger percentage of
those disposable income has to go to required consumer goods as opposed to having additional disposable income. mr. barthold: that is generally the case. rep. estes: thank you. i yield back. chair neal: the chair is prepared to proceed to offer an opportunity -- >> mr. chairman, it is tom rice. chair neal: mr. rice. are you still on? request to inquire? >> yes, sir. chair neal: ok. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized to inquire. rep. rice: you mentioned a discussion with mr. richmond that corporations that earned under 400,000 dollars would get a tax cut and corporations would earn between 400 thousand dollars and $5 billion would stay the same. most corporations organized --
? mr. barthold: mr. rice, there are more business entities in the united states that operate as entities. these can be as corporations, limited partnerships, llcs, and there is also a large number of people who operate as sole proprietors. rep. rice: whether it is a corporation or otherwise, will they get a tax cut under this proposal? mr. barthold: under the bill, there is no direct reduction on taxes on business income. rep. rice: if they are under $400,000, you will not get a tax cut? mr. barthold: not related to
their business income. rep. rice: if they earn $1 million, which let's say they are employing 100 americans and their in the sweet -- steel and wire businesses and they are trained across the world competing with the people who pay a whole lot more taxes. if they earn $1 million, will our taxes go up or down? mr. barthold: i am sorry, mr. rice. i don't know if the connection -- i am not hearing you very well. rep. rice: can you hear me now? mr. barthold: i am trying. rep. rice: if you have a company that employs 200 americans and their business is making steel wire or whatever their business
is, and they are competing with companies from around the world, and let it say -- i say their net income is $1 million, will their taxes go up or down under this proposal? mr. barthold: this was a pass-through entity. the limitation under section 199a is limited to an income of $500,000 for a deduction. under the facts as you cited them, they would not be able to take the advantage of 199a that they can under present law so they would likely have attire that higher tax bill. -- have a higher tax bill. rep. rice: there tax would go up by 20%. mr. barthold: under your
example. rep. rice: and the 3.8% tax, would that not apply to them as well? mr. barthold: the surtax, the 3% on agi applies to $5 million of individual income. in your example, it depends how business is owned and what sort of total income is reported. rep. rice: i said that -- i am saying the expansion of the net investment income tax. mr. barthold: yes. rep. rice: that would apply to them, as well? mr. barthold: it could apply to them, as well. yes. rep. rice: their taxes could go up by 25-30% under this proposal, if i'm correct?
mr. barthold: i cannot verify your calculations but yes, in that example, the owners of that business would have a higher tax liability. rep. rice: thank you, sir. i yield back. chair neal: let me recognize the gentlelady from the virgin islands to inquire. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just have a specific clarification for you. in the section that deals with the credit given to the -- the discussion in the chairman's amendment in the nature of the substitute, from your committee, the joint committee on taxation, in your introduction at the bottom paragraph, you give an amount there. can you tell me what is the maximum social security amount?
mr. barthold: for this year, it is $142,800 is the social security earnings maximum. del. plaskett: i see or hear -- see here you have $139,500. mr. barthold: that is correct. del. plaskett: what is that amount? mr. barthold: the $139,500 is the amount that is written as the qualifying maximum for wages eligible for the 50% credit to small employers under the amendment. del. plaskett: that amount is tied to the $139,500. mr. barthold: in the statutory language before you in the amendment, it is a specific dollar amount. del. plaskett: i believe the discussion was for it to be tied to social security maximum. with that amount be 142,000?
mr. barthold: when we spoke privately about possible options at the staff level and with you, we talked about the social security maximum in the statu tory language. it was written as $139,500 by mistake. i am solely responsible for that error. del. plaskett: thank you. i yield back. thank you, sir. i want to thank you for your assistance and your staff's continual work on these complex matters. chair neal: let me recognize the gentleman from arizona. >> i would like to yield. chair neal: the gentleman has yielded to dr. ferguson. rep. ferguson: i want to go back to the discussion we were having earlier on the ev tax credit but
before we do, you said something pretty remarkable that 80% of the taxes paid on the increase -- excise tax for tobacco tax would be paid by people making under $200,000 per year. did i hear that correctly? mr. barthold: yes, sir. rep. ferguson: was it 80%? is that what you said? mr. barthold: yes, sir. rep. ferguson: 80% making under $200,000. let me go back. if someone that is making $750,000 a year goes out and buys an $80,000 vehicle, a big one, a new audi, lexus, and those fine cars -- i have nothing against them but you have somebody making $750,000 a year. assuming they get the maximum credit because they bought the one with the big battery, they
will get $12,500 in tax credits. mr. barthold: that is possible under the legislation, sir. rep. ferguson: so we have folks making $750,000 a year getting a $12,500 tax credit and full to making near the bottom third or bottom quartile of the income range are paying more taxes because of the excise tax on tobacco. mr. barthold: tobacco excise taxes will go up and will be paid by people across all income levels including -- rep. ferguson: 80% of it. we have those on the lower income side paying higher taxes and those at the upper income eligible for a doubling of the ev tax credit essentially, $12,500. we have folks making less paying more taxes and folks that are making a lot getting a tax break.
i have listened to something my colleague the chairman said. he said wealthy individuals get to play under different rules. i would say based off what you have just affirmed, i would say under majority plan, i believe that would be correct. with that, mr. chairman, i will yell back. chair neal: he has yielded his time back to mr.'s reichard, who has two minutes, 20 seconds. rep. schweikert: i want to do this quick because i have a fixation that we subsidize the rich and if the left actually means rough news, maybe we could cut spending on the rich get it right now, we have a potential, if it is union made with the right batteries, $12,500, in a credit for purchasing an
electric vehicle. is there also a credit for solar panels? mr. barthold: yes. rep. schweikert: is a credit for battery storage? mr. barthold: yes. rep. schweikert: residential battery storage. what other credits are also there? mr. barthold: for individuals? rep. schweikert: for individuals. mr. barthold: high-efficiency eating -- heating and cooling systems. rep. schweikert: high tier heating cooling system. mr. barthold: yes. rep. schweikert: if i make $800,000 a year in an agi, adjusted gross income, do i get these credits? mr. barthold: there is no specific income limitation on the residential energy credits. rep. schweikert: if i make a couple million dollars a year, can i go and buy an electric bicycle? do i get a credit? mr. barthold: the income
limitation only applies to regular automobiles. for the bicycle, you could claim your credit. rep. schweikert: it doesn't matter. i could make $1 billion a year and still get a credit for buying a luxury vehicle excuse me, bicycle. in our last 30 seconds or 28 seconds, what is the mean income in the united states? agi? mr. barthold: household median --median or mean? rep. schweikert: let's go mean. mr. barthold: the median is around $70,000. i will check and get you specific numbers. rep. schweikert: once again, in the last couple of seconds, the democrats' bill is subsidizing the rich good thank you, mr. chairman. chair neal: the chair is now prepared to move to the phase of striking the last question. i will begin by recognizing the
gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. building back better against the health of our neighbors and planet and our economy. just over a decade after the landmark passage of the affordable care act, this week, we will approve legislation to fulfill its promise of health, security for millions of americans. due to the obstruction of a few republican state leaders, more concerned with their political health and the health of our neighbors, 2 million texans, 6 million americans in all, have been left unprotected in states that refuse to expand medicaid. in texas, we have the disgraceful distinction of the most uninsured citizens and children in the country. i have personally seen the faces of disbelief of poor citizens who cannot secure coverage
because they are too poor when they are more prosperous -- there more progress majors -- prosperous neighbors received substantial tax credits. we are limiting that with this legislation. closing the medicaid coverage gap is essential to ensuring health equity. half the gap in texas is composed of latino families who have borne the greatest burden during the pandemic. long-standing inequities where exactly are rated by this virus -- exacerbated by the virus needing to a drop in life expectancy to latinos. calling for a permanent coverage gap solution, the largest latino civil rights advocacy group noted the disproportionate adverse effect of the pandemic on latinos, many who are essential workers keeping the economy afloat. they have made it imperative that equity is at the center of any additional federal investments in health care.
to pay for this and other health care improvements, this bill makes modest reforms aimed at pharmaceutical price gouging. while this barrel -- bill's p rovisions exclude too many drugs and people and price gouging, there are some who want to make it weaker. every step to further weaken negotiations means consumers will pay too much and we will have too little in taxpayer savings to reinvest in these vital health care improvements. our individual health is already being impacted by the climate crisis with each week bring new evidence that we really are in a code red situation when it comes to our overheated planet. our green act provisions combined with work by other committees offer incentives for renewables and electric transportation such as electric charger provisions that i offer. the health of our economy also depends on correcting the inequities and false promises of the trump tax law.
this begins by paying for our initiatives rather than reverting to the republican borrow and spend approach which has left us $2 trillion in debt for the tax law and spending necessary to respond to trumps irresponsible actions that only accelerated the pandemic. as we move forward, we must -- need much more to support president biden and secretary yellen in correcting abuses by multinationals. american multinationals enjoy an effective tax rate -- that they are paying -- of 7.8%. teachers, firefighters, small business owners would certainly be delighted to have that kind of special treatment good this bill we consider today provides president biden less than half revenue he sought from international tax reform. more important than the dollar figure, so long as our tax laws
continue to provide an incentive for multinationals to outsource american jobs and profits to other countries, our economy will be the last. that is right in my bill cosponsored either majority of the democratic caucus is designed to stop. today only some provisions are included. it is not fair to main street businesses at their international competitors enjoy tax advantages nor is it fair to american workers and american corporations get a tax break for relocating factories overseas. we should shut the door. tax incentives from shipping jobs overseas by reducing the giant gap and encouraging overseas investments and a higher rate for investment here at home. we have great progress this week but we will work ahead in order to truly build back better for all americans. i yelled back. rep. doggett: let me recognize the gentleman from florida, mr.
buchanan to strike the last word. rep. buchanan: i just want to focus on pass-throughs. 95% of businesses are pass-through entities. tax policy matters. florida has the most competitive tax system in the country in the six most competitive corporate tax code. it has grown nearly 50% over the last decade to more than $1 trillion and the number of small businesses has grown by 35%. that is why it is so critical we get this right in my opinion. when we talk about pass-throughs, i want to make sure people are clear about -- my sense of what is going on. the tax rate, 39 .6%, you could argue it could be less but there are millions of businesses in
this category that will be impacted because you need to get over $400,000 or $500,000 and then the tax starts. what does that entity look like? that entity is 30 to 50 employees that might make $800,000. the aca, another 3.8. i will be the first to admit there is not a lot of business but there are tens of thousands of businesses that will look at the surtax is 3%. that takes it to 36.4%. originally at tech -- 21, it might go to 26%. you don't think about it but you need to think about it. when you take into account taxes in terms of state and local taxes, mr. chairman, in your state, it is 51.4% when you add it up. for a business with 100
employees, it will be impacted that level. california, 59 percent. new jersey, 57.4%. new york, 61.2%. they're concerned about the salt tax. the member says if we do not get that done, we will not get it done. that is the least of their worries. businesses are smart and will look at that and guess what? they are going to texas. they are going to nevada. they're going to florida. that is what is happening. that transfer of some of the best and most capable entrepreneurs, they are leaving because they are not going to pay 60% or 50%. what does that mean? if a business makes $1 million, you employ 75 people, 40% will vote to taxes. the order might take out $200. the money left is to grow and expand but again, these formulas, they can take up to 60% and that is why say it so
critical that we get this right, especially as it relates to pass-throughs. you take the 20% off the table. i cannot believe we are considering that as something that is critical. why would we want the tax rate 50+% and you have corporate's at 26%? i think it should be 21. look at the difference. a lot of people get confused or you think of the individual. set the individual aside. i'm taking of the business entity that has 100 employees. some of that might have five or six that wouldn't impact them. some of them have 150 to 100 employees. this all impacts them and they are looking at 50% plus rates. thank you and i yelled back. chair neal: let me recognize the gentleman from california. mr. thompson to strike the last word. rep. thompson: i'm new to strike the last word. chair neal: recognize.
