tv House Lawmakers Consider the Reconciliation Bill CSPAN October 28, 2021 3:04pm-6:18pm EDT
insurrectionists are republican? mr. mccarthy: i don't even get the premise of your question. let me be very clear. reporter: bipartisan includes those two. if they were included wouldn't you have to have the other side meaning that you would have to have the republican side and that's the insurrectionists. mr. mccarthy: i don't think your question makes any sense. when i talk about having a bipartisan commission that would be having equal republicans and democrat that would be exactly what we've always done, the minority could nominate individuals from their party on to the committee. >> you can see the rest of this on our website c-span. lovment r dwvment. c-span.or rg. we'll take you live to capitol hill where the rules committee is discussing the reconciliation bill.
mr. mcgotsche: this bill has the largest effort to combat climate change, the most transformative commitment in childcare in generation, the biggest expansion of health care in a decade. it accomplishes all of this while being paid for. by making large corporations finally pay their fair share. today we are going to do something that used to be routine, in the light of day we are going to talk and respectfully listen to each other and we are going to educate members of congress and the american people about what's in this bill and why it is so important that we act. there are a lot of great things in this bill. and the good news is, we can continue to perfect it before we send it to the house floor. i have to tell you, the proudest and most consequential vote of my career so far was for the affordable care act. it expanded care, strengthened coverage, cut costs, and no longer made being a woman in america a pree existing condition. pre-existing condition. at the end of the day the bill
before us is larger and broader in scope making not only health care more affordable, but also strengthening family care and combating climate change. it will be transformational. this is what congressional hearings used to be all about. talking about things in the light of day, which will make the final product a stronger one. i get it. we are not going to convince many on the -- in the minority, although we'd welcome their support. whatever we propose, i think there is some that re-- will automatically be against it. that's fine. that's politics. this is not about any of them or any of us. this is about the american people. getting them the help they need and discussing why it's so important we deliver on the agenda that they voted for in november. i look forward to this conversation and i want to thank the committee chairs and the ranking members and their staffs for all the time and effort that has gone into getting us to this point. i'm now having to turn to my
good friend, the ranking member from ok -- oklahoma, mr. cole. mr. cole: thank you very much, mr. chairman. to be completely candid i have no idea what we are doing here today. i'm not certain that my colleagues on the other side of the dais do, either. for the last several months democrats have run around in circles trying to unify their caucus with their senate colleagues on a massive spending bill that would alter american society as we know it. not for the better. from what the news outlets report, it's apparent that this frankenstein monster of a bill is intended to be one of the largest tax and spend bills in history. make no mistakes, massive tax increases would be required to pay for massive spending on socialist programs. for america, this bill means not only higher taxes but more inflation, more big government, socialism, and heightened government control in every americans' lives. it is severely out of touch with
the actual priorities of the american people. yesterday i found out about this hearing the same way most did, from twitter and press reporting on a dear colleague from speaker pelosi to democrats indicating the rules committee would meet. that's a sad state of affairs, mr. chairman. relying on the press to tell us what is happening is the furthest thing from how we should legislate. and the legislation before us today, well, the ink is barely dry. we received the text only an hour ago, and even though my colleagues on the other side of the aisle marked up a reconciliation bill in committee over a month ago, the legislation before us today was spun out of whole cloth mind closed doors. as the chairman noted to the press last night, is only a starting point. mr. chairman, this is lewd dangerous. the speaker is asking the committee to meet on one of the largest tax and spending bills of all time. a bill that spends untold trillions of dollars. we have no score from the
congressionalbudget office or the joint committee on taxation. and no idea when we will get one. our witnesses today cannot realistically discuss the ramifications of this bill because most do not know what is or may later be included. it's the only democratic playbook of passing a bill so we can find out what's in it. there's -- that's no way to govern, mr. chairman. even with the track record of the current majority, this is outrageous. this poor excuse for a piece of legislation was written behind closed doors on an artificial timeline and our families, our communities, and our businesses will pay the price. with all due respect, mr. chairman, this process is a sham. i'm embarrassed for the rules committee today. i hope you know that i do not take any pleasure in that statement, mr. chairman. but it shows how deeply disappointed i am that your leadership's public posturing has replaced sane rational governing. given what has been reported to
be in the final version of this bill, and given how consequential these provisions reportedly are, this process is absurd. if you want to fundamentally change our country, as your side has claimed this package will do, at least have the decency to do so in the light of day. have a process so robust and fulsome that members of all political persuasions can feel confident that their ideas were considered and their constituent voices heard. since this package is not being negotiated to a normal process, let's talk about some of the things the democratic majority's trying to do. they want to give the i.r.s. the power to spy on americans' bank accounts along with imposing massive tax increases on americans and businesses that create jobs. they want to raise home heating bills for millions of americans, and raise gas prices so they can give the wealthy a tax break on electric cars. they want to threaten the solvency of medicare and penalize every energy company
for using fossil fuels despite how critical these are for american consumers. but what's most telling about how out of touch this majority's priorities are, is what this bill oant do. it's -- this bill won't do. it's apparent it has no interest in solving the current emergencies facing our nation. they continue to do nothing to deal with the border crisis. nothing to address rising inflation. in fact, this bill will make inflation worse. nothing to help small businesses get their workers back. nothing to encourage instead of criminalizing parents who advocate for their child's education. and nothing to address the looming threats america and our allies face abroad. the failings of the majority's entire approach are glaringly obvious. mr. chairman, no member of this committee, and nobody appearing before this committee, is prepared to debate the merits of this legislation. we received this bill an hour ago. we received no documents showing
the changes made and no explanations for why such changes were made. no witness before this committee is prepared to answer questions about the 1700 pages of new text and the almost 800 pages of text that were removed from the version previously reported by the budget committee. the events and circumstance that is have led us to this point are unprecedented. the rules committee has no business meeting today. we are the last stop in the legislative process, not the first. this is a room where governing occurs. what we are doing here today is not governing. it's performance art. mr. chairman, you have left me no choice and i move that the committee do now adjourn. mr. mr. mcgovern: you heard the motion of the gentleman. all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. cole: may i request a recorded vote. mr. mcgovern: a recorded haute vote has been requested.