rep. thompson: legislation before us is a once in a generation investment. it is an investment in our children, our planet, and our future and it is an investment in the fundamental fairness of our economy and opportunity for all. i am particularly proud that this legislation increased the green act. a massive investment in clean, renewable energy technologies to represent one of the most aggressive and forward thinking climate policies ever advanced by congress. i want to thank my colleagues who contributed to this section of our bill. as i said last week, we have one third of our country on file, one third underwater, and one third with no water at all. my democratic colleagues and i have sounded the alarm for years and action is long overdue. our planet cannot afford for us to wait any longer. we need to de carbonized our
economy. we need to take advantage of innovative new technologies and we need to accelerate our economic and embrace solar, wind, geothermal, and other energy sources. that is what the green act does. the best part is we can do all of this while boosting american economic security and competitiveness. time and again, we are told reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is unaffordable or bad for our economy. nothing could be further from the truth. by investing in key technologies and renewable industries, we can meet the necessary climate benchmarks and create thousands of good paying jobs. it is a win for the planet, a win for workers, and a win for our economy, and i'm pleased this legislation includes several bipartisan priorities of mine. the bill provides new assistance to blind and vision impaired
americans. a bipartisan bill that i've worked on with my colleague, mr. kelly from pennsylvania. by helping them purchase new technologies, enabling these individuals to live and work more independently. it includes tax incentives for disaster resiliency. encouraging individuals in fire, hurricane, or other disaster prone regions to participate in resiliency programs while ensuring our resiliency investments don't inadvertently trigger a big tax bill. the package cracks down on bad actors who abuse the conservation easement program, one of the best tools at our disposal for the conservation of land, while saving taxpayers billions of dollars. another bipartisan bill with mr. kelly that i worked on for years. i would like to end on this point. this package is paid for. four years ago, our republican
colleagues ran through a $2.3 trillion unpaid for tax cut. we were told those cuts would pay for themselves and trickle down to the working class. that has not happened. but cuts have not paid for themselves. the benefits have overwhelmingly accrued to the wealthy and we have over $2 trillion more of debt to show for it. democrats are not doing that. we are paying for this. the package is fully and sensibly paid for by ensuring everyone pays their fair share and the tax code works for all americans. this is an excellent package and i look forward to supporting it today and on the house floor. i yelled back. rep. thompson: let me recognize the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith. rep. smith: thank you. i was listening to some of these arguments, especially the one i just heard from my colleague from california, claiming that
making it sound like we have less revenue after we passed t cja than before. we had more revenue. we contributed to a growing economy and growing opportunity for the american people. based on what was just said about the tax cuts and jobs act, i would like to submit for the record a list of false tax reform claims by speaker nancy pelosi and others with fact checking along the way. i would like to submit this. thank you, mr. chairman. i know it was mentioned earlier that no one likes raising taxes. i disagree. the eagerness that i have observed of folks wanting to raise taxes is very clear. whether it is the press release announcing this meeting, we are gathering in right now, or whether it is various other announcements made along the way, i think we are facing some
very crucial issues across our country. primarily among them, the fact that there are so many job vacancies across america. let me repeat that. there are so many job vacancies across america that it contributing to inflation. those vacancies and that disruption in our supply chains are hurting folks. they cannot afford it. when we see inflation and the tax on the lower class, let's face it, low income, folks on lower incomes are facing higher prices, that is a significant, significant tax good i would like to focus more in depth on some type of agent night and how they doubled down on what eye would consider failed policies of the past when we should refocus on policies proven to
grow our economy and get americans back to work. none of our concerns about the child tax credit expansion have changed since they enacted it a few months ago. it is sending monthly benefit checks when the agency has a massive backlog. i hear from constituents all the time about this backlog. virus is failing to meet the customer service needs of past -- taxpayers. i am on both sides. i have been for some time. we have issues pending like i said that it says though they do not exist when you read the text of what my colleagues are wanting to push right now. i think about the subsidies of electric bicycles and very expensive electric vehicles and it has already been said multiple times that the subsidies and up going to very
wealthy americans. very wealthy americans. i would think we could at least they set out on an income basis. it is interesting that has not been proposed yet. i would like to offer the reminder that rx cuts maximized revenue and growth and ensure fairness in our tax code. tax revenue has increased every year since we enacted t cja. every year. under t cja, the top 1% earners pay more than 40% of all income taxes. the top 10% pays more than 70%. economic growth was at 3% after several years of a strong economy. wage growth has been strongest for lower and middle income americans under t cja. that is not what we have seen lately especially given the policies out of washington over the last few months. there has been zero corporate
inversion since it was signed into law. even president obama acknowledged we need to be competitive with our tax code, not defer our tax -- corporate tax rate to other countries who say they will raise their tax rate. i will wait to pass judgment on that until it actually happens. now the majority proposal to raise the corporate tax rate higher than china's, expand provisions to punitive levels and tax profits in way no other major economy does threaten to undermine our successes. this bill is clearly the wrong piece of legislation at the wrong time. this is the opposite thing we should be doing to get our economy back on track and create more freedom, opportunity, for everyone in america. i yelled back. chair neal: mr. larson, do you
wish to be recognized? you are recognized to strike the rep. larson: last word. rep. larson:rep. larson: i move to strike the last word. democrats have put forward in the bill we are marking up-to-date the most consequential tax cuts since the new deal. that is why as mr. blumenauer noted the other day, we hear echoes coming from the other side of how this is socialism and radical left-wing thinking that is coming out of the democrats. surely the end of the world as we know it. it is astonishing because what this represents is a tale of two tax cuts. tax cuts where 83% of the cut went to the nation's wealthiest 1%. the middle-class, the working class, were supposed to wait
based on the benevolence of these wealthy individuals for money to trickle down to them. well, that is an approach that was close to, as the hill reported in 2017, a $5 trillion. ultimately, after the trade-offs, which are not addressed, and not being paid for, passing on $2.7 trillion unpaid for, our colleagues on the other side are rightfully concerned about making sure we do not go further into debt but have amnesia when it comes to the mountain of debt they placed on the american people.
they now seem outraged by the fact that spending money directed to the middle and working classes are an abomination. that instead, people should be content to let the rich get rich and the poor continue to bear the burden and see this gap grow. i am proud of the work that the staff has done in putting together proposals that seek to balance and trust the little -- middle and working-class people of this nation when they receive their resources. funny thing. they will not be buying back stock options. they will be buying the basic essentials of life. they will buy food, pay for
utilities, educate their children, pay for health care, and despite the labeling on the other side, if that means providing the opportunity for working families to be able to do this, call me a socialist. these are the things that people need to survive. just like they needed social security. just like they needed medicare. just like they needed the affordable health care act. where a young man stood up and a town hall i had and he starts with, thank you so much. my premiums were $1400. now they are 200 and without money, i will be able to send my kids to college where
previously, because of the slash and burn nature of the other side in trying to end what they affectionately call obamacare, now people with their families are able to buy health insurance that they can afford and be able to put their savings into the work and benefit of making sure their kids get a better education. i am proud of the ways and means that have included an extension of the child tax credit. the authority from the federal government to reduce prescription drug prices, historic investments in green energy, permanent extension of the enhanced tax credits, policies to help governments lower their cost and barring. these are things we can be proud of and i yelled back, mr. chairman. chair neal: thank you. mr. kelly, do you wish to be
recognized? rep. kelly: i do. i have some slightl picture to bring to lightl,,,,,, because it is interesting. to my self proclaimed socialist on the other side, thank you. make you for making your role clear to all of us. i just think that, i have told you this before. i have 10 grandchildren and i'm one of the ways you teach kids about morals and the way to live their life is you give them favorites. i brought a picture. this is the goose that laid the golden egg. this is a wonderful story to tell children because it tells them they are morally responsible for what they long for. sometimes you get too greedy. the former is happy when he gets his first egg but he and his wife get together and they say i bet if we got this goose, we will get all the eggs at once.
this goose represents hard-working american taxpayers. we continue down this road saying, don't worry because what we are doing to you is really good for you. we will make you uncompetitive. we will make you the laughingstock of the global economy and say this is great. america has taken itself out of the race. how wonderful they are. they are so giving. there is something about returning to our childhood and remembering the basics of what we were told from the time we were little. don't exceed what you're able to afford. it is not how much you make. it is how much you save in this case, weird going down a road we cannot come back. we are going to help everybody and do everything for everybody because this goose is not going to keep laying golden eggs.
we compete in a global economy. yet we think that somehow nobody else in the world is watching us. nobody is thinking let america go. this legislation is going to continue to got the goose that lays the golden eggs and we can be happy because we will have that debt those eggs in front of us. when the goose is no longer there, we will say how could we have been so foolish? how have -- could we so desperate so careless and reckless? do it in the fact that we are doing the right thing for the right people right now. not going forward. this is a horrible piece of legislation and 90 so much for the 1200 pages we got yesterday morning at 9 a.m.. i told my friends this is a great light reading at night. the only problem is you will have nightmares until the next
morning. having said that, i would encourage all members to take a look at this poor goose as she looks at what she is paying and understand this is the last time she will lay those golden eggs because we will go together. we are damp fullest to sit here today and think that somehow this is well. i yelled back. chair neal: you're recognized to strike the last word. rep. blumenauer: i am proud of our work to rebuild america to combat the climate crisis and create a fair and equitable tax code. it dries a contrast with the work of our republican friends during their tax proposal which failed to make a dent in corporate profit shifting permitting 55 of the largest corporations to pay nothing in corporate tax in 2020 and provides 83% of benefits to the
wealthiest 1% in the last year of the legislation you'd today marks a significant step to decarbonizing economy and provides many provisions i have fought hard for. you and i have worked for 10 years on these issues that deal with wind and solar tax credits. i appreciate what you in the subcommittee have done with the green act. i am proud that 100% direct pay to address tax equity are in there. extensions for wind tax credits, creation of a standalone credit for energy storage, the creation of the electric bike trend. reinstatement of the commuter bike tax which was guarded by a republican friend with their tax bill. it expands electric vehicle charging stations for three wheel vehicles. i am proud of provisions to expand the bipartisan legislation i have for historic tax credits. we worked for more than a decade
as well as the provisions to reinstate the superfund. it makes investments in working families and rewrites the tax code to make it more fair and equitable by expanding the tax credit provisions, increasing the corporate tax rate in marginal tax rate and rewiring our international tax systems. this legislation makes america more economically competitive and equitable. i am listening to my republican friends argument that fly in the face of the facts. documented by scholarship, independent analysis, our own staff, and what most members actually no. ironically, america paid much higher taxes in the eisenhower era when the economy worked better for most americans and
90% rate. they were higher rates. higher rates than ronald reagan. somehow my friends are unable to calculate the total tax burden. they make comparisons about stated rates among corporate tax. they don't include the value added tax. virtually all our competitors pay that. it is a huge tax. there were references to china. they don't acknowledge the fact that china has a variety of value-added tax, up to 13%. that is why we already pay -- and the tax rate for my friend -- less than 8%. less than 8%. it is --my friend mr. kelly points out we are in a global economy. somehow, my republican friends
cannot calculate the total tax burden. they ignore that value added tax. they do not look at the difference between statutory rates and effective tax rates. these are elements that are easy to verify. the experts understand it. it is one of the reasons why we are working forward in an effort here to equalize the system to collect revenues where it can appropriately be captured and redirected good bridges have flowed to the largest corporations in the wealthiest families. that is undeniable. we have an opportunity to make modest adjustments to be able to be on the same playing field as our international competitors and american corporations and businesses will actually retain the fact that they are paying
less taxes overall. i wish we stop to hearing phony comparisons that don't take into effect the total tax rate. this is what our staff tells us. this is what individual analysts present. when you ignore the other taxes, you get a distorted picture. i guess people think what happened on january 6 is normal towards behavior and they are not outraged and they are not schooled in denial. i appreciate what has been done. look forward to supporting it going forward and i appreciate the time to speak. >> let me recognize gentleman from missouri to strike the last word. >> thank you. as you know as well as i do,
this exercise is extremely misguided. it is one thing to waste the minority time but it is another to waste joe remembers time. what we continue to do today and tomorrow has no chance of becoming law. we all know it. thank goodness. we have seen speaker pelosi's game plan before. it has been widely reported that whatever this committee does is dead on arrival in the rules committee. neither the white house or senate democrats approve the way the means package was replaced to. you know that means. the democrat party is in complete disarray.
they have expressed overall skepticism of the huge tax increases and the timeline for this bill. that before we even get to the senate concerns. this package is going nowhere. but if the majority wants to give republicans a platform to explain to the american people why their policies are so detrimental then thank you. we are going to hear from democrats today that tax increases are necessary because this gutted revenue. this could not be farther from the truth. the reality is that under pc jay, revenues are up $539 billion. or 18%.
without any new tax hikes, our nation is on track for the biggest growth in revenues in 52 years, amounting to $3.8 trillion but democrats have another complaint. the package before us today is a radical socialist spending spree that includes the largest tax increase ever proposed on working americans. it contains more spending than the combined gdp of mexico and canada. it spends 30 time -- 35 times more than what we invest yearly in our veteran health care. if enacted, the bernie budget combined with all democrat spending since just 2019 will be more than the total taxes in the history of the united states. in the meantime, our country is on pace to experience the highest yearly inflation in 40
years. as if this wasn't bad enough, on top of that, the drug pricing schemes included in this package will result in treatment for american patients but it does not stop there. democrats continue to further handicap our economy by creating welfare programs for the rich through green energy subsidies at the expense of the working class. last congress, democrats told us that all the come down of the green new deal was not serious policies but a set of ideals. this bill proves that was a lie. by sending tax credits to wealthy americans that don't need government handouts, it was clear the green new bill was always the endgame. let's start with the basics. can you imagine a couple living
in san francisco or new york city making $800,000 a year to buy an electric vehicle, it seems ridiculous but this legislation would do just that. the government will write that couple a check for up to $12,500 to offset the cost of their brand-new car. if you want and not her bike for the holidays, the government will help you with that. meanwhile, any money that could actually help americans who need it most is completely wasted. the broadbent provisions in this bill did nothing to direct funding to underserved areas like mine is. it sends money to areas that already has coverage.
democrats are seeking to bail out their friends and donors in blue states with crushing energy policies on the backs of working-class americans. while they will bail out these rich donors who want to be showered with taxpayer funding, they want to anything to help people who need a regular car to get their job. remember that speaker pelosi is holding them hostage so she can give taxpayers to her wealthy buddies. i asked my friends on the other of the aisle but we are even doing here. you are ducking any debate on the issues you actually care about because they don't fit your arbitrary merits. i go back. >> the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> i have heard diatribe after
diatribe. i want everyone to know that i am against tax havens. you have done nothing because you said this was tax reform in 2017. the last tax reform legislature was back in 1985 when democrats and republicans did work together. people like senator bradley, the congressman from new york state. that is when we had tax reform. don't call this tax reform what you did in 2017. i am against tax shelters. if you want to go into that, we will be here all day. i am against double taxation. i never heard you speak about
those things. in the 25 years i have been here. i never heard you talk about any of these three. put your cards on the table. what do you suggest we do about tax havens, tax shelters and double taxation? i want to hear. there are people who are starving out there. there are people who are working hard every day and getting nothing in return to improve their lives. handouts. that is what it has come to? we will wait to help our donors and then they will eventually help those people we talked about. that is your philosophy. we are not going to subsidize any state anymore.
we are tired of it. josh calls it moocher states. i have a better word for it which i can't say here in public. let's not undersell this. today we are finally tilting the scales from those at the top and building a better america. this is not soak the rich, this is pay your fair share. this is about tax fairness. raising the legacy of the tax scam. you got the payback in 20. this is about reducing the wealth gap that disproportionately impacts low-wage workers and people of color. you talked about cops, firefighters, teachers.
all of these people are in the middle class. in the state of new jersey, they are not very happy about what you did in 2017. you said i don't care if it goes back to the civil war and those people, they knew more than we did. the civil war folks knew more than we did. they knew the money was going toward the law and very little was getting back into the local communities. they know about it, why don't you? the bill today will make america stronger and fairer. the economist jested a story about when the economy improves for everybody, under what --
under which regime? look between democrats and republicans. look at who got away with it. we are for everybody. everybody will make out on this deal. really? it will support working-class families and we are extending the american rescue plan. tax credits that chuck -- cut child poverty in half. i never heard anybody on the others id even recognize that fact. you don't want it to happen. that is your problem. we are ushering the longest medicare expansion in generations. we are finally stopping forcing americans to choose between their wallets or their lives.
>> let me recognize the gentleman from texas to strike the last word. >> thank you, i understand the passion and respect that along with the views of my colleagues. the only thing i would say that is offensive is when somebody impugns the motives of our colleagues. i don't know that you really mean it but to suggest that republicans don't really care or want to see people lifted out of policy is just wrong. we have a different view of how to get there. we don't think some distant federal program is the way to do it where there is also -- all sorts of waste, fraud and abuse. we do believe that it does track
people in a cycle of poverty. it does not pull people up and out to be the very best and to put into play their god-given talents and maximize their earning ability and you have a better life for their families, that is what we have seen all too often. especially when you have welfare without work requirements. i think that does a disservice to the american people, to our fellow americans -- without those basic root -- work requirements and personal responsibly. it is offensive to people. it is offensive for folks to have to work hard just to make ends meet and they can't afford health care because somebody had a good idea that government health care was going to solve
the quality and cost of care by calling it the affordable care act when it actually doubled the cost of care for working people. the same in every space, every sector where the government had for whatever motive -- they decided that the government was going to be the solution to the problem. that is why we have seen runaway inflation recently. i can say that is a direct affect of the massive spending that has occurred just recently in the last covid bill, $2 trillion. you will see more inflationary effects. you will see the debt accelerated. that is a problem for all of us. i will not give republicans a pass on the debt but you are accelerating the debt. i think that is the biggest threat to our country. we are almost 30 trillion in debt. this is not going to pay for itself. the green deal does not pay for
itself. all of the massive expansion and welfare entitlements does not pay for itself. we have almost a trillion dollars in annual deficits prior to covid and none of this is going to go to pay down that deficit and accumulating debt. it is only going to increase it. i don't see how anybody who has a modicum of physical response ability and their governing framework could support this. i think it is terribly irresponsible on so many levels. i think the worst of it is nobody in this committee hearing is going to end up paying for this. it will be our posterity. it will be our children and grandchildren will pay for it at some point. i can't tell you when but it will happen.
there will be a payday and it will be horrible. the facts have been articulated by my colleagues already. they lifted 6 million people out of poverty. we celebrated that. the biggest increase in household median income on record -- we celebrated that. all people rose on the title prosperity when we allow people to keep more of their hard-earned money. we allowed job creators to invest and create more opportunities. it turns out that is the best way to get people out of poverty. it is the best way to create wealth creation for people, upward mobility and we saw it in spades. we saw it in record fashion. we are going to reverse all of
that at the worst time. at the worst time. these job creators are struggling with inflation. they are struggling because -- this is directly on this, they have enhanced on employment where people got more. now we will split a big tax on them? they can't handle all of this. this will be devastating to our economy. the state into our families. >> let me recognize the gentleman from illinois. >> i move to strike the last word. thank you. this legislation resents in historic opportunity to prioritize children, families and workers to advance economic and environmental justice and to grow our economy by asking the wealthiest and most secure to pay their fair share.
it reduces child poverty via substantial child tax credit and dependent tech -- care tax credit which i have advocated for years. the science is clear that these investments will significant labor reduced child poverty and greatly increase parental employment and earnings, especially forever can americans, single parents, mothers younger than 25. in august alone, the advanced child tax credit give caregivers $30.5 million to provide food, shelter and other necessities for 121,000 children in my congressional district alone. i have championed enhancing the earned income tax credit to help
child this workers and noncustodial parents since 2008 via my response of a fatherhood act. in 2015i advocated lowering the earned income tax credit eligibility age to 18 to help vulnerable young workers and adopt in special protections for fostering homeless youth. this legislation makes the investment and individual workers that will improve economic well-being, reduce poverty and increase the labor force participation of millions of people. this list -- this legislation helps low income students by making pell grants nontaxable. removing the lifetime ban on the american opportunity tax credit and helping expand broadband to
low income communities, all investments are promoted. this will put money in the pockets of millions of low income individuals by reducing electricity costs while making the air they breathe safer. it includes strong labor provisions for our investment in green energy and benefits workers as well as businesses. it also encourages higher wages for childcare workers to promote stability and quality in childcare. this is via the new market tax credits, infrastructure, food construction, no income housing, deteriorated housing and especially in public adversity. it makes americans healthier via enhanced tax credit to cover
health insurance and to incense people to work and will in underserved areas and it addresses racial and economic inequities for rural and underserved communities and for those who live in states to fail to spend medicaid. it helps people afford the medicines they need to live healthy lives. i look forward to voting for this historic legislation and i yelled back the balance of my time. >> let me recognize the gentleman from kansas to strike the last word. >> before the covid-19 panic, our economy had taken off as to the tax cuts and jobs act that valued hard work and underpin her ship. that is because republicans of congress focus our efforts focus on helping those who start a business under kitchen table and help bring those to the main
street. or people were finding jobs in america than any time in our history. but today we are working up a 900 page tax bill with around $3 trillion in tax hikes and new loopholes geared to paying for this some government expansion. the new york times promoted enormous impact to this legislation will have on this country and says it will touch virtually every american from conception to old age. instead of focusing on getting the economy growing, democrats have prioritized a grab of socialist policies that require massive tax hikes. one recent study from the tax foundation found that all of president biden's proposed $6 trillion spending bill will shrink the economy by an entire percent over the next decade. democrats seem to affect that -- member that just because a bill spends money doesn't mean it is a good investment. washington has a bad track record of making good investments with american tax dollars. i fear that many small
businesses that have fought so hard to stay for battling larger companies will ultimately fail under the tax and regulatory regime of the lighted administration. the joint committee on taxation found that two thirds of president biden's corporate tax eight will be thought by no income taxpayers, including the small businesses that file taxes as individuals. they will lower federal revenues by around $1.2 trillion over the next decade. the tax cuts and jobs act of 2017 did the opposite by increasing federal revenue to expanded economic activity. democrat's good investment only get worse when you dig into the details of the tax hikes and giveaways. degree new deal programs make families across the u.s. pay more in taxes so the millionaires in california can write off in that new tesla. as we emerge from the pandemic, the focus needs to be unrebutted the economy in a way that we know works. this begins by removing new hurdles to new business formation and implement and policies that allow our small
businesses to grow. instead, democrats are doubling down on the radical expansion of government through green new deal policies, subsidized health care and a weaponized irs. make a mistake, this expansion of washington will come at the expense of working families and small businesses. with that, i yelled back. >> let me recognize the gentlelady from california to strike the last word. quite lastly, this committee made historic investments and working families on a level we have not seen in generations. today, our continues. every family deserves lean air and water and the resources to care for each other and a tax code that is not stacked against them. yet these fundamental necessities are out of reach for so many in the communities i represent. it is up to us to change that. i am proud that the remaining pieces of the back at her act will help us do so. earlier this year, the american
rescue plan made historic downpayments in extending the top -- child tax credit that helped lift millions of children and their families out of poverty. this packet does on that commitment and i want to thank the chairman for ensuring that this enhanced benefit is available to all children, including immigrants as a child tax credit was always intended to be. it also makes permanent another provision i have long championed, to expand the dependent care assistance program so that working parents can save more of their hard-earned paychecks pretax for childcare. this bill will further make a real difference for families in my district by making prep the american rescue plan expansion of the child and dependent care credit. families are just struggling to afford care for children. we sometimes make the mistake of forgetting the importance of care at the other end of life. that is why i am particularly proud that this package includes a version of my bill, the
bipartisan credit or curing act. too many family caregivers must leave the workforce when their loved one has no one else to leave on -- lean on. they are disproportionately women and women of color. too often they face the emotional and financial burden of caregiving alone. they deserve our help. this new credit will help shield families from financial hardships when life throws its toughest curve balls them. by caring for each other. caring for each other also ensures that we have an environment that allows all community to thrive. that is why this package invests in clean energy efficiency and that is why it is so important. i am grateful that a tax credit i have sponsored that incentivizes energy efficiency and good pay union jobs is included. i am also proud to have worked to extend the benefits of all communities through the energy
credit. i want to thank the committee for including investments i have been proud to champion. i urge colleagues not to be distracted. they are watering down their dosages because they cannot make ends meet. not when this package is fully paid for at a time of extraordinary income inequality. too many take the fundamentals for life for granted. so many americans don't have to worry about finding care for a long one. -- loved one. we should never have to watch children grow up at a higher risk of asthma. part to any of my constituents
do. it is in our power to change that today. if we build back better by actually investing in working families, we can. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. before i yield back, i want to set the record straight on the revisionist in nature my republican colleagues have toward this. they said it would be so simple that there tax reform would allow us to be able to file our income tax on a postcard. that did not happen. they said multinationals would reinvest in facilities and higher more workers. that did not happen. what these multinationals did is increase ceo pay and buy back stock. they said it created the lowest unemployment rate. while rates may have been though, that is because many people had to work two and three jobs just to scrape by. in the three years before the pandemic, one in three
households with kids and half of black and latino household with children experienced a major financial hardship such as an initial but -- an inability to afford adequate food, housing or utilities. this mantra by my republican colleagues that we should not be making these investments, they want to make investments for the wealthiest few and multinational corporations. we want to invest in working families and making sure people get back into the workforce. i asked people to support this package of bills and i yield back. rep. sewell: mr. chairman, today, this committee will continue with the work to rebuild our economy. this portion of the overall bill aims to rectify the issues created by t cja with
substantial policies crafted to benefit all americans, not just corporations and the wealthy. subtitle f consists of a framework derived from the act i introduced earlier this year. this bill language will expand common sense bond financing opportunities. furthermore, it will provide a number of likable financing tools that meet the unique needs of community's across the country, including transportation, public health facilities, schools and other infrastructure and economic developing products. this bill will store the ability of states and localities to refinance existing debt to refinance funding. this cost-saving tool enjoys bipartisan support and will reduce the cost of borrowing for critical infrastructure projects and allow our local governments to take advantage of
low-interest rate environment. this provision is what the cities and towns in alabama need to build back better in the wake of covid-19. our tax code several tools within that have proven to offer economic incentives, especially in underserved communities. there is no to a better than the new talk -- new market tax credit. this reconciliation language will incorporate my new market tax credit expansion act which will permanently authorize and expand new market tax credit. this credit has proven to be an effective, targeted and cost-efficient financing tool valued by businesses, nonprofits and communities alike. as we continue to strive to do better and be better stewards of our environment, we must always remind ourselves of the next generation inheriting our world, and investment in a child is an
investment in our future. thanks to our leadership, the work that this committee regarding the child tax credit is the best down payment this nation can make in our next generation. i am proud that this legislation will expand and continue to provide advanced payments. the child tax credit has proven to be a lifeline to millions of american families during this pandemic and that is especially true in my district. it has been a source of revenue. it has been a source of relief for those who have had to weather some of the largest challenges covid has presented. it has kept our children warm, fed and clothed during this unparalleled time in economic uncertainty. we have an obligation to the american people and must ensure that everything is being done to protect individuals and their families by providing affordable, quality health care, especially during this once in a generation public health crisis.