the motion is not agreed to. let me just say before i go to our panelists here today. i'm a little puzzled because usually in the rules committee the complaints we hear from the minority is that the package before us is already finalized and that there is no opportunity for change. what we are doing here, by the way it is the light of day. it's 3:00. i think it may be cloudy out but it's still the light of day, what we are doing here today is i think is actually a good and healthy thing. we are having a discussion and we are talking about the details of a very important bill which, by the way, i think will be transformative and help a lot of my constituents. but help a lot of people across the country, who by the way, have been neglected for far too long. and we can talk about the good and what people have problems
with. and there is still opportunities and chances for change. so i actually, you know, i think this is a good process. i'm a little surprised by the critique. in any event -- dr. burgess. mr. burgess: if i may, i'm in a unique position because i'm on an authorizing committee, i'm on the budget committee, and i'm on the -- head of the privilege of being on the rules committee. in the authorizing committee, energy and commerce, we had like $500 billion of the whatever the total, i don't know what the total is now, that we discussed, we had no hearings leading up to it. so we -- we are an authorizing committee. we are supposed to dig deep into the details. we are supposed to understand -- some people say follow the sites. we are supposed to do that. we had no opportunity to do that. in the budget committee, we marked up a bill in the middle of the night on zoom.
on zoom. $3.5 trillion bill. the biggest bill ever passed in the united states house of representatives. we had a markup at night on a zoom call. here's the painful part, no text. and no score from the congressionalbudget office. may i remind you, it was the committee on the budget that was having this markup. we find ourselves today in the rules committee. the rules committee is the last stop, as mr. cole said, our members, our fellow members on both sides have not had an opportunity to weigh in with their amendments. we are going to be marking this thing up. it's going -- i get t i know it's going to pass-through the rules committee. but this is the one chance --' not going to make an open rule on the floor. this is the one chance for the rank-and-file member of the united states house of representatives to come up here and tell us what they think should or shouldn't be in the bill, provide some data, and let us make a decision on that.
we want the opportunity to do -- lack the opportunity to do that. mr. mcgovern:00 you are lucky you are on the rules committee. you can ask all the members of the committees you want. the 13 committees of jurisdiction have spent more than 165 hours marking up this legislation. they considered more than 850 amendments in the process. 22 republican amendments were adopted. and that's all before the rules committee started our work. i appreciate the gentleman's comments, but i have a feeling i know where the gentleman is coming from on what we are trying to do here. mrs. fischbach. mrs. fischbach: mr. chairman, i don't think you should be sur pliezed we are a little concerned about this. i don't know, will i ask them when i have the opportunity, i don't believe probably the ranking members have had the opportunity to actually look through and, yes, there has been some legislation that has gone through committees, but this is brand new.
this is 1600 pages of new, yes taken together from other bills. we don't know what has been taken out. what has been changed. i think that to bring a 1684 page in front of us, without the opportunity to look through it at least, and have -- i think that provides for a better discussion than i would have the opportunity to look for -- then i have the opportunity to look for questions i might have. i understand large portions of this have gone through. we still don't know what's in -- mr. mcgovern: this is the beginning of a process. all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have the opportunity to ask any questions that they want to. and this is not the end of the process. again, it is a little puzzling to me because usually i hear on the other side, oh, here's the bill. the text is done. you're going to the floor. now you have -- now we have an opportunity to actually ask questions and this bill will continue to be perfected. we'll have a good discussion.
i look forward to hearing the testimonies on both sides. let me welcome our witnesses here today. and i will announce the order in which they will go. chairman yarmuth and ranking member smith. chairman neal and ranking member brady. chairman pallone and ranking member mcmorris rodgers. chairman scott and ranking member foxx. i will now yield to mr. yarmuth from kentucky any opening remarks. mr. yarmuth: thank you very much, mr. chairman. ranking member cole. members of the committee. it's good to be here once again. the build back better act marks an inflexion -- the build back better act marks an inflexion point for our country. it will end an era of chronic uninvestment -- under investment that for too long has held our nation back, creating serious deficits in every sector of american society and leaving millions of working families
without a chance of a fair shot. rising health care costs are putting a strain on budgets for families and businesses. the absence of affordable childcare is driving parents, especially women, out of the labor force in record numbers. the digital divide and lack of broadband infrastructure are hindering our children's education in communities across the country. safe and affordable housing options are becoming more and more scarce for families in need. we face a catastrophic climate crisis that threatens life as we know it. many of these challenges predate the pandemic. but the threat and impact they present have only compounded in recent years. time to act is now. that is why we are here today. the build back better act will deliver transformational investments to meet the needs of the american people, address dangerous deficits in our society, improve our economic outlook, and set america up to compete and win in the decades ahead. it will overall and -- overhaul
and reimagine sectors of economy and society so that everyone, not just those at the top, benefit from a growing opportunity. this is a tremendous undertaking. one that has demanded determination and diligence. now after months of negotiations in our committees, with our colleagues in the senate, and with the white house we have achieved significant progress with historic investments in the future of american families and our nation. which my fellow chairs can speak to more today. the build back better act will create a stronger future for workers and our children, all while creating good-paying jobs. we will enact one of the biggest middle class tax cuts in history, lower costs for families, tackle the climate crisis, and lay the foundation for extraordinary economic growth and chaired prosperity for decades to come. i'm pleased to have today's hear the opportunity to have the shared white house, house provision to the public. the life changing impact of
these depro-visions and next steps in delivering the most transformative piece of legislation for working americans since the new deal. before i close i'd like to address one thing that the ranking member, my good friend, mr. cole, he talked about socialist spending, socialist programs. which we will hear and have heard during our markups. we'll continue to hear it as long as we are talking about this. only in the republican alternative reality can early childhood education be considered solistic. investment in our -- combating climate, investment in our energy future be considered socialistic. these are things, investments that will make america much greater. much more prosperous for everybody. if all you go encountering the initiatives in this agenda is to label them with something that is meaningless to most people, then i think we are in a very, very positive spot. with that i yield back,
mr. chairman. mr. mcgovern: thank you very much. i now yield to ranking member smith. mr. smith: thank you, chairman. thank you ranking member cole. congress has hit an extreme new low today. we already have an approval rating of 21%. it's going to get a whole lot worse because of the actions of the leadership of this congress. less than an hour before this hearing started, the bill text was dropped. 1700 pages. i asked my team, what's printed -- let's print it off so i can make sure this whole committee knows what's in it and i'll read off 1700 pages here. unfortunately, in 45 minutes we couldn't print it. and you're having a hearing on a piece of legislation that we couldn't even print off in enough time. this is all part of the sham.
it's a complete sham. back in september there was a fake artificial timeline that was set by the leadership of the democrat party that said we'll pass the infrastructure bill by september 27. still haven't been a vote on that infrastructure bill. because she's linked it to what we have right here. folks, to show fake momentum, to show fake momentum leadership of the democrat party on the thursday afternoon in september said let's do the markup for the reconciliation bill saturday afternoon. over a month ago with less than 10% of the bill scored. less than 10%. of the entire bill was scored by the congressionalbudget office. but she wanted it so she could
send out a dear colleague letter to all of her democrat members to show fake momentum and to create new headlines showing good faith effort to the progressives. the divisions within this party. we all see it. the american people see it. she tried to make the progressives think that she was moving forward. much like this hearing today. it's nothing but a bunch of fake headlines. she went out there on c-span to talk about this bill that none of you have read. none of you have read. just to create new fake headlines and false momentum to allow the media to think that they were doing something. but in fact, there is no agreement. if there is agreement, we'll have a vote today. my prediction is there will not be a vote today. probably not even a vote in this committee. to pass this.