that is why i support the american rescue plan and support the bill back better agenda and its efforts to make improvements to the aca by helping alabamians access health care by advancing premium -- premium tax credits and making them permanent. when i think of health equity, there are a lot of constituents in my district that come to mind. including members of my own family. i think about the distance my constituents traveled to access health care in hospitals that have closed or are at risk of closing. that is why closing the coverage gap is the most important initiatives when it comes to rural health care. there are 135 rural hospitals that have closed since 2010. seven are in alabama. the writing is on the wall. 90% of the rural health closures in recent years have been in states that did not expand medicaid. in states that have not expanded
medicaid, the uninsured rates for women of childbearing years is nearly twice as high as those states that have expanded. black women are two times more likely to die in childbirth than white women. only five of the 14 counties in my district have hospitals with obj -- ob/gyn divisions. as hospitals closed, women are likely to drive even further to access care. i believe that medicaid expansion is critical to providing health care to the working poor and improving the visibility and financial viability of our rural hospital. let's pass this budget bill and build back better for all americans. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i think the gentlewoman. >> today we take a crucial step in addressing the economic
inequities 70 face in our country and that were made worse by the pandemic. in particular, this package includes any stanchion of the expanded child tax credit. this has long been a priority of mine because of the impact it would have on our children, their families and their futures. it is key to rebuilding our middle class. i want to thank my partners for helping to lead this effort and many thanks to chairman neil for all of his work to help us get here. the child tax credit is a critical tax cut for middle-class families. the monthly payments that started in july are reaching over 36 million households, over 60 million kids in democratic, republican and purple districts like mine. already, 3.3 million more parents have been able to provide food for their children and 3 million children have been
kept out of poverty. some still think the cost of the expansion is too high. let me be clear, the child tax credit is not frivolous spending, it is an investment in our children in the program actually saves money in the long run. according to club your university, the expanded child tax credit would save eight dollars for every one dollar we put in. while the initial investment is large, it is small in comparison to the economic and societal return that we are already starting to see and would see going forward. others have said we need to means test the program. in the american rescue plan we adjusted the child tax credit thresholds from the republican tax law. republicans have thresholds of 400,000 for joint filers and 200,000 for single household
filers. in the american rescue plan, those went down to 150000 and 112,500 respectively to target the families that need the benefits the most. and we made the credit refundable to reach the children whose families are in -- earn too little to receive the full benefit. the expanded child tax credit is reaching 90% of all kids in the u.s.. middle class and lower income families. this is estimated to cut child poverty in half. we cannot shortchange our kids. this package also includes another priority of mine, and expansion of the low income tax credit. over 37 million households are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. 17 million are spending at least half of their income on housing. it is simply unsustainable. this bill makes durable change
to address this ballooning price. the packets extends the temporary 12.5% increase in state allocations which have already resulted in more than 59,000 affordable homes that otherwise would not have been possible and it increases the amount by in additional 50% for the next seven years. additionally, the package will increase the number of affordable rental homes that can be built using private activity bonds which will boost affordable housing production. finally, we improve the housing credit program to better serve no income individuals and families within an additional 10% increase in the increased ability to serve at risk for underserved communities, including native american and rural communities. these important production provisions stem from my ipod and legislation, the affordable housing credit improvement act which would produce 1.3 8
million affordable rental homes over the next decade and serve more than 2 million low income people. mr. chairman, i would like to enter into the record a letter from the committee to invest in our neighbor's action campaign, commending the historic investment we make in the low income housing tax credit. quite addressing the nationwide photo housing crisis will take a competence of an holistic approach and that can't be solved without vastly increasing the supply of affordable rental homes and this bill does just that. finally, today's package builds on the affordable care act by nicking permit the enhanced premium subsidies enacted by the american rescue plan and fills the medicaid coverage gap created by republican governors who refused to expand medicaid. both of which are top health priorities for the new, credit coalition that i share.
middle income families who were previously ineligible for federal savings saw them a three premiums dropped by $200 per month -- there monthly premiums dropped. i look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important work. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. let me recognize represent of two. >> i move to strike the last word. >> we take a historic step today to build back that are in economy in which we prioritize people over profit. earlier this year, democrats made significant expansions in the child tax credit earned income tax credit and the independent care tax credit. i am proud to say that we will continue these investments in the american people. expansion of the child tax
credit is already cutting child poverty in this country in half and i am so proud we are extending this historic measure. the credit will remain fully refundable to support the lowest income households and taxpayers will continue to have the option to receive monthly payment from the irs to help cover everyday expenses. i am especially proud that this bill corrects the injustice from the 2017 republican tax bill that made an estimated one million immigrant children ineligible for the credit. this change means afghan refugee children will also be able to benefit from the child tax credit as they establish their new lives here in america. the expansions for the earned income tax credit in this bill will continue to support child this workers including by
increasing the income limit to include more of the working poor. as families continue to catch their childcare together during the pandemic, our expansion of the childcare independent tax credit will provide families with some peace of mind that they are able to recoup up to $4000 for the cost of caring for one child and $8,000 for two or more on their tax returns. this bill also makes investments in our communities by helping local governments stretch their public dollars further with the new tilt america bonds. i am thrilled to see many improvements to the income housing tax credit, including in this legislation to make sure we accelerate the building of more affordable housing in communities across this country. building back better also
provides an opportunity to attack this head on. we are ensuring that water conservation is not penalized by the tax code. we are helping transit agencies to invest in zero emissions, electric buses and investing in tax credits for electric cars. we are ensuring that we can meet our target of carbon free power by 2035 by extending our investment in both home and utility scales, renewable energy and grid monetization. crucially, we are doing all of this in a way that ensures american workers will benefit by ensuring that companies pay prevailing wages, incentivizing domestic manufacturing and rewarding unite workplaces. i am thrilled that this bill
takes critical steps to ensure every american has affordable health coverage as we continue to fight the delta variant across the country. this package makes per minute the enhancements to enhanced premium tax credits enacted in the american rescue plan, including ensuring that the -- they eliminate the cliff at 400% of the federal poverty level. additional, this bill takes a giant step toward eliminating a health insurance coverage gap. they are making those populations eligible for subsidies for naca plan. finally, it includes long-overdue provisions that will allow medicare to finally negotiate for the prices of prescription drugs. drug prices continuing to
skyrocket. 10 years of inaction due to pressures from big pharma. democrats will pay for all of this by ensuring that wealthy people and corporations pay their fair share. i am particularly pleased that we are making historic investments to the irs. we are fairly enforcing our tax code after a decade of funding this. >> let me recognize the gentlelady from wisconsin to strike the last word. rep. moore: >> thank you. i'm going to try to fit in as much on this important legislation as i possibly can. american workers and their families, my constituents deserve a resilient and vibrant
economy. this bill tackles inequity that if unaddressed will only be exacerbated. it is surprising that our colleagues on the other side don't recognize the income inequality and not providing for the least of the economy. under your leadership, this committee continues to take any. to meet the challenges our nation faces, that includes fighting climate change and making long-overdue infrastructure that creates good change. mr. chairman, i am particularly happy that in addition to fighting climate change and making long-overdue infrastructure incentives to create is good paying jobs, i am pleased that this includes my
bill that helps homeowners and helps them reduce energy costs. knowledge is power. another provision i have fought for passes this to directly take advantage of tax credits. we must expand access to these incentives to native communities that will be impacted by climate change. i am also pleased to see that the committee has extended the ledger vehicle charging station with criteria instead of publicly acceptable charging infrastructure. i have been really engaged to lower the cost of bond issues. reauthorizing direct k bonds and restated -- reinstating the tax exemptions for advanced refunding bonds are key to
upgrading our nation's and helping communities meet the needs of their presidents. our affordable housing crisis is cute. he has a proven record. we are making the child tax credit refundable to that the benefits will no longer exclude the families most in need. that boosts the advanced payment regime and we cannot overstate the value of the gains made by women and children extending into our society at large. we are also permanently strengthening the income tax credit so that it no longer discriminate, eliminating the
upper age limit. these are changes that are incorporated and i applaud them. this is the report that we need to do. tens of millions of unpaid and unsung caregivers across our country provide critical support to family members often at personal and financial costs themselves. they provide services that enable them to stay in their homes rather than being institutionalized. in 2013, it was estimated that unpaid care of cash unpaid caregiving amended to 700 billion in value. this recognizes the value of caregiving. we are also making good on our
promise to address skyrocketing costs. we can't stand by any longer while our constituents are trying -- triangulate in between necessary expenses. they are spending four times more than other countries on these drugs. we are reining in an industry that has got away with murder. and finally we are helping to close the medicaid coverage gap. this is something i have been leading on. it is estimated 4.4 million americans lack coverage through the ada. they are still sitting on their hands. my time has expired but i can't move on without reminding everyone how important this is.
>> at me recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> i move to strike last word. >> mr. chairman, i would like to speak in strong support of this legislation we are considering today and highlight a couple of areas that i worked on closely with you and others on this committee, included in this legislation is a tax credit to support the expansion of electric vehicle manufacturing in the united states. to help create good paying american jobs and help us meet our goals to combat the climate crisis. the transportation sector is currently the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. as we work to create to increase the number of ledger vehicles on the road and expand charging stations, cars will emit less greenhouse gases than traditional internal combustion engines. the future of the automotive
industry is electric. the market has already moved in that direction but now, the cost of electric vehicles is often higher than their gas powered counterparts. my legislation would provide a credit to help promote a lecture vehicle adoption and make it more affordable for working class americans. as many of you have heard me say, i come from flint, michigan. the city that put the world on wheels. automobiles mean good paying american jobs. that is why the credit i have offered will support american jobs, especially those jobs with agreements that ensure the highest labor standards, worker safety, wages and benefits. when we are spending american tax dollars, they should go to support well compensated american workers. the labor movement builds the middle class and creates good
paying jobs that can support a family. i am plowed that just -- that this legislation has the support of united autoworkers. the international brotherhood of electrical workers. further, this legislation improves current law to ensure that the middle class, not the wealthiest benefit from these tax credits. electric vehicle tax credits are fully refundable at the point of sale so consumers see an immediate reduction in the cost of their vehicle. a legislation also aligns with president biden's promise not to raise taxes on americans making less than $400,000 a year while preventing this credit from going toward the purchase of luxury vehicles. i just want to correct an impression that was left earlier in the questioning time, and hypothetical was posed about an individual making seven hundred $50,000, buying an $80,000 vehicle. under no circumstance with that
individual or vehicle qualify under the provisions in this credit. for a sedan, we are talking about a 55,000 dollars msrp cap. this is intended to make sure that everyday americans have access to affordable vehicles. we are not going to subsidize the wealthiest purchasing luxury vehicles. i am proud to have strong support of this legislation from environmental groups, unions, our genetic automakers like gm, ford, still it does. your chairman, i think you for your support of the provisions that support american workers. the legislation also includes funding for auto communities through the 48 c program to help them as they transition from making gas powered vehicles to electric vehicles. in addition, i would like to highlight a few other provisions i worked on. when i introduced working families tax relief act with commerce men evans to expand the
child earned income tax credit, this is what we hoped for. this provision will provide a much-needed tax cut for working and middle-class families with children. legislation also includes -- includes provisions that support economic development on tribal lands. tribes don't want special treatment under the tax code. they just want to be treated like any ever government. -- any other government. mr. chairman, congratulations on working with members of this committee. i strongly support this legislation and i yield back. >> let me recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boyle. rep. boyle: i would like to thank you and the staff for your
hard work over the last several weeks and months and for the inclusion in this bill of many pieces that i fought for and championed. i want to highlight a couple. first is with respect to higher education. helping to incentivize and reward those colleges and universities that stent -- spend on financial aid. as a first generation college student myself, i know how important those college aid packages are. i am excited my dashiell and i want to follow up on what he said about 48 c. i had a bill that was included in the green act and i am glad we see it again on this piece of legislation. this will create good paying union jobs that help accelerate our division to clean energy.
let me speak more globally -- globally. what a clear contrast between what the republican unified rule looks like. four years ago, the first thing a united republican control of washington attended to do was repeal and not replace the affordable care act. that would have taken away health insurance for more than 20 million americans. there were successful in passing that in the house but they failed in the senate. they meet lee turned to the one thing that can unite republicans of all stripes. tax cuts for the rich. they pushed through the $2 trillion tax cut. 83% of which went to the richest 1%.
fast-forward four years later and we have washington, d.c. under unified democratic control. what does that mean? the most transformative domestic piece of legislation since the mid-1960's. think of the things between the two sessions last week today and what we will be doing tomorrow. just think of the historic things we are about to pass. truly transformative in helping the lives of so many dinner americans. here in philadelphia and pennsylvania. it is a clear contrast of the priority of this administration and this, -- congress. i am not just a yes vote and you can probably tell for this piece of legislation. i am an enthusiastic yes. this is truly historic.
millions and millions of ordinary hard-working americans will dramatically have their lives helped by what we are doing here innity last week and this week and what we will be with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i would like to strike the last word. >> the point is to provide desperately needed assistance for americans. it is the most consequential boat i will cast. -- vote i will cast. this bill illustrates that we
hovers into the great challenges of our time. the first is the threat of climate change. this bill will be the single most important piece of climate legislation we have ever had. as it consulate reminds us, it is pivotal. the danger we may inflict on ourselves. it would to our children, grandchildren, and the many generations to come to make this legislation a reality. we will reduce our target omissions, we are also setting ourselves up to be the leaders in a sector that will decline. with respect for the work, using tax follow c2's peak about zero omission for commercial vehicles.
the transition to commercial vehicles lags far behind personal big goals. -- personal vehicles. it will turn tractor-trailers into efficient zero omission models. we are also considering the net zero act. dramatic expansion of the tax credit for direct capture. i've heard it again for scientists about the importance of complement and the shift of clean energy sources with the developing of negative -- can actually remove carbon emission from the air. the other which will hasten development and employment of technology, a critical part of the larger strategy. the nationals -- national society says we need to take some out of the abbotsford every year to hit the target.
-- we created the tax credit with a representative's leadership. the support would help empower part of our shift to a cleaner sector and create thousands of new jobs. a really important sector to address omissions is in our buildings, 30% of our omission. i'm proud of our work which has been included here for commercial vehicles. i would also like to highlight the important work that representatives and senators have done on the climate fund act. this would simply require the largest possible fuel producers in america, maybe 25 of them, to pay for the greenhouse gas that
they have emitted. this is to raise added revenue, pay for all the climate investments that we must make. the second challenge we face is the gap between rich and poor that is tearing into the fabric of our society. this bill puts us on a path to a much more equitable society. we expanded to approve the child tax credit, one of the most necessary things to have been done. we put real dollars in the lives of billions of children in august. it is estimated that the enhancements to the child tax credit will cut the nation's poverty rate in half. i want to think our representatives for all the leadership on this. another key element is the low-income housing tax credit, this will create hundreds of thousands of new homes for america. one of the most important piece of the bill is a drug price
reform. every day, stories of bankruptcy -- to costs. lastly, the individuals with gross incomes over $5 million, close to another legislation i propose last year. in elegant and simple way to raise the necessary revenues to make important investments while also increasing. thank you for allowing me to speak. >> i thank the gentleman. we recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania to strike the last word. >> i am willing to strike the last word. we now have an opportunity to advance bacon bold moves. it will strengthen our community and support american families. the provisions forth include the extension of the fully refundable tax credit.
it has fallen considerably, benefiting many of our nations low-wage workers. we are considering taxes that would make our neighborhood safer and help americans afford health coverage. we are also taking important steps to reduce cost of prescription drugs. my bill includes removing barriers to prevent the taking advantage of rehabilitation and tax credit. the average age of school is 70 years old. the nation deserves to work in an environment free of us best this and mold. while local officials have
worked with limited funding, public schools need funding. other important community developments include the low income tax credit, the neighborhood act, and two key tools in boosting the development to affordable housing. today's green energy proposal -- the economics and the health impact, to include the tax credit to support environmental research by someone we all love. i introduced legislation with his successor. i would encourage my colleagues not to shy away from these measures that fund our priorities and restore fairness to our tax group. programs we have here will give
the people the tools in the toolbox to improve their lives and rebuild human infrastructure in this country. let me repeat that. the programs we are creating here, we are giving the american people the tools in the toolbox to improve their lives and rebuilding human infrastructure. i thank you, mr. chairman and the staff for the leadership that you have consistently provided to this committee in a bipartisan way. i joined with you on this legislation and i will support it on this community -- committee. >> thank you very much. now, the gentleman from
illinois, strike last word. >> thank you mr. chairman. i will strike the last word. on to express my gratitude for your leadership. the foundation of the build back better act, as well, i want to thank the community staff and my own team for the incredible support in this effort. the bill text we are marking today is a culmination of years. with this legislation as a guide, the build back better act made unprecedented -- and the supply chain and the competitiveness of american workers and business. there is critical support for merkin families and something i hope we can all celebrate. 6 million american children out of poverty. it does not accomplish everything that everyone wants, but it accomplishes so much.
to make progress and put our nation on the map for more secure future, we have to be willing to make tough choices. this legislation is a prime example of congress taking on the challenges that face us. such as climate change and empowering working families with the resources they need, like the child tax credit, affordable care and paid leave. these acts have been included in the legislation by climate change. the capacity to decarbonization with requiring an incentive to reduce carbon emission is a monumental step for our economy.
cabinet sectors -- secretaries and congressmen supporting our work. the legislation today with combination of the bidens administration has earned widespread support from the aviation industry and environmental groups. i want to ensure my calling from nebraska, we are working to resolve the issue you raise. i'm actively working with a chairman and a diverse group of state makers -- state lawmakers and the aviation industry to improve this language going forward. i would also like to submit for the record, two letters from the aviation industry.
thank you. the transportation for commutes act will expand electric vehicle charging infrastructure. is a critical part of electrifying the vehicle and decarbonizing on the ground transportation. a huge and necessary undertaking if we are serious about combating climate change. the single largest federal investment, truly we are building back better. american families and workers will be better off with the build back better act. they will receive child tax credit, be healthier with the affordable health care act is expanded. we will create jobs in our own communities. not to pay for this conical investments, we have to make responsible choices and tax
policies. with my coins i have raised concerns about how we need a thoughtful approach. mr. chairman, i appreciate you being responsive to those concerns. i look forward to continuing conversation is a legislation process moves forward. i've also raised concerns about our need to protect -- my state of illinois will create millions of quality american jobs, everything from basic manufacturing. in my own district of chicago, we have the six ties concentration of manufacturing jobs in any district. running to the centerline, the corridor, by companies large and
small, leading innovations. i believe we have more work to do. that said, i believe the proposal to support working families and give small businesses a tax credit. i am proud of our work today. i yield back. >> let me recognize the gentleman from new york to strike the last word. >> thank you mr. chairman. there is a lot from both sides. we need balance in our country. our system in america is based on two, capitalism and democracy. capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty, killed more sickness, it is the best system in the world. the stronger you are, the more hard-working you are, the
luckier are, the better you will do. unfortunately, some people in society are not great competitors. babies are not good competitors. senior citizens who are frail are not good competitors. people with mental health issues are not good competitors. people suspect to systematic -- people treated that the is children are not good competitors. just because you are not a good competitor, does not mean you should have a miserable life. we have another system called democracy this is all men and women were created equal. we need to do things to try and smooth out those rough edges to make sure that people who are not good committed -- competitors are not subjected to a life of misery. our challenges in politics. democrats and republicans need to find a balance of those two systems.
where you can make life better for people. too much regulation, he will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. if you do all capitalism, 100%, a bunch of people with a miserable lifestyle. i believe, this bill is a great example of the balance we have tried to find. to keep the edge of our country strong and protect us from some of the inequities that exist in our system. to keep capitalism strong but make sure all went -- all men and women are created equal to protect people. at the same time, protecting against one of the biggest cuts we face which is the end of the world, climate change. i believe put this built that we are marking up, is a great opportunity for us to find balance in our country, to keep the economic engine of our
country strong. thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thanked the gentleman. let me recognize the gentleman from california to strike last word. >> i streak -- speak in strong support of the committee and staff of this legislation that would provide for a timely investment in our infrastructure, our resilience, and our self-reliance. it is legislation that not only pays for itself, but goes forward in thinking solutions to pressing issues in our country, and especially in my district of california, including the effect of climate change, the lack of affordable housing. [inaudible]
provisions that provide tax credits to those with low to modest incomes and to our communities to buy zero mission buses. there are also provisions for my other legislation to tax credits for controllers and clean burning linear janitors to increase our individual reliability. i am pleased in this legislation for affordable housing and all of our communities. with work done to improve and increase the low income tax credit. so that we can double the value of our federal credit for affordable housing products. with this bill, we are continue to show our commitment to working families by not only extending the child tax credit but by also taking a crucial step that i have fought for to repeal the social security requirement so that every child
and their families have access to that much-needed benefit. i want to highlight that we are doing it in a responsible way by raising revenue. although we are making changes to the state tax, my act raises the mentation on documentation that would ensure that family farms and small businesses are valued. not just from development, but from the value of their business operations. i believe we deserve that provision and our nation is demanding this bill. while infrastructure, are working families, we should be reminding the american public that we can do things for them and for our future. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me recognize the lady from florida, to strike the last word. >> i yield back. >> she has yielded back her time.
the gentleman from california is recognized to strike the last word. >> i move to strike the last word. mr. chairman, we are here to right the wrongs of donald trump's tax bill that benefited the very wealthy and largest corporation and to build back a better and more equitable america. to understand who we prioritize, you just need to see how corporations were treated under their bill and how individuals were treated under their bill. corporations had their tax rate cut by almost 40%. it was made permanent in their bill. household tax rates were cut so small that most american households did not notice they were getting a tax break.
it was those small little tax breaks that would expire by the year 2025. there is an obvious difference between who they prioritize and who we prioritize. we prioritize the working class, the people who are struggling to get by. we prioritize transitioning from a fossil fuel to a green economy. we prioritize making our tax system fair, not so that it benefits the wealthiest and largest corporations in our country. today, we have an opportunity which is historic in nature. we will make and expand tax credits that we have passed in the american rescue plan that provides money to a child on a monthly basis to families. i had mothers, fathers come up to meet with tears in their eyes, to tell me how much this is already benefited them. it helps to make the rent, helps
them put food on the table, helps them get the little things so that they do not struggle as much. i had one mother, whose husband died during the pandemic that left her with only one income to get by. this tax credit -- the mean-spirited ban on immigrant children -- it impacted afghan children coming to this country. i would like to think my colleagues for working on it to make sure that the repeals happened. we will have the largest investment in the green economy in the history of this country. we are also doing in a way that focuses on the people that are often on the other side of the break divide. we have included my bill, i used ev tax credit to make sure that working families get access to evs so they pay less in gas, can
commute in a more comfortable way and they get to participate in this transition. i would like to say that we are having investments, not only with transportation, but with housing. portions of my bills from the new energy efficiency plan, as well as home energy efficiency plan are included to reduce what people are paying when it comes to electricity and water bills. this is going to have a tremendous impact on the working-class people. we see that we have a huge problem when it comes to housing in this country. because we fought and fought to include the low income tax credit, to build out 1.3 billion to 1.4 billion units of affordable housing. this will help with the supply issue. it will help keep people house to make sure they do not become homeless.
it is something we have to continue to fight for and expand. i am proud that my provision to focus on the extremely low income individuals has been included in this bill. i want to talk about how we are trying to make the tax code very. one of the biggest crisis is we have is a growing disparity between the haves and have-nots, the top 1% versus everybody else. this bill includes reforms to the state tax the republicans brought in that benefited the wealthiest americans. this bill to protect small family farms is going to be transformative. we have to build back better, but in an inequitable way that puts us in a good position for the 21st century economy and workforce. with that, i yield back. >> thanks for the gentleman.
let me recognize the gentleman from nevada to strack -- strike the last word. >> i strike last word. thank you for holding this. we are one step closer to building our country back better than before. this is the moment we get to make our country a more equitable and just society. first, it is no secret that our nation is facing a housing crisis. we months to expand tax credits that increase affordable housing for individuals of every race and income level. prevents homelessness and evictions. the low-income housing tax credit and the neighborhood tax credit are critical for my constituents in nevada as we continue to close the gap in low income and housing communities.
the credit is also a major provision in this bill that will address racial equity by putting solar energy within reach for underserved communities while creating jobs, lowering energy bills and strengthening our climate resilience. i'm excited to work with representatives on this important step forward for environmental and economic justice. the investments will not only create good paying jobs, but will ensure that no one and no community is left behind as we build back better from the pandemic. despite some of my colleagues continuing to deny the science, the existential threat of climate change is here and we are seeing it play out time and time again. in february of this year, more than 4.8 million texas homes and businesses were left without power after a devastating winter storm.
in the west, especially in my home state of nevada, we are already seeing the impact of climate change and devastating wildflowers, higher temperatures -- devastating wild fires, higher temperatures. and, hurricane ida had devastating impact. if my colleagues cannot recognize these devastating tolls and the impact on the loss-of-life as a result of climate change, then it must be living in a different reality. we can address these problems. house democrats are proposing the leadership that we need to address this issue. i'm proud to champion several pieces of legislation in the bill. over the years to come, we need serious investments to expand the grid and carry clean power from the rural areas, where it is produced, to the high demand region where it is needed. that is why i introduce the
electric power infrastructure improvement act, to provide the 30% tax credit to the construction of regionally significant transmission lines to improve our great and to promote clean energy policy. i am pleased to see this included in the bill. in addition, my dynamic act is a part of the legislation which will promote the dynamic glass in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, addressing the nation's largest industry, commercial and residential building. there are many other priorities that i promoted in this legislation, including a production tax credit for solar, promoting stable energy fuels, a tax credit for energy storage, enhancing electric vehicle tax credit and infrastructure, and wages and apprenticeship to create a clean energy job force. finally, another significant investment and the most
promising in this bill is the permit extension of the child tax credit. we have already seen the benefits of the temporary child tax credit from the american rescue plan and how that has helped america's children. from 15.9% in june to 11.9% in july. the child tax credit has lifted three million children out of poverty in the firsts month alone. so i've listened to my colleagues today badger and takedown about people who needed a helping hanked. but we as represent people who have been benefited. and this is not a program of it's a tax credit. justs liking you give tax credits do the wealthy, we're providing tax credits to the middle-class and low income familiar. lisa: need it. so i want to commend you, mr. chairman and our staff for the incredible hard working.