1700-page bill because you are still going to have to rewrite it because you have some senators on the other side of the building that will say, thumbs down. and you won't be able to pass it. because you'll have moderates of your party saying, no, i don't like it. and then you'll have progressives saying, no. it doesn't go far enough. let me tell you, we are facing multiple crises in this nation as a direct result of your policies. the direct result of this administration's policies. whether it's the border crisis. whether it's the inflation crisis. or whether it's the energy crisis. you know what? what you're doing with this, i don't know what's in your 1700 page bill, but i'll talk about the 2400-page bill we marked up
in the budget committee a month ago. that bill makes every one of those crises even worse. for working class families. you should be ashamed of yourself. i have people in my congressional district in a is doing everything they can -- that is doing everything they can to put food on their stable, clothes on their backs, and gasoline in our cars. in our state because of exec executive orders that joe biden did in the first week of office, has resulted in the gas prices to go up 80% since january 20 in the state of missouri. in this bill you have policies and regulations that will only make gas prices go up even higher. you have taxes on natural gas when people's worried about how they are going to heat their homes this winter. you are trying to make it more expensive on them. you know what? when you talk about the border crisis, we have had more than
1.4 million illegals cross the southern border since january 20. january 20. as the direct result of president biden's executive orders. to eliminate construction of the border wall. by rescinding the remain in mexico policy which the supreme court said was wrong. and now he has to backtrack. and by reinstituting the catch and release. they wonder why 1.4 million illegals have been crossing the southern border. guess what? the 2400-page bill that we marked up a month ago, which i'm sure there is a lot of the same provisions in the 1700-page vil, only will incentivize people to cross the border even more. it provided free college to illegal immigrants. free college to millionaires, too. that's what your bill that passed out of the budget committee did. you know what? it also provided amnesty using $109 billion to $ 10 million
illegals making the border crisis that much worse. you want to talk about the in-- the inflation cry sis folks, before you pass the biden bailout bill in march, it was projected by c.b.o. that inflation would be 2.0. it's tripled. it has tripled after you passed the biden bailout. where you spent $1.9 trillion to reward your political friends, allies, and donors. now we are facing the largest inflation that we have seen since 1981. that is a direct result of all of my constituents, all of your constituents having higher prices to purchase food on their table, clothes on their backs, and gasoline in their cars. guess what? you are wanting to spend, according to the bill that passed out of the budget committee, $4.3 trillion. of reckless spending.
you talk about putting fuel on the inflation fire, that's what you're going to do. why? why rush it through today? other than the false headlines of momentum, maybe there is an election across the potomac that's happening on tuesday. and you are worried that you might need to push this through to show that you can competently govern. or maybe as speaker pelosi said, we'll pass a infrastructure bill by the time that biden lands in europe. 8:00 tonight. my bet is no infrastructure will pass tonight because of the disarray in the -- and division within the democrat party. it's unfortunate, it's unfortunate that we were unable to read these 1700 pages. because we had 45 minutes to do. and let me tell you, cnn, cnn is not a media outlet that likes conservatives. not at all. that may be shocking. two weeks ago they came up with
a poll and they said, only 25%, only 25% of americans said that they would benefit from this legislation. 25%. cnn, that's not a republican media outlet. the reason why you want this bill to be moving today is so the american people won't know what's in it. that's exactly why you are doing it. it's unfortunate. that's why it's a sham. that's why i'm disappointed. and that's why i'm going to make sure the american people finds out what's in this hopefully before you try to pass this piece of legislation. yield back. mr. mcgovern: thank you very much. always pleasant to have you here. let me remind everybody that this bill is not going to the floor today. the democrats actually welcome different points of view. we actually believe debates like
this one we are having here will strengthen the final product at the end of the day. i get it, the gentleman didn't vote for joe biden. 81 million people did and he won overwhelmingly. i know my friends are obsessed with trying to deny that fact. that's what their party stands for right now. i just want to say that the child tax credit, we are already putting money in the pockets of hardworking americans. the build back better plan en enhances and expands home energy and efficiency tax credits. and save families a lot of money on energy costs. let's understand that we are having a discussion here today. that this bill is not moving to the floor today. contrary to what's being implied here. and again it's always wonderful to see the gentleman. i now would acknowledge mr. neal of massachusetts for -- the chairman of the ways and means committee. mr. neal: thank you, chairman mcgovern, ranking member cole. i'm certainly delighted to
appear before you today as we take an important step in the build back better act. as i said in september during the ways and means committee markup of the legislation, this is our moment to lay a newfoundation of opportunity for the american people. to make it possible for members of the american family to live healthier, and more financially secure lives. last month the ways and means democrats approved some of the most consequential investments in american history in their package. and, yes, i did try vigorously to repeal the trump tax cuts. even in legislation which i thought was alive up until a couple days ago. we did it with a very sound and deliberative legislative process. als always -- as always, ranking member brady led a professional opposition to what we were attempting to do. as i always note, it was principle opposition. not emotional opposition. we had more than 40 hours of debate. and we considered more than 60
amendments. that legislation as the bible might note, 40 days and 40 nights ago is still very much alive. provisions received wide public vetting and earned wide respect. the support should be no surprise considering the advancements that we would make. we expanded the child tax credit, which has already made historic progress in slashing poverty and giving working families peace of mind that they can afford life essentials like rent and food. i might say very well received by evangelical leaders across the country for addressing childhood poverty. health care can be a major financial burden in many people's lives. we help millions of americans afford insurance by closing the medicaid coverage gap and extending the american rescue plan's affordable care subsidies. we have supported some of the most vulnerable people in society by funding improvements to long-term facility, enhancing protections for the elderly, and
people who live with disabilities while investing in long-term care work force opportunities. we made investments in diversifying physician work force, to practice graduate medical education program which we also did in the last congress on a bipartisan basis. we increased the number of physicians from rural areas and those from groups in underrepresented physician work force areas as well. thankfully the leadership of the select revenue measures subcommittee chairman, mike thompson, did he a splendid john object this, this package will make historic investments in clean energy. more than $550 billion which in and of itself alone would represent an extraordinary achievement. these policies will help us meet the president's carbon emissions goals, combat clie climate change, and prepare for a greater increase in extreme weather event in the future. all of the investments i just described are paid for by making our tax code more fair and asking corporations and those individuals who have benefited
so much from this nation to give back really just a little bit more. there is no doubt that wealthy people in america during the last 25 years have done very well. seniors and those at the lower end of the economic spectrum cannot make the same argument. we can argue about why it happened, we can argue about how it happened, but we can't dispute the outcome. let me note regrettably our policy provided also 12 weeks of universal paid family and medical leave. again fully paid for. it's not in the package today. and again i regret this very much. i want to be clear that this issue will remain a top priority for me and we'll try to work it through with the other side as well as we go forward to continue our fight to include this benefit for all workers that they can also support. the speaker reminds us that the build back better act is about the future of america. we are putting forward a transformational suite of
measures to support our children, protect the planet, ensure our economy is influencive and rye sillent for generations to -- resilient for generations to come. thank you for your time. mr. mcgofn govern: ranking member brady. mr. brady: thank you chairman mcgovern, ranking member cole, members of the rules committee. respectfully i think we all know it's not a discussion. this is a circus. evidence of that in the 1700 pages misses pieces huge, whole subtitles left blank. my guess is unfortunately all this is for show. so late -- later today the speaker and democrats in congress will again kick this infrastructure bill to the curb along with moderates who are wanting to pass t usually when i'm sitting next to my friend chairman neal it is because we received a new bipartisan on behalf of the american people.