i'm ready to debate the amendments that my colleagues on the other side will bring on and i will justs say that it's time for us to put the american people firsts and not big business and major corporation. >> thanking the jam. i would liking to recognize ms. plasket to striking the last worded. >> i ask to striking the last worded. i looked this morning at the ""wall street journal." not necessarily the most liberal paper that we had. and it said that they would increases tax corporate tax rate from 26% to 21%, impose a 3% -- percentage point tax on people make more than $5 million a year and raise capital gains taxes. all of those things are being done to make those in the upper
classes pay their fair share. and we're downing that because our republican colleagues are unwilling to do it. they're afraid to do it. justs as they're afraid of so many in their base who make them do things that i know privately they don't believe in. republicans are completely and conveniently ignoring all of the investment in this bill that is being done by us downing that. i thanking you mr. chairman, and i thanking this caucus and so many of us for working achieve president biden and congressional democrats' vision to build back better, to build america back better and those hard working middle-class individuals in america who need that help, who want to be supported, who are not looking for handouts or programs to keep thing down, but looking for a helping hanked, a tax credit so that they can achieve the
american dream the legislation before us today contains economic development initiatives that we all have been longing championed to create good-paying jobs, lowering cost, cutting taxes for american families. this bill as contained specific measures for much needed economic recovery for my home to the u.s. virgin islands and the territory for tribes, for low-income communities for rural area, areas that have been left behind in so many ways when the republicans enacted their bills in 2017. we are extending the changes made to the earned income tax credit in the american rescue plan. we're increasing the value of earned income taxed credit for workers with no qualifying dependence and we do that on a permanent basis here. in addition, we provided the
lookback provisions in the consolidated appropriation act in december of 2020. that is now added as a permanent feature this important part of the earned income tax credit is premised on the idea that it's taxpayer easterned income with less than a given year than it was in a prior year, the taxpayer may elect to use their prior ones. this is a one-year lookback for those who have experiencessed income shopping such as if thallous their jobs during hard times. we provide support for corporations to take earnings and take their debt over time. democrats are trying to do that for the american people. additionally as all have talked about, we are expanding so much -- expansion enhancement of the child tax credit, which will pull 3.6 million low-income
children out of poverty stabilizing millions of families, access to nestlike housing and food. we're establishing neighborhoods, homes investment tax credit to support nabil: stablization and pathway to homeownership that i know so michigan of my colleagues particularly dwight evans who is always looking out for middle-class homeowners by encouraging rehabilitation of affordable home and low income community so that those communities can remain and lookalike what they always did with those individuals being homeowners by putting sales price caps, requirements of income for ownership anti-flipping policy. we have environmental justice researching credit. we have an enhanced home run t.c. of up to 20% for facilities affordable, renewable electricity to underserved communities as well. we are looking after the
american people every day. and in particularly in this bill. we will get this done, because we are concerned about the american people. we'll be able to keep our hospitality our tourism in place and we'll be able to support only inning-base businesses to support the drain brain that plagues so much. >> thanking the gentlelady. let me recognize mr. brady. >> firsts, we heard a longing brittney of debunked statement about the tax cuts and jobs act including one told over and over and over again which is 83% of the tax cuts and jobs act to the
wealthy 1% i would locutory submit again this document with all the factchecking.o rg showing these claims are falls. >> so odored. >> i don't have to submit this because it is in the law that is before us today, the proposed bill, but yes, under this bill the existing e.v. credit is replaced with a new credit up to $12, 500 refundable credit for individuals with incomes up to $62,000 allowing this credit for vehicles up to $74,000. elon elon musk thanks you. >> so odored. >> and finally, it really is important that we listen to the voices of our job creators back home. and they are weighing in against
this legislation because of the damaging it will do. national restaurant association which employee s -- employs so many americans especially those starting their firsts job oppose this national association manufactures as they know they created 263,000 jobs. after the tax cuts and jobs act was put into law. that was the best in 21 years. wages went up the bests since 2003. what they say is these tax increaseses will lead to massive job losses. and they will hurt the ability of manufactures in america to expand a higher to buy new equipment. we have similar statements in the american guide association. actually association make the case that the capital gains taxs will make it more difficult to develop affordable housing in america. the home builders say that these high taxes, higher taxes
including on marginal rate, capital gains will be pass aid longing to new home buyers hurting their ability to buy. we have letters from the national retail federation in opposition who makes the case that they will programs close stores and less investment to be able compete in the e-commerce area. main street employees write that these tax increaseses will handicap our businesses and community first decades to come. international franchise association say these tax increaseses penalize their businesses, and the cost are born by their workers. the community of bankers of america say these tax increaseses are devastating to the continued independence of american small businesses. there are a number of other associations from the business right nowed table to the american s o y bean association who are submitting letters in
opposition. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous request to submit them. >> so odored. the charlie is willing to proceed to the amendment staging of writing this legislation are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? >> mr. reed is recognized. >> mr. speaking what or mr. chairman -- ok some of mr. thompson has reserved a point of odor. mr. reed is recognized as soon as we pass out the amendment to see upon the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. reed >> i believe the amendment should appear in numbers end
bocks and the amendment has been passed out. the gentleman is recognized to speaking at his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman the tight of my amendment is the new tax loopholes for ivy league elites amendment i can tell you american people in particular hate hypocrisy, misrepresentation, and as the activities of washington, d.c. when it's supposed to take action based upon their political donor who are paying their companies c o ffers. i can tell you when we look at this bill and we saw that you had put in on the majority side this endowment tax loopholed, these are for endowments with over tense of billions of dollars as that we put into our tax cut bill to make sure they're not being abuse. that those endowment dollars were not being manipulated in a way that would be devastating to
those that are going to school or for those that were manipulating that endowment dollars for their own personal gain. i can tell you when i saw this particular proving, i was quite agasp because not only do you change policy that will actually drive the college cost up with this provision, you're downing it when we looked at the public record. $8.8 million was donated to members on the other side of the aisle in their campaign activities. this is a $2.5 billion tax provision that goes to the wealthiest of wealthiest especially in the ivy league arinne a. i guess the $2.5 billion is worth the $8.8 million that were contributed to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. because what this is -- what does this provision do?
it essentially incentivize that college cost got up because what you have done, lets me justs use a simple provision, a simple utilization of this provision. so the university today charges tuition of $50,000. and offers $10,000 per student in financial aid. under your proposal, my democratic colleaguings the schools can simply raise tuition to $60,000 and increases the financial aid to $20,000 in essence the school still gets the same amount of tuition per student and yet avoids that $2.5 billion tax. what does that do to tuition cost? it drives tuition costs up. that is not smart policy that's an intendedded outcome, i believe to continue this cycle
of college debt and increasing college cost in america where you guys and we are incentivizing costs going up. there's nothing in this proposal that is going to lower college costs. you cover this proposal by saying you're encouraging financial aid to students. but as i justs articulated in that simple example, you are actually not downing that. you are not providing financial aid that benefits the students because you're increasing their tuition cost. and you're downing it because elitists who have $40 billion in these personal accountss that the american people have seen this story they know what's going on. they know who's profiting from those dollars. they know who have unrelated business in their operation and they know that it's in their incentive to be repealed. i've heard investment all day longing.
$8.8 million worth of investment in this political arena sure makes sense when you get a $2.5 billion ben it from the policy that is being proposed. so rather than creating tax loopholes and shelters for the elitist who don't need this benefit, why don't we actually do something that would get to the heart of the issue and lower college cost and not incentivize the increases liking you indicated here? so i underring the adoption of my amendment and i yield back. >> thank you, gentleman. does the gentleman from california continue to insist on his point of odor? >> mr. chairman, i withdraw my point of odor. >> the gentleman is withdrawing his point of o rd o r. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is -- i mentioned earlier how historic this is. this is now personally historic for me because for the firsts time in my life, i've been called an elitist. and i would liking to thanking
the gentleman on the other side. i've never been considered that way before. seconded and most seriously, as i mentioned as a firsts generations student myself, i'm well aware that the universities that i attended used a percentage o their endowment in order to provide the student aid i needed in order to attend those universities. if the gentlemen is concerned that the cost of college is too high in the country, i completely agree with him t. fact that we have $1.8 trillion of student debt right now is a disaster not only for the individuals in repayment which happens to include myself but as on our economy. keep in mind, however, the republican endowment tax of four years ago did nothing literally not one dime.
the $1.4% tax went to the government with absolutely no provision whatsoever incentivizing or requiring these universities to spend a certain percentage of their endowment on student aid what is in this democratic proposal does that. it reforms it it rewards those colleges and universities and gives them a credit based on the percentage of their endowment that they're using in order to invest in their students in terms of student aid. it is taking what frankly was a backed and clumsy republican idea four years ago and reforming it to help insent those units to do the right thanked reward those universitys that are downing the right thing. so we w that i underring a no vote on the gentleman's amendment and i extended my hanked to anyone on the other side who sincerely wants to tack
this will problem of the cost -- >> does the gentleman yield? >> with that i yield back the time >> is there anyone else who wish to heard on the amendment? >> yes >> the question is that on agreeing. the gentlelady from alabama is recognized to speaking on this >> mr. chairman, i gastraly want ed to echo the sentiments of the gentleman from pennsylvania. growing up in selma, alabama i would have never had to go to princeton or harvard had it not been for the fact that they needed blind mission. meaning people got in not based on whether they could afford to go there but rather on their merits. and i can tell you that penalizing these schools because they're quote, unquote lead is gastraly not true
the reality is that the university of alabama has a bigger endowment. the university of texas has a biger endowment i hasten to think that we're putting everything in all the schools aning canner them under one lubick when ultimately it's what the republicans fear from these universitys that somehow they're breeding liberals and that's simply not true yes, i did go to princeton but so did ted cruz. and so i would venture to guess that the united states kong is not better off because he or i are in it but rather than that our philosophical views may be different but nevertheless deserve equal airing. >> will the gentlelady yield? >> yes. yes. >> i justs want to address something that i'm a little bit confused about. the author of the amendment said that there was $8 million in
investment, and to my only inning, terry sule, endowments are not allowed to make political -- >> yield? >> i will not it's the gentlelady from alabama's time i really do take umbrage at the mischaracterization that somehow they're making political contributionses because quite frankly under the law they're not allowed to and with that, i yield back to the gentlelady >> you're absolutely right on that and i think that what these adowments are allowing these universities to do is to have kids liking brandon b o yle and terry sule an opportunity to attend a university which i can tell you put me on a path to ultimately end up in the u.s. house of representatives. so i think that -- i think the point has been made and mr. chairman, i justs want to
ultimately, ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. and i think that the poster child is brandon boil. >> i thanking the gentlelady >> let me recognize dr. ferguson. we will proceed to dr. buyer and dr. lindstrom. >> dr. chairman, i would liking to yield my time to the gentleman from new york. >> mr. reed is recognized >> i thanking the jam. >> firsts of all, the american people understand. especial dowments don't give money to individual members of kong. but political contributors do. and that's where the $8.8 million is. somebody who came out of school with $110,000 worth of debt and as the youngest of 12 raise bade single mother, going to colleague is something we should all aspire to.
but when you have an elitist organization and a group of schools liking the ivy leagues, liking the 30 folks that are subject to this excise tax abusing theus provisions, using it to make millions of dollars and now are incentivized under your proposal, no one responded to my simple fact scenario, an example of what's going to go on here you are incentivizing these institutions to raise their tuition even higher. that's all they care about. keep raising tuition. that's the golden goos that keeps paying their dollars and i'll tell you, i want kids to go to college. i went to college. i got a law degree by a single mother who taught me how to get ahead in life is to working hard, and to go to school, and have an opportunity. but i will tell you, these 30 institutionses, they don't admit
everybody across america. they don't let everybody on to their ground. they picking and choose the folks that can go to their school. they picking and choose those that they want to have into the club. and i will tell you what you're downing here is wronging. because as these institutionses that have $40 billion of tax-free dollars sitting into these covers plus, they don't -- they don't -- they don't let everybody into their schools. they don't -- they don't stop taking federal education money. they don't stop taking money coming from state programs to off-set cost for those students to go to that school. they keep subbing the dollars out, keep subbing the dollars out while other institutionss that do try to give an education liking i got that other folks did.
those folks are the ones that i'm fighting for here, the ones that don't have an opportunity to go to these institutionses that have $40 billion sitting in their own endowment which is let the taxpayer dollars that are going to those institutionses go to the other institutionses so that they can lower their cost. one area we can agree on is you're down right, i had other proposals they wanted to put in there. i wanted full transparency i wanted to make sure that everybody had a plan in the worlded to lower cost of tuition. now, you're solving the real problem and i encourage people if you want to working together and really incentivize lowering costs, i'm all in each and every day and i thanking the gentleman for yielding time. >> dr. winedstruck is recognized on the amendment. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the graham
new york. all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. >> the nos have it t on that we ask for a record vote >> mr. brady has asked for a record vote. and the collector will call the role. >> mr. d o gget? >> d o gget votes know >> are larson? >> no. >> mr. larson? >> mr. larson votes no. mr.bloomen o ur? mr. kind? >> kind, no. >> mr. kind votes no. >> mr. pascrel. >> no. >> mr. davis? >> mr. davis no. >> ms. sanchez? >> sanchez votes no. >> mr. higgins. >> no. >> ms. s, le? votes no.
ms. albeny? >> chou votes no. >> ms. ch o votes no. >> ms. moore? >> moore votes no. >> mr. kilde? >> mr. klide votes no. mr. bill? bill: votes no. >> mr. buyer? >> mr. buyer votes no. mr. evans. >> evans votes no. >> mr. schneider? >> schneider votes no. >> mr. schneider votes no? >> mr. swaze? >> no. >> mr. pennetta? >> nope. >> mr. pennetta votes no. >> ms. murphy? -- >> murphy votes no. >> mr. gomez? >> mr. gomez votes no. >> mr. horseford. >> mr. horseford votes no. >> ms. plaket? >> matz ket votes no.
>> mr. braisey. mr. nunez? >> nunez votes aye. >> mr. buchanan? >> buchanan votes aye. >> mr. smith of nebraska? >> smith votes aye. >> mr. smith of nebraska votes aye. >> mr. reed? >> mr. reed is aye. >> mr. kelli? >> mr. kelli votes aye. mr. smith of missouri votes aye >> mr. rights. >> rights votes aye. >> mr. sh wyke what? >> votes yes. ms. val o rski. >> yes. >> mr. lahood? mr. lahood? dr. windstruck? >> cfl >> mr. arrington? >> yes. >> dr. ferguson? >> yes. mr. estes?
>> yes, ma'am >> mr. estes votes yes. >> mr. smucker? mr. smug what votes a plvment hearn votes aye. mrs. miller? mrs. miller voice aye. mr. bloom'no ur votes no. >> mr. lahood? mr. chairman? mr. chairman votes no. >> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. callan -- mr. chairman, i've .5 nays, 17 -- 25 nays, and 17 ayes. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> i reserve a point of order. >> the gentleman is recognized
to speak on the amendment as soon as it is passed out. >> thank you, mr. chairman. president biden and the congressional democrats are sabotaging america's jobs or with crippling taxes and is is policies that hurt working families and main street businesses and will drive u.s. jobs overseas. the underlying bill demonstrates democrats are more interested in green deals than in protecting mainstream families and businesses and their pocketbooks. the additional wasteful spending , hundreds of dollars of wasteful welfare, to bring back the superfund taxes that will
cause all americans to pay more the pump, and burn the working class by increased inflation on thousands of everyday fossil items. my amendment is simple, it appeals -- repeals the pre-new deal provisions, sheltering workers from wage reducing taxes and shield their pocketbooks rising pot -- prices and overall inflation. this amendment puts american families ahead of socialist wish list and political talking points. i urge adoption of my amendment. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i withdraw my point of order. >> the gentleman is recognized to speak. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a couple points on this. first of all, the green new deal is not part of the measure that is before us. it may be convenient for the gentleman and his amendment to try to vilify what we are doing
by trying to attach it to something that in some circles, may not have support. that is not accurate. the provision in this bill is the green act, a bill that incentivizes the use of renewable energies. the specific purpose of this is to reach certain climate change goals and create jobs. to suggest that this provision does anything short of creating jobs is misleading. in regard to the climate change provisions of this, most people in america understand that we are at a crisis. as i said earlier in my opening remarks, a third of our country is underwater, a third is under dutch on fire, and a third as the water. we have a climate change crisis. in my district, over the last three or four fire seasons, i
have lost constituents, people have died. people have lost their homes, businesses. hundreds of thousands of acres have burned. we have the same situation owing on now in a number of areas -- going on now, in a number of areas where wildfires are devastating communities. we need to take steps to address this issue. no longer is it acceptable to stick your head in the sand. this is a measure that will help our communities, our environment, and put people to work. this amendment should be rejected out of hand. >> the gentlelady from west virginia is recognized to speak on the amendment. >> thank you, chairman neil and ranking member brady. much of the discussion on the others of the aisle has revolved
around whether wealthier americans paying their fair share. while i agree with this tenement, it is hard to take them at their word when this bull -- bill is chock-full of giveaways to the upper class of american society. the republican bull for our tax structure is to create an environment where businesses and workers they employ can thrive and create their own wealth. in reading this bill, it seems the democrats are more concerned with currying favor with special interests than having the government, not americans, choose whether the losers -- then there are with ensuring taxpayers have the upper -- opportunity to thrive. in the same vein, tax breaks for purchasing multi dollar electric bicycles seem to run counter to
the goal of helping these americans in need. i would like to see some of my colleagues try to ride a bicycle, electric or not, through the hills of southern west virginia. in the same way that democrats today are asking american workers to sacrifice more of their hard-earned paychecks because, workers bear the cost of tax increases on their employers, they are simultaneously subsidizing companies that are undermining american energy producers. production tax credits have been in place for over a decade. originally introduced to help a new renewable energy industry find a full bold. since then, the industry has matured to a point where government subsidies are no longer needed to keep these companies afloat, but are used instead by activists to undermine other forms of american energy, especially the coal, oil, and gas companies who employ so many hard-working west virginians in my district. it is past time for congress to
save production tax credits or read target them to help new and evolving technologies such as carbon capture. not industries with significant market share in private investment. i yield back. >> the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer is recognized to speak on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate with the select committee date, your leadership on the green act but these are vitally important. the urgency of the threat posed by climate change demands significant and rapid investment , continued investment in clean, renewable technologies and the decarbonization of our economy. harkening back to the republican tax plan, you remember there was a move to repeal the bipartisan agreement we had for the wind energy industry. we had to basically embarrass
our republican friends to back down and allow it to proceed. not jeopardizing billions of dollars of investment. to the best of my knowledge, there was no movement to destabilize the wind energy. this was something that was conjured up as you were writing the bill, as you were going along, with no public input. luckily, you were embarrassed and withdrew that. we are moving forward to be able to give the wind energy, solar industry, other elements in terms of geothermal, a flight path to accelerate further development. wind and solar projects have faced decades of uncertainty due to the starts and stops of federal tax credits. the republican assault on wind energy that we had your tax
bill. in order to meet the presidents full of creating a net zero emissions power sector by 2035, this subtitles eight robust and was meant in the deployment of clean dust renewable energies employ far more people than in the coal industry. we have people in a number of your states who benefit from these provisions. in texas, and kansas, in iowa. this is something that has had bipartisan support, that we have worked hard to get. this is the culmination of that ever. i strongly urge the rejection of this amendment. >> thank the gentleman. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman of kansas. mr. estes, members are reminded to unmute. for voice vote.
all those in favor of mr. estes's amendment, signify by saying aye.. in the opinion of the chair, then nos habit. >> i ask for a reported vote. -- recorded vote. >> please state your name before your vote. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. doggett. >> doggett but snow. >> thompson? >> mr. thompson votes no. >> mr. blumenauer, but snow. >> mr. pascarella, but snow. >> mr. davis. mr. davis votes no >>.
>> i reserve a point of order. >> mr. thompson has reserved a point of order, while we pass out misses -- mr. rice's amendment. the gentleman will be recognized on his amendment. >> i have to pause for a moment, talking about the recovery from 2008, when there were threats from the obama biden administration thought would be a good idea to dramatically raise taxes, put development programs and raise regulations and the result of that was 10 years of stagnation, or eight
years of stagnation for our economy, frustratingly slow recovery that should have been almost immediate. compare that to what happened in 2017 we conducted tax cuts -- [indiscernible] it is not that complicated, our object was to be competitive in the world. if we can help them get there, the american workers can't compete with anybody. we will lose millions of american jobs. [indiscernible] we had not standing fast recovery. after the government big tax proposals in 2008. you never learn. you are determined to go back to the same failed plan of the
obama biden administration. but dramatically raising taxes on people who employ others. by making our business is unable to compete on a worldwide stage. and by creating massive government programs and more regulations that will drag down our economy, again. you will cost the jobs -- millions of american jobs will go overseas because of your efforts today. my amendment, one thing that i constantly hear folks on the others of the aisle complain about his big companies don't pay enough in taxes. what we have done here in these pre-new deal subsidies, we provided for basically refundable tax credits, money that will be paid directly to companies, whether or not they
owe any tax. people like amazon, for going to invest in green energy anyway, a government is going to pay them to do that, or we don't need to. their board to do anyway. the government will pay whether or not they own taxes -- oh taxes. now, not only -- they have negative taxes, the government is going to pay them for investing in green new deal set up. it is striking to me that the things you complain about your adding to in this bill. what my amendment will do, i will strike these direct payment of these pre-new deal tax credits to any company that has more than $5 billion in profit, so if they don't 08 tax they will not be able to get these pre-new deal subsidies. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> does the gentleman from
california continue to insist upon his point of order. >> i withdraw my point of order. >> the judgment from organ is recognized to speak on the amendment. -- oregon is recognized to speak on the amendment. >> why the things it was very successful in the american recovery act was being able to provide a direct payment of the tax subsidies, helping avoid problems where there may not be enough tax appetite to deal with the credits. it was probably supported, it had bribed -- bipartisan support. it made a big difference for being able to scale up and accelerate these investments. we are still in a situation now, there are some though very profitable, there are some that are not. being able to have the direct payment enables us to be able to cut through some of the activities that take place in terms of the friction,
ultimately getting the tax benefit. i failed to see the benefit of undercutting efforts to try and accelerate this investment. it does not change the overall budget economics, it what it does is speeds the money along the way, makes it easier, it does not require a lot of the tax planning and other activities to be able to make the tax credit work, where there is not the full text -- tax appetite. it gives more bang for the taxpayer subsidy by cutting out some of these extra steps and eliminating the tax -- this is something that has broad bipartisan support, it is
supported by industry. i strongly urge the rejection of this amendment. >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> if i could comment briefly. what we're doing here is trying to meet our renewable, clean energy goals as quickly as possible. this amendment would hamper that. this amendment would remove the free marketplace provisions that our colleagues continue to talk about from reality. the way the bill is structured now, it allows us to deal with economic conditions of the moment. this would hurt that effort.
rex pay is key to unlocking the constraints of tax equity to meet our climate goals in the present time. i urge no vote. -- a no vote. >> this is more than one trillion -- one quarter of a trillion dollars, of giveaways, mainly to the wealthy and to wealthy and successful businesses. that do not need to be -- unlike tax credits, these are not just present, these are government checks, written directly to companies that have the financial wherewithal and have proven to do that in making these clean energy investments. this is an amendment that simply poses a question. in a bill where democrats build
up five times more in green welfare subsidies than america spends on a sick medical research at the national institutes of health a chair, what are your priorities? in our view, it is these renewable credits, never ends. my friends revisited history or revised it a few minutes ago. i would point out, republicans, democrats way 15 came together, reached agreement to end before your ban on selling crude oil. i negotiated that for speaker paul ryan at the time. return for facedown of the weight credits -- phaseout of the wing credits over a. of time and of facedown of the solar credits over a period of time. when credits at the time had been in place for startup technology for a reporter of the century. credits for solar, no longer a
-- had been in place for a decade. unfortunately, advocates for the wind and solar industry remained on that agreement. and have pursued extending not. in our view, it is time for these mature industries, still making record levels -- many of those are manufactured in china, but the wind turbines and solar panels, nonetheless making progress toward renewable goals by spending their money -- rather than taxpayer dollars. this is a very reasonable amendment, simply says if you are a small business and cannot afford to make investments, we are going to help you. the few major corporations with the wherewithal to advance those dollars yourself and receive
very lucrative text -- tax credits, we will incentivize you. i urge support for this amendment. >> the gentleman from georgia, dr. ferguson, is recognized. >> i went to speak in support of this amendment. i find it remarkable that the majority of this tax bill is saying that corporations should pay their fair share in taxes. they are raising the corporate rate and raising revenue on our job creators and innovators. yet they are going in through the backdoor and cutting their taxes by giving them a refundable credit. i believe that the american public is smart enough to see through this. on one hand, you say we are going to punish american companies and innovators and job creators, but behind closed doors, you're going to give the money that belongs to the taxpayers. this is absolutely insane.
americans are going to see through this. the hypocrisy exists -- of this provision is remarkable. i would like to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, i stand in support of it. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i think the gentleman. are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment? the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith. is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. thompson spoke about or reflected on the free-market nature that he is aiming for. i would like clarification, the proposal is to overall increase corporate tax rate, to take that revenue and give it to preferred
companies who make -- meet the expectations or demands of the tax subsidy law? would that be accurate? >> no. what we are trying to do is to change the tax code to incentivize the use of renewable energy. >> so the resources to achieve that would be generated by increasing taxes on the same companies that were receiving some benefits back, without be accurate? >> not necessarily. >> thank you. i guess that is not the clarity i was hoping for. it would appear to mean the proposal is to increase the rate on all corporations then take
those resources and hand them out to companies that do what apparently is the priority of this tax. i think there will be a lot lost in transfer of these dollars and the overhead of the administration of all this. i just think we can do a lot better in terms of establishing priorities, hopefully meeting the needs of our economy and providing a brighter future for all americans. thank you. >> i think the gentleman. the question is on a bring to the amendment. members are reminded john meet themselves for the voice vote. all those in favor of the amendment, signified by saying aye, all those opposed sake no. in the opinion of the chairman, the nos habit.
>> no >> report the tally. >> mr. chair, 26 -- 25 nos, 16 ayes. >> i have a gentleman at -- ivan amendment at the desk. >> the gentleman from georgia, dr. ferguson is recognized. >> i reserve a point of order. >> he has reserved a point of order. we will await passing up the amendment, dr. ferguson will
>> the gentleman is recognized. >> i would go back to the conversation we have been happening about the ev tax credits. i found a pretty remarkable that when we were asking technical questions that we saw a complete in leveling of the playing field between american workers. not american workers and foreign workers, but american workers right here and the differences between those that are in places like detroit and ohio, those hard-working americans out there producing vehicles for america, but also the and states like mine and my colleague from alabama. just as a quick summary, on the ev tax credits, there is a $4000 based tax credit, if you get the
bigger battery, you get another $3500, but then in a special giveaway to the leadership of unions and political contributors, there is an additional for union labor. that is not right and that is unfair to treat workers differently in one state and not another. that is not right by the federal government. i should be offering an amendment to deal with that. one thing that i know when it comes to the majority party, when it comes to the leadership of the unions, y'all are like bird dogs, you cannot help yourself, you were going to go with them every single time. i'm going to offer an amendment on something you all agree is an mantra of this bill and the help
should really go to the americans who need it the most and that the wealthy should not get a bigger cut than those that are out there working every single day. what my amendment would do is it would reduce the maximum income threshold for ev tax credits to $150,000 or 75,000 dollars for single filers. we arrived at these numbers based on economic impact statements. clearly, the majority thinks that that is a number, 70 $5,000 for an individual and 100 $50,000 for joint filers that that is the part of america that needs help.