we bring putting our committee members together for big wins. regrettably that's not the case today. we meet in the shadow of today's gloomy economic news. an awful report that shows america's economy effectively stopped growing last quarter. president biden is 0 0 for three in meeting economic projections. he's a million jobs short of his promises from the last $2 trillion stimulus. this is more proof that president biden is bungling the recovery and leaves many americans exe his competence to heal the economy. given that you think the president and congressional democrats would avoid sabotaging mesh a -- sabotaging america's economy further. that's what this proposal does. this is economic sabotage whose crippling hacks hikes will kill american jobs. drive many overseas. hammer small businesses. as they struggle to recover. worsen the labor shortage and drive inflation even higher. never is washington spent so much to kill so many american
jobs, force prices even higher, and a whole new generation of poor on government dependency this framework composes over $400 billion in taxes on america's small businesses. it couldn't come at a worse time. there are $800 billion in tax increases on american business who is compete both here and around the world. this constitutes and economic surrender to china, russia, japan, and europe driving american jobs, investment, and manufacturing overseas. the new corporate minimum tax is really a made in america tax. hitting american manufacturing energy and technology businesses the hardest, along with american consumers. why do democrats insist on making it better to be a foreign company or a worker than an american one? is it wonder our foreign competitors are happy to embrace a small global minimum tax. they are getting our jobs, a big bite of our taxes, they don't have to act for years.
while america surrenders first. who pays for all this? it's the workers, the low-income and middle class who always bear the brunt of these taxes with tax increases, stagnant wages, higher inflation, and the threat of their job? moving overseas. there is also a troubling new tax on retirement plans. that hurts workers and seniors the most by punishing businesses that invest in their own stock. all this while the federal government enjoys record high levels of tax revenue from corporations, small business and high income earners under the republican tax cuts in 2017. reforms that lifted millions of americans out of poverty, brought jobs back to america, and began to shrink income inequality for the first time in half a century. this bill will drive prices up even higher on families and make the damaging labor shortage even worse. for example, republicans in congress created the child tax credit in 1997. more recently doubled it and expanded it to tens of thousands
of more families. every democrat opposed that expansion. yet today as businesses from main street to manufacturing struggle to find workers to stay open, man the production lines, or deliver products, unbelievably democrats changes to the child tax credit no longer require americans to earn or work to qualify for monthly checks. experts predict this along with lavish covid era policies will cause two million more americans to exit the work force. don't democrats understand this drives inflation higher and slows the economic recovery? one of the missing pieces we know will be filled. that democrats will create a huge tax windfall and a tax haven for millionaires and billionaires by repealing the reasonable salt deduction. occupants of the penthouse are cheering you while the building janitor gets nothing. he it gets worse. democrats are giving away $550
billion in green welfare subsidies for the wealthy and the world's biggest corporations, literally, sending government checks to the wealthy 1%. why are you spending a well-to-do family making $800,000 a year a government check for up to 12 1/2,000 to buy a luxury electric vehicle. labor unions get a huge haul, including forcing 90% of americans who don't join unions to subsidize the few who do. there are bunt gimmics galore. it costs zero will go down in history alongside if you like your health plan you can keep it as one of the biggest whoppers joe biden has ever told. i'll finish with this. why are you punishing working families by making inflation worse? prices have gone faster than paychecks almost every month since president biden took office. it's killing families. forcing them to effectively pay a second utility, cell phone, or cable bill a month.
inflation is a tax and you are raising it. my advice, my request today stop this economic sabotage. our nation can't take much more. i yield back. mr. mcgovern: thank you. i now yield to chairman frank pallone. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman, members of the committee. when i listen to my republican colleagues and they talk about the challenges that they face, their constituents face, they are not the challenges that i hear from my constituents at home. what i heard during the covid crisis was, people's concerns about public health, whether they were going to get covid. whether the hospitals were going to be able to deal with it. whether the vaccinations were going to get out. when i go home i hear about all the infrastructure problems. the roads that need to be fixed. the trains that need to be upgraded. in our state we are between philadelphia and new york.