$1300 tax credit for a home energy audit. $1800 for a hydrogen fuel cell for the house. a $10,000 tax credit for a geothermal heat pump system for the second home and a $52,000 $500,000 -- and a tax saving from the salt tax shelter. if you are wealthy living in a blue state, you are going to get 118,000 dollars in tax credits.
up to $800,000 a year. that is a heck of a giveaway to the top earners in this country. look, i'm all about competition and i'm about every american keeping their hard-earned tax dollars, but doing it on the backs of those that are making below $150,000 as a couple seems a bit hypocritical to me. so, mr. chairman, i submit this amendment to reduce the tax credits available from $800,000 down to $150,000 for a couple. with that, i will yield back. >> does the gentleman from california continue to insist on his point of order? >> i withdraw my point of order>>. >> the gentleman has withdrawn
his point of order. >> i'm going to speak against the amendment. look, i understand the point that gentleman is trying to make. i understand the real point is that our friends on the other side don't support any of these provisions that are intended to deal with the most pressing challenge that we face as a planet and that is climate change. this is intended to get at that by matching the scale of the problem with the solution that is intended to deal with the most significant contributor to greenhouse gas and that is the transportation sector. i also want to say that i support the goal that the president of the united states laid out that in addressing these big questions and bringing to his desk and effort to solve the big problems, that we would
ensure that individuals making $400,000 or less would be protected from those increases that would include the provisions we included in this particular legislation. we have to deal with this at scale. we have to make sure we not only have tax code that keeps that promise, which i happen to believe in, but also goes some distance in solving the problem. the truth of the matter is the minority had a chance to deal with this question before, the ranking member mentioned in 2015 and went through some of the clean energy credit. in 2017, when the republicans were in the majority, it went through the entire tax code line by line to find any fault that
they wanted to correct. i disagreed vehemently with the conclusions they came to, but what they did in that instance was to leave in place the electric vehicle tax credit with no limit at all on income, with no limit at all in the price of the vehicle that would qualify for the credit to read your position in 2017 was anybody of any income level should be able to buy any car of any price and receive this credit. our view that is not the case. i did mention earlier in the conversation that there was a suggestion that a person making $750,000 could buy an $80,000 vehicle and get the credit. that is simply not true.
a sedan is capped at $55,000. we can debate that. we can debate whether or not that is the right threshold. i get it. i think the president's judgment was right. people below that level should not receive an increase. that includes the tax benefit that the current electric vehicle tax credit provides. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and a yield back. >> on the amendment, mr. kelly is recognized. >> also on the last conversation, we are talking about your bill today, not our bill from several years ago, three of us sit on this panel that are in the automobile business. this may seem strange to some of you, but in that 67 years that my family has been in business, rarely does anybody put any type
of an incentive on a vehicle if it is market ready. you usually have to incentivize something that is not market ready to force it into somebody's decision-making process. you save these models are not moving, so let's put a rebate, whatever, but those are the manufacturers saying they will reduce the price of their offering by such and such a rebate. why would you expect hard-working american taxpayers to fund this idea? you are trying to get for maybe 2.5% to 3% of the total market with this idea that somehow electric vehicles are the solution to our energy problems in the future. anything that is market ready does not need to be subsidized. if it is going to be subsidized, why not be subsidized by the people who produce it, manufacture it, and put it on
the road? why would you tell hard-working mr. and misses taxpayer, you can't possibly afford this, but we will ask you to go ahead and subsidize the purchase of a vehicle that may be 2.5% to 3% of the american people would be interested in buying. and those people that can't afford to buy halfway decent transportation, you all just have to wait your turn. maybe one of these cars will be traded in. this makes absolutely no sense to anybody who is in business and i'm not talking about a business who works in taxpayer subsidies to keep nailing it out. we keep throwing around this figure of $30 trillion in debt. we are $130 trillion in debt. that is real money to real people and really should be the issue. why in the world would you think that somehow subsidizing the
highest earners in the country to buy a vehicle they could buy themselves if they really wanted it? hell, most of these people don't drive them every day, they like to have them. they buy homes that are bigger than they need. they buy a lot of things they don't really need, but they buy them because they can. i support any consumer that wants to use his or her own money, god bless them, by. you dangle the money in front of the manufacturers to develop one of these vehicles and they say, why would we do that, nobody wants to buy them. but we will give you money to move that forward. that is about as bass-ackwards as you can get. we will make decisions on how to go to market and we will do it by using your hard-earned money to subsidize it.
this is a vehicle that may have some kind of market sometime in the future, but it is going to be to a very small group of americans. the 97% or 98% that buy cars and trucks. they are not looking to buy these vehicles because they can't afford them even with the huge subsidies from the federal government. my family has been in business since 1953. never before have i seen a government want to subsidize the vehicle. if it needs to be subsidized, the manufacturers will usually move that. so they knock the price down. that is the way it works. the only place it doesn't work as a place like this where you don't have to use your own money and you keep renting stuff. i would ask you to keep looking at the m1 money supplies, you would swear to god counterfeiters got loose and started printing money. we are going down the wrong road
and continue to go down the wrong road and to absolutely have the gall to tell hard-working american taxpayers that you folks who can't afford these vehicles, don't worry about it, we will subsidize the rich that can. with that, i yield back. >> let me recognize the gentleman from oregon. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a couple of things. first and foremost, this is where america is going. it is not just america, we are watching the phaseout of internal combustion engines in europe. we are hearing major companies in the united states talking about making these changes. it is going to take a while to be able to get this in place, there will be some disruptions and whatnot. it is entirely appropriate to continue to provide some subsidies to accelerate this transition. i hear my friend from pennsylvania talking about the free market.
as somebody who owns a car dealership, he knows there isn't a full free market for automobiles. a franchise was an opportunity to have a corner of that market. there is not a free and fair market in terms of being able to buy and sell automobiles. that is an indirect subsidy. >> will the gentleman yield? you don't know what you are talking about. you just made it very clear to the rest of this body. >> in terms of people being able to go out and have a franchise to sell vehicles. this is tightly controlled. but my point here is it is entirely appropriate for us to accelerate this, looking at the distribution chart that people are going to see. there is going to be in tax year
2023, the people who make $200,000 or less are going to see a reduction in their overall rates. it is not like lower and moderate and middle income people are subsidizing people. there will be changes at the upper income levels. i think that is entirely appropriate. but having an opportunity to accelerate this business to be able to provide incentives because we are all going to be better off with zero emission vehicles in terms of air quality, in terms of energy. my friends had no problems maintaining subsidies for the most profitable industry for years, oil and gas, it continues to get massive subsidies every single year. after a century. with my good friend the ranking member, he is not willing to
phaseout those after over a century. i think it is a bit hypocritical to not be able to provide incentives for industries for the future that will help us meet our challenges of the environment. i would yield to my dear friend from flint who may have some observations about this. >> i think my friend for yielding and i do think it is important to point out that the future is electric, it is going to happen. the question is whether or not we are going to build these vehicles in the united states through a set of incentives that gets us ahead of this curve and not miss what we missed back in the early 1970's when the american auto industry was flat-footed. that is one of the questions. the other point i want to make is lots of folks support this. i consider my friend from pennsylvania mr. kelly a friend,
i like talking cars with them, we make them, you sell them, but i would just like to submit for the record as a unanimous consent request that the statement of the national auto dealers association supporting the provision that i've helped to author, they support this legislation. with that, i yield back to the gentleman from oregon. >> the gentleman from oregon controls the time. >> yelled back. >> the gentleman from arizona is recognized to speak. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is one of those moments i will back of my brothers and sisters in this room to think it little bit broader. i'm going to speak in support of the gentleman's amendment, but for those of us who wish to cut spending, for those of you who wish to have the wealthy pay
their fair share, could i at least wish we have an honest conversation? you do realize we do a massive subsidization of the wealthy. for the record mr. chairman, i would like to submit an article from the manhattan institute. this is almost $1 trillion over 10 years of subsidies. some other documents we will have to put together from our office, but we have been looking at other types of subsidies from flood insurance to solar panels to cars where we are subsidizing the very top income earners in society/ i'm on the waiting list for the electric ford f1 50. my wife has driven a ford hybrid for a decade. we love it. but we can't have it both ways, where we say we want to tax the rich, so we will raise the income taxes, capital gains tax,
but on the other hand, we are going to hand them back the cash for buying these things. i appreciate the political influence that comes with the washing machine, were lobbying me on the tax side and lobbying me on the credit and the cash back to you side, but it is a little perverse. we as a committee need to have an honest conversation, if we need more resources, and for those who desperately want to cut some of the spending, stop subsidizing the wealthy. he saw the graphic here. i know this is just a thought experiment, but this is over $100,000 of direct subsidy, elevating to a family making $800,000 a year. that doesn't fit anyone's rhetoric in this room, but that is what is in the legislation. look, maybe it is time and i
know it is hard to do in front of a camera and a markup where you have been handed a bill from on high and you are not allowed to do it except the amendment, but at some point we need to have an honest conversation that if you want to tax the wealthy, maybe the solution is not raise the taxes because of the economic distortions it creates, maybe it is time to stop subsidizing them. with that, yield back. >> the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> the good news is my friends on the other side of the aisle got a new ferrari that just came out, all electric. get your orders in. with that, i yield. [laughter] >> i think my fellow auto dealer. people ask about the importance of auto dealers and the fact that only the privileged few get to be franchisees, that kind of flies in the face of everything that people understand when it
actually comes to markets and what free markets are, but i would also ask all of you for those of you who do not think having a local dealer is important, please go to where your communities play little league baseball, pony league baseball, go look at the ad bill fences. go to any high school play and look to see who it was that sponsored all this wonderful young talent, because it usually comes from your local merchants and primarily from automobile dealers. we are at the head front of every single drive to try to raise money to help somebody who needs it, but i want to get back to this electric vehicle thing. i just don't understand why in the world we are subsidizing the wealthiest people in america to buy what they consider to be a trinket. it is something they like to have in their driveway. the everyday person who needs to get to work is not in the situation to buy one of these electric vehicles, but yet we are going to pour all kind of
incentive moneys on people who can't afford them without even thinking about it and say these other people we want to give the special break two. let me get back to this. if this vehicle, if this product would stand on its own, then yes, fine, do it. why are we subsidizing manufacturers and buyers of these vehicles because you stupid folks don't understand this is the car of the future. says who? says who? says we and who is we? i have no idea who these brainiacs are, but i know that 97% of the american people are not buying these cars despite the fact that you all call it the vehicle of the future. i have no idea how you come to those conclusions, but again i'm going to go back to what i said from the opening of this until today, we are already $130 trillion in debt, funded and
unfunded liabilities. if you really want to get back on the beam, don't stop giving money away to people who don't need it. why would you push a product that only 3% of the american people could possibly afford and want to buy? why don't we subsidize the people who have to buy a used car? if you buy a used tv, we will give you some money, but if you buy that gas burner to put food on the table and get a little money for your kids in the future, people like you don't get this. this is so blatantly unfair to american taxpayers. this is so gamed in one direction and i do understand, i've been to flint, i understand where they build gmc trucks and chevrolet trucks, the backbone of our industry, i look at this
and i say, why are we having these conversations in an entity -- we can't even keep track of what we spend. we have no idea, but we keep saying it is all right. i can keep hearing people say why the wealthiest country in the world can do all these things -- the reason we can't is because it is not possible to sustain that type of spending. this is not all about glitter and unicorns. this is not about telling people we are the runs -- ones that really care. i keep hearing the wealthy are not paying their fair share. when you look at the way taxes are divided, i would say the wealthy are doing pretty well as far as supplying the revenue. please wake up. this is to percent of the market. unless we force the market as an entity that can regulate anybody out of business that we want to. and we can tax anybody out of business that we want to.
the question is why do we want to? i know where the market lies. i've been in it my whole life. i know how i make payroll. i know how it is we are able to participate in all community activities and fundraising. don't look at the shining object thinking that ev's are the solution for the future. they just aren't. they aren't. when they do get market ready, you will not have to subsidize anybody. when the sales fall, the people who build them will kind -- come up with all kind of incentives. don't ask taxpayers to fund these electric dreams. >> let me recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i would like to yield my time to the gentleman from georgia. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
first of all, the folks that are going to be paying the bulk of the excise tax on tobacco make under $200,000 a year. in excess of 80% of folks will be doing that. we are then going to turn around and raise the corporate rate on a company like amazon and then we are going to turn around and give them a direct federal subsidy so we are paying wealthy corporations a direct subsidy. on top of that, if you are a family making $800,000 a year, you were going to get -- you can get up to $118,000 worth of tax credits. think about that. let that soak in. all the while, the corporations
that they also often demonize and the folks making $800,000 a year are about to get $118,000 in tax credits. there are a couple things i wanted to touch on with this bill. one of the concerns i have, if that is the best car on the market -- i've driven these things, they are fun, they are fast, they are quick, there are a lot of advantages -- but we also need to recognize that we are trading our dependence on oil from opec right now because we have given up our energy independence, we will be trading that dependence on foreign energy from fossil fuels with opec to rare minerals coming from china because we don't have the supply chain up here in the u.s. to build the very things that we want to. so, we don't have a plan for that.
we have a plan to pay other people. we are trading dependence on foreign oil for dependence on rare minerals from china. that does not make sense either. the other issue i have with this bill and the way that it is written on this ev tax credit is the unfairness between -- that it lays out for american workers. i don't think that the workers in my district that work at the kia plant and my colleagues workers from alabama, her workers in tuscaloosa at the mercedes plant or at hyundai, that they should be treated differently than those workers. it is just the way this thing is
laid out. always put american workers at a competitive advantage over the world. i agree that is a good thing we should do. but i think putting americans in one state versus another through a direct subsidy is wrong. keep in mind, i'm not saying do away with the tax credit here. let's not pretend that that is what this amendment is about. this amendment is about limiting it to those americans that actually need it the most as defined by who got the stimulus payments. $75,000 for an individual. 150 thousand dollars for a couple. -- $150,000 for a couple. the amendment is about putting a cap on this. we need to recognize that if you are doing well, you are about to do a whole lot better because of $118,000 worth of tax credits coming your way and if you are