i hear about long-term economic challenges because so many people in the middle class feel they have been left behind. so i want everyone to understand in the perspective here that i have. basically as democrats we have tried to address these things during the covid crisis and beyond in three ways. first was the american rescue plan. which essentially helped a lot of people, primarily from my perspective tried to deal with the covid crisis by making sure we got the vaccinations out, we had the supply chain. people were able to go to the hospital. weren't afraid. there were so many other things in the american rescue plan. then we have the senate bipartisan infrastructure bill, which we do intend to vote on, that's primarily focused on the nation's infrastructure, which is falling apart. i don't know maybe your state's different from mine, but our bridges, our tunnels, our pipes, we address trying to deal with
the lead in the pipes. our sewercies tessments all these things are addressed. and finally with the build back better act, is a recognition we have to build back better. it's not enough we face this crisis, but we have to deal with building back better after the crisis. it's not over yet. the covid crisis. hopefully we'll get there. i wanted to just talk briefly about the provisions within the jurisdiction of the energy and commerce committee that would accomplish this goal of building back better. chief among that in my opinion is the climate crisis. i don't know, again, what you are hearing at home, but we had a nor'easter the last couple nights. everybody was afraid of the flooding. we had hurricane ida where people died. i think over 30 people in new jersey that died. the sea level is rising. my district is along the coast. so the build back better act aggressively tackles the climate crisis. congressman neal mentioned a lot of it, but i wanted to mention some things in our committee. it makes sweeping unprecedented
investments to combat the crisis. a new greenhouse gas reduction fund that accelerates innovation. there is rebates for homeowners to electrify and make their houses more efficient. combined with resources to create a 21st century electric grid to get to renewables to power our neighborhoods. a new methane emission reduction program that drives down fleution pr the oil and gas industry. and at the same time substantial investments in electric vehicle charging stations. including heavy duty vehicles like school buses. and also helps the american -- we also help the american manufacturing stay globally competitive. these investments come at a krit critical time. we've got to reduce our greenhouse gases, otherwise we are going to continue to have this climate crisis. also i mentioned the lead pipes. we have money in the b.i.f. but we need more for lead drinking lines. a billion to replace these lead
pipes. fulfilling our promise to deliver safer drinking water. i don't have to tell you about michigan and flint. on health care, the provisions in the build back bert act make health care more afford -- better act make health care will being more affordable for all americans. in the american rescue plan, we had the expanded subsidies to help more people get health insurance. we continue that for a few more years. we also address those people in the red states where they haven't expanded medicaid by giving them those same subsidies that we have under the affordable care act. invest nments home and community-based care. $150 million. permanently re-authorize the children's health insurance program. dedicate long overdue resources to improve a maternal health care and provide permanent funding to the u.s. territories, including puerto rico. the legislation continues our investment of public health infrastructure because of covid. it includes critical investments in new and existing teaching
health centers. community health centers. also public health preparedness niche tissments i understand that -- nir tifs. i understand that the rules committee -- i understand the it heuls reuls committee does not include a provision on prescription drug pricing. we are committed to finalizing an agreement before we go to the floor that includes price negotiation. a cap on seniors drug spending. the bill finally makes key investments in manufacturing supply chain resiliency and provides the federal trade commission with essential funding to better protect citizens' privacy. i could go on but i will not. i just want you all to understand this is part of essentially a three-prong process. rescue plan. infrastructure. build back better. we have to make these investments to deal with the public health crisis. to deal with the underserving of
our infrastructure. and also to deal with our long-term economic challenges that the middle class faces. i think we are accomplishing that with this three-part series and this being the last of it. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mcgovern: happy to recognize ranking member mcmorris rodgers. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member cole, members of the rules committee, the audacity of this sham process is breathtaking. trillions of dollars in massive government knows best proposals with an extremely limited opportunity for debate, i wouldn't call this a debate, on text we received an hour ago. speaker pelosi just finished writing as i understand it behind her closed doors. clearly there isn't even a final agreement among the democrats. i'm sure it will drastically change again. trillions of taxes and spending
with no regard as to how much money the federal government prints. isn't that convenient. but it's dangerous. and cruel. to our children, our grandchildren who will have their future limited by the selfish political goals. this process, writing this agenda behind closed door, is a complete abuse of power. as we know there is no limit to speaker pelosi's tyranny. it's deceitful and it's not the will of the people. despite speaker pelosi saying just recently, quote, whether they know it or not people overwhelmingly support t we don't even know what's in it. speaker pelosi is putting this country on a highway to socialism to achieve her sweeping change. as she called it a once in a century moment to fundamentally change america. as president biden jets off to europe. this is where the steam leads. blackouts, unaffordable electricity bills, tax hikes,
jobs destroyed, no hope for cures, long lines of sick begging the government tore lifesaving treatments. and weak american defenses against our adversaries. china and russia. is this really the future we want? more command and control of the federal government of our lives? this is the way that we hurt our global competitive edge. this is the way we make america less safe. inflation is an ugly tax on every part of our lives from the gas pump to the grocery store. this thanksgiving is going to be more expensive than ever. i will submit that this grand socialist agenda that destroys freedom and emboldens our enemies is not how we win the future. this is not how america wins the fuhr. the bill reported by energy and commerce puts us on a path to socialized medicine that destroys patient choice, increases cost, leads to worse health outcomes by federalizing the medicaid program which i
believe is a very important safety net, the democrats are destroying the very foundation of the program. with state-run, federally supported and intended to help the most vul vulnerable is a imient step towards medicare for all and leave people in medicaid, the program that was designed to help behind. this federal power grab will kick almost three million americans off their employers er sponsored insurance. if you like your plan, you won't be able to keep it under this bill. medicare is already going bankrupt. with the most recent medicare actuaries report estimating it will be insolvent by 2026. instead of working with republicans to address this issue, the democrats are planning further raids on medicare. as they did with obamacare. which will drastically worsen the crisis and threaten millions of americans' health insurance. a radical proposal that forces low-income women to choose a health insurance plan that
covers abortion. or go uninsured. use taxpayer funding for abortions in the federal medicaid program. thankfully a bipartisan group of energy and commerce committee members deseeded speaker pelosi's drug control scheme. i sincerely hope this committee does not bring back that policy that will destroy american innovation in developing lifesaving cures. it also discriminates against people with disabilities. debilitating diseases. puts the government in charge of your life and death. in addition, the inexcusable rush to pass this reckless bill is motivated by president biden's desperation to have something to hold up to the celebrities and radical activists in glasgow next week to show that america is, quote, taking actions. you should ask the british people about their bet on offshore wind.
their escalating record high energy prices. he should ask the germans if they feel more secure after shutting down their nuclear plants. becoming dangerously reliant upon natural gas from russia. i should ask every european country if they'll be able to keep their lights on and homes heated this winter. after nine months of this administration's war on american energy, we are already seeing the same crisis emerge here with record high gas prices. an unreliable grid. americans across the country concerned about whether or not they are going to be able to keep their homes heated and lights on this winter. the bill reported by energy and commerce will lead america down a dangerous path. that europe has chosen. leaving us less secure, less prosperous. more dependent upon our adversaries like china and russia. the natural gas tax, or heat your home tax, will crush families who are already worried about how they are going to heat
their homes. handout to the rich to buy electric vehicles will make new cars even less affordable. your subsidies and regulations to promote unreliable renewables like wind and solar will destroy jobs across the country that will already struggling. and will enrich the chinese communist party. use slave labor to manufacture the essential components. despite all of this, i continue to believe in the promise of america. as you all know, republicans and democrats, we are all here together. we are all duly elected representatives of the people. we are elected here to serve. my hope is that we will come together. that we will lead. that we will be the ones that bring hope and healing to our communities. let's not let the promise of america for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all slip away. now is the time to abandon this
partisan scheme. let's get back to the people's work. not speaker pelosi's agenda. i yield back. mr. mcgovern: thank you very much. i'm now happy to yield to chairman scott. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member cole. pleased to speak in support of the education and labor committee of the build back better act. over the past few months congressional democrats at the white house have held a difficult and highly public discussion on how to fulfill president biden's agenda. in the process has brought to us this moment and we should not obscure the simple reality this legislation is an historic achievement on behalf of the american people. the build back better act proposal today will help lower costs for nearly every american family who -- set a strong foundation for our future and the legislation is paid for not
adding to the national debt. i thank the ranking member of the budget committee for his promise to publicize all of the provisions of this bill. within the committee's jurisdiction, the bill delivers an historic investment in making childcare affordable. and secure free school for all 3 and 4-year-olds. these provisions alone are trons formative investments in family. it give parents the freedom to earn a living without having to worry their children are cared for. i'm proud to report this proposal also makes nearly nine million more children eligible to receive free school meals. our response to the pandemic, when we expand access to child nutrition programs, fewer children go hungry. this is an opportunity to continue our progress in the fight against child hunger.
higher education by encreasing the maximum pell grant by $550. for more than five million students. it secures another significant investment in historically black colleges and universities, tribal colleges and university, and other minority serving institutions. i will specifically note despite the intense pressure, the legislation passed through the committee the revised proposal increases aid to these institutions. hardworking americans and rebuild the middle class, this invests in high quality job training that will allow workers across the country to increase their paychecks and better provide for themselves and their families. finally, the bill secures more than $1 billion in vital programs that support seniors and people with disabilities. this legislation will shows
constituents we are here to represent and i'm grateful my colleagues on the committee and across the democratic caucus for their commitment to fulfilling president biden's build back better agenda. i want to thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. mr. mcgovern: thank you very much. i now happy to yield to ranking member fox. foxx. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank ranking member cole for having me here today. i really want to associate myself with the comments of my republican colleagues today. while they were talking i decided to look up -- i wanted to say sham, i wanted to say fake, i wanted to say all these words. they are actually -- there are actually 112 synonyms for the word sham.
and it's a fraud, farce, travesty, hypocrisy, that's just a few of the synonyms. and while i don't want to repeat many of the excellent comments they have made, i really do think it's important that we continue to tell that to the american people. . because the language you use here is so hypocritical you talk about investment. what you're doing is not investing for the american people. they know how to spend their money better than the government know house to spend their money. -year taking money from hardworking taxpayers and giving to it people who don't work and illegal aliens. that's what you're doing. you are not making investments for the american people. and yes, you are running headlong into socialism. we are not living in an alternative reality.
you are living in an alternative reality. if you think this is going to be popular with the american people. yes, you do want to fundamentally change this country. the american people do not want you to fundamentally change this country. in the way you are proposing to do with this bill. it is challenging to testify on legislation none of us have had time to read. we've had it for about an hour. i'm glad to see that someone's brought the text of the bill. we know it took about an hour just to print it off. but it's another case as some of my colleagues have said that this is a let's pass the bill to find out what's in it. and as you've said, there's going to be no vote on it today. so what the hell is the rush to get it done? it doesn't make any sense to do this when people haven't had a chance to read it except to go back to let's pass it so we can
find out what's in it. according to the press reports about it, though, somehow or another, the press understands more about it, this bill -- this build back broke boondoggle, a lot of alliteration here, has been altered significantly and i'd hoped these reports meant an end to the irresponsible legislation. but it appears that democrats either don't care or aren't concerned that outrageous spending on misguided policies will compound president biden's spending-induced inflation crisis which my colleagues have often spoken about. the democrats so-called build back better bill threatens to fundamentally change the relationship between the federal government and the american citizens. let me point out to you the constitution starts out with we the people. it doesn't start out with the government. with we the government. it's the people who should be in charge, not the federal
government. i really feel like we could make a lot of other analogies like virginia in wonderland, the wizard of oz. all of these things that i think we they were -- i think the american people can understand. i do want to say that i know that the lord will be relieved to know that democrats are going to help him in his job to improve the climate. i think he is going to be very relieved by what you are saying. but let me talk a little bit about what this -- what the provisions in this socialist spending bill do with the -- what the provisions do to attack job creators. the department of labor's enforcement agency, the national labor relations board, nlrb, and the equal opportunity employment commission, come on top of funding provided through the regular appropriations process and the democrat's-so call mernd rescue plan adopted earlier.
so it's going to be huge spending for those agencies. you're putting a target on job creators' backs. osha penalties are increased by 512% across the board and fair labor standards act penalties are hiked by 900%. these outrageously inflated funds will harm small businesses and embowden government inspectors to harass job creators who would be hesitant or unable to afford to contest these huge citations. enacting dangerous pro act provisions, the bill authorizes steep nlrb civil monetary penalties on employers and holds directors and corporate officers personally liable for alleged nlra workplace violations. unions, of course, are exempted from any unprecedented and overly punitive fines.
additionally, there's a takeover of child care. and one of my colleagues said, we're living in an alternative universe if we think this is socialism. well, what you do in socialism is you take over the education of children. to begin with. so allowing the biden administration to spend upwards of $200 billion for free pre-k brings the u.s. one step closer to a nanny state, makes it more difficult for parents to find care outside the government controlled child care that they need to be able to return to work. changing the pre-k landscape will have unintended consequences like hurting already-struggling private day care programs who rely on 3 and 4-year-old to offset the cost of caring for infants. it'll force providers to raise rates or shut down and force parents to send their children
to the government controlled schools, obliterating parent choice. remember that if you like your doctor you can keep him? second first, same as the first. instead of investing in the many entities that already take care of preschoolers, this plan funnels more money into public school system and we know right now how popular the public school systems are around the country for the outrageous things that are happening there. preschools are also run by public schools are more expensive, less flexible and won't meet the diverse needs of parents. this overprice prod posal will limit parent's choice when it comes to preschool, concentrate more power in the hands of teachers' unions, increase dependence on the federal government. the pre-k proposal also imposes unfair restrictions on the use of faith-based providers. like most government programs, this proposal dictates
uniformity over flexibility and government control over parental choice. this is a proposal to satisfy progressives, not to help america's parents. in the democrats' world there's really such a thing as a free lunch. so the democrat bill gives free meals to wealthy families and creates a slush fund for the secretary to push his partisan agenda on meal standards rather than helping schools and families deal with biden's inflation crisis. democrats' spending boondoggle threatens unborn children. by failing to include pro-life protections the bill would allow over $2 billion in federal funds to flow to abortions through the department of labor's job corps programs and the department of health and human services' pregnancy assistance fund. it's going to drive up the national debt and inflation, hurting not only the americans
of today but the americans of tomorrow. furthermore, it's very discriminatory when it comes to opportunities for education. you're excluding propry tear schools from the $550 increase in pell grants. this is a major shift in higher education policy where you're pitting one sector against the other. of course it's the private sector that you're going after. student aid has always flowed to students for them to use at the institution of their choosing so long as the institution is accredited among other things. at the same time, you're opening up student aid to illegal aliens. so harming the veterans, minority student, and working parents, who choose a proprietary school which is often much more flexible than
the schools funded by the government, but you give aid to people who aren't legal citizens. that is absolutely wrong. and it should not be done. i just -- we've all tried to say what's wrong with this bill. you haven't heard one positive thing. we don't believe there's anything positive in here. and again, i will say, you're creating more red tape. bureaucratic land mines. it's going to be bad for workers. bad for students. bad for the country. and i yield back. mr. mcgovern: thank you. did i tell you how much we miss you on this committee, virginia? [laughter] let me first of all apologize to ms. foxx and mr. smith. that had trouble printing the bill out. it took over an hour? we printed a copy here in the rules committee it took less
than 20 minutes. maybe you ought to talk to mr. yarmuth and mr. scott about getting you and upgraded xerox machine. but i should also point out that because this is the 21st century everything is online. and the fact that it's online makes it easier to look things up and check things. so i just would notify you of that. not only for this bill but in the future. and i would also point out thattering you know, for all the talk about how nobody has read anything in the bill, you've had no trouble highlighting specifics in the bill that you have a problem with. so, maybe you need a little more consistency in your message. but you know, i really am glad we had this hearing and this panel so far. because anybody who is watching this will understand that there obviously are here in congress philosophical differences
between democrats and republicans. but i also think that based on what i have heard here today, there's something else. i mean, i really think, you know, as much as i like all my republican friends, i don't think we share the same values. and i think this is a values discussion. i think that's what really is at the heart and soul of what we're trying to do. you know, i think universal preschool for all 3 and 4-year-olds is a good thing. it's a values thing. i think that affordable, high quality child care is important. to not only my constituents but to people all around this country. i think affordable high quality care for hundreds of thousands of older americans and people with disabilities in their homes and communities, i think that's a -- i think most people, i don't care whether you're a democrat, republican, liberal or conservative, i think that's a good thing. not to mention the expanded child tax credit. that has already, we are told,
reduced poverty amongst children in this country by about 40%. i hope we can all celebrate that. i would like to think it doesn't matter what our politics might be. we would think that reducing child poverty is important. ms. foxx: would you yield? mr. mcgovern: i'm happy to -- i'm -- i yield to my former colleague on the rules committee. ms. feather: thank you, mr. chairman. i think you're absolutely right that our values, many of our values are -- are the same. mr. mcgovern: then we're in agreement. ms. foxx: i believe that we have a blueprint for this government and that blueprint is the constitution of the united states. and that constitution tells us what our duties and responsibilities are. and the 10th amendment said if it wasn't outlined in the constitution, for the federal government to do, then it's left to the states and the people themselves. and i believe that the biggest
fundamental difference between the way you feel and the way we feel is that we believe in the constitution and we believe in living by it and that -- we don't -- mr. mcgovern: i hope you respect the results of the last election because you know -- ms. foxx: i have never said i didn't. mr. mcgovern: but i do think there's a values difference here. not only is unionser have -- universal pre-k a good thing, it can save thousands of dollars each year for americans, because preschool costs are about $8,600 per year. how do families do this? and we believe that climate change is real. i'm not quite sure what -- well, i mean. the deal is we're actually doing something about it. not walking away from trying to be a leader in the effort. but there are clean energy tax credits in here. there's investments for clean energy technology and manufacturing.
we heard from mr. pallone about what is in this bill to expand health care for people. we're going to hear from other panelists about investments in housing. mr. scott talked about investments in education. and we're also -- again, i would just say, mr. brady, you know, g to give us a lecture about tax scams. i don't think my friends on the other side should lecture anybody about tax scams. i was on the rules committee when republicans were in charge we had two emergency meetings in this committee to bring up the republican tax bill that benefited primarily people in the highest echelons in this country, to the best of my knowledge it wasn't a process in which democratic values or ideas were entertained or accepted. so i would also point out that the bill we're talking about here today, thanks to mr. neal, basically rescinds the
incentives for shipping jobs overseas. and i think most americans, by the way, not just democrats, but independents, republicans, would agree on that. so look. we can -- you know, my friends can do what they usually do. that is a socialist this, this is a playbook out of the chinese government. that's a new one. but in any event, yell and scream all you want but at the end of the day this really is a values question. and i again with the greatest respect for my republican friends, we do not share the same values. and i think -- so we will continue -- this is -- we're not voting on this bill today. we'll continue to have this discussion. but i am proud of this bill. i am proud of president biden. i am proud of all the chairs of the committees who spent time trying to come up with ways to actually solve problems that american families face in this
country. and so, you know, i look forward to the day when we hopefully very soon when we will vote on this. and i will do so proudly. i will do so representing my constituents and the concerns that i hear from them on a daily basis. so you know, i don't have any questions, i thank everybody for being here. i now yield to mr. cole. mr. cole: thank you very much, mr. chairman. for i get into questions and i do have a fair number. , i want to tell my good friend from kentucky, the chair of the budget committee, how much we're going to miss you. i read with genuine regret your decision not to seek re-election. i mean that quite sincerely we don't agree on everything, we certainly don't agree on this bill, but you've been a terrific member of this body and you've represented your constituents -- constituency with a great dell of decency and civility and respect, widely admired and liked on both sides of the aye,
even mr. smith says good things about you behind your back as often as you guys disagree and cross verbal swords. i'm going to miss you in a lot of ways. you know i will miss you as chairman of the bourbon caucus maybe most of all. you've been a most distinguished and -- the most distinguished and generous chairman that caucus has ever had. and i'll miss your frequent meetings. >> i'm looking for successors. mr. kell: -- mr. cole: you have over a year left and i don't want you to leave that position you've claimed. >> thank you so much for your kind comments. mr. cole: i mean it with all sincerity. let me ask you this. this has been alluded to multiple times. and it's true. we got this bill bierly an hour ago. my staff did some quick calculation, to have read it we would have to read 28 pages a
minute, excuse me, 28 pages a minute. so three seconds a page, roughly. that's -- and it's different. it's not the same bill. that you considered in your committee. so can you just give us a quick list of the substantive differences between the bill you considered and passed out of the budget committee and the one that's in front of us today. >> i thank you for the question. and certainly there have been changes. but fundamentally, the vast majority of this bill was the same bill that we marked up in the budget committee. we didn't actually mark it up but considered in the budget committee but all the authorizing committees wrote and what basically you have before you, with a few exception, but what you have before you is a subtraction of many of the provisions and a reduction and for instance duration and service that was dictated by our
responses to the senate dmappedz. it's virtually the same in terms of programs included. i know mr. neal, there's significant differences in the ways and means percentage of the legislation. but virtually all that came through, education, child air care was in the original bill. sts it's sill in this one. the job training provisions were in the original bill, they're in this bill. but most of the changes i would say came in your jurisdiction. mr. cole: i'll be happy to turn to the chairman in a second. let me ask a a couple of followup questions on the budget and then i'll listen to what my friend from massachusetts has to say. you don't have any plans to bring this bill back before your committee? the bill was substantively changed after it came out of
your committee, it was changed in the speaker's office as far as i know. i don't know where it was changed but clearly none of us were part of that process. no republicans involved in that process. no republican members. no forum. so you know, again with all -- are you guys even going to produce a document that lists the changes between what we have and what we saw a month ago? mr. yarmuth: we'll be producing a manager's amendment which will come to this committee. mr. cole: that's not quite what i asked. i expect a manager's amendment on something this size. will we get from you, ok these are the chaims that we made over the document. will the majority produce that in some way, shape or fashion and put that out to the public? mr. yarmuth: we can discuss doing that, we'll do our best to accomplish that. mr. cole: you're going to try to accomplish that?
mr. mcgovern: we'll do a section-by-section summary. mr. cole: that would be extremely helpful, mr. chairman. mr. smith, you know, again, the text was just released as you pointed out quite eloquently. do you have any clear idea of what the real cost of this is? all the numbers get thrown around are, you know, kind of from press reports whatever. how much revenue is budget committee purview. how much cost. do you have a clear idea of what's in it? mr. smith: thank you, ranking member cole. we're trying to, my team and i are trying to put things together as quickly as possible. of course the congressional budget office has now probably -- is now probably trying to look through this bill. i will tell you from our quick read utah, very quickly, it's over a 10-year window, this is the scorekeepers on the budget committee, our team, we project
based as -- very cliff notes that this bill is $4.6 trillion over 10 years and basically $1.6 trillion in offsets and i'll add $3 trillion -- and it'll add $# trillion to the deficit is what our early read utahout is. what i think is interesting, ranking member cole, since values has been discussed so often, i think it's important to see where the values have changed from the bill that passed out of the budget committee a month ago to the bill that's today. of course the climate provisions look like they have remained permanent. however, the child tax credit in the original bill was there until the year 2025. but in this proposal they believe children should only have that up until the year 2022. that's a value that this bill changes from the last bill. is that the children tax credit was in the bill that passed out
of budget, extended into the year 2025. this bill only extends it to the year 2022. one year. one year. and there's also some other provisions like that, ranking member cole. for example, the earned income tax credit in the original bill that was passed out of the budget committee, it was previously made permanent. by the house democrats. however in this one they only extended it for a year. so they no locker allow the earned income tax credit to be permanent. they're only making it one year to expire in the year 2022. and then you look at the affordable care act subsidies. in the original underlying bill they made it permanent. you know, health care subsidies. they've always talked about expansion. in the underlying bill they made it permanent. yet once again, they made it expire in the year 2025. just from my early readout. maybe they filed this bill like an hour before this committee
but i have a really good team, we're trying to go through it pretty quick. we're going to make sure the american people know the value of the democrats within this committee. but i would like to point out we're still trying to figure out if there's any changes to the state and local income tax. i believe that there are. and i would just like for the american public and for the committee to be quite well aware, for every year you extend the state and local income tax, the state and local tax, it's $91 billion. $91 billion. and that helps the top 1%-ers. the top one percenters who would get about $35,000 a year in added benefit. however, you know what you could do with that $91 billion? you could extend these following programs that they say are their values and that they care about for an additional year. let me read the programs to you, ranking member cole.
free college. you could do that plus long-term care. plus you could do child care credit. plus you could do the paid family leave. plus you could do the affordable care act. expansion. plus you could do another year of the earned income tax credit. i just want to put, since we're talking values, the democrats' bill in here decided to expand the state and local tax which is a tax break for the one-percenters instead of doing another year for the six items that try to say they're doing for the working class. i just think that that's important in an easy readout. mr. cole: the chairman is asking me to yield. mr. mcgovern: are you in favor of all those programs? we're in negotiation with the senate and unfortunately we have to come down on some of these things because of the negotiation. but if the gentleman is in favor of all those things i want to say something nice about him bu-
>> you can still say something nice. mr. mcgovern: i think the gentleman is basically, complaining that these programs are not funded in a permanent way yet the gentleman if he had his way would fund none of them. let's talk about values here. we do not share the same values. mr. cole: i would like to respond and then i have a quick observation. mr. smith: i would hate for the chairman of this committee to try to speak for me. and to decide what my values are. the people who elect me in southeast missouri know who my values are. and we fight for them and that's why i'm fighting to save america and to stop this piece of legislation that's trying to get more command and control over their lives and livelihoods because like the lady from north carolina said earlier, is that we may have different values, we may have different values but my values is, is that i don't want
government, government, to control the people who i represent. we believe in freedom. we believe in choice. we whreef in choice and that government doesn't force it and push it down upon us. we dent believe the federal government knows what's best for our own health care decisions. what's best for our own education decisions. what's best for our own privacy and free dm. so the values are different. that's ok. that's why the good people of southeast missouri decided to send me up here. but i just wanted to state, if values -- i just want to state how it's changed. because my counterpart did not express this and i just think it's important to point out. mr. cole: let me ask you this because i would look at it in a way that there's a bit of a smoke screen here in the sense that -- to make the bill look cheaper than it probably really is. because that's part of why to do that. it's a little bit of political
chicken, we dare you to take it or find a way to fund it. so i'm curious as to how people on the o-- in the other chamber, in the democratic party, will look on that. because i suspect they'll see the same thing. at least i would hope they would. again, i think that's the aim here. let's artificially lower this to some number so we can say what is really a multitrillion dollar bill as you suggest is really less than $2 trillion. it's a lot more than that. and that's just the reality of it. let me can you this. we have considerable experience with the congressional budget office, how long do you think it'll take them to score a document like this? if my friends on the other side can succeed in their timetable, i suspect we will be voting before we ever get an official score at all. is that fair assumption? mr. smith: without a doubt. less than 10% of the bill that was passed a month ago out of the budget committee has been
scored by the congressional budget office. so it will definitely take considerable time. and i doubt if the leadership of this chamber will wait for a score before they have a vote if they have enough members in their party to support it. mr. cole: thank you. i'm going to go back, mr. yarmuth, i think wisely, pointed out that the distinguished chairman of ways and means would probably have tremendous changes in his area. i'd like you, if you would, mr. chairman, to go through some of those changes. i know you worked hard on the bill you had before. i i read the papers, you haven't been happy with every change that's here. i'm not asking you to lay that out but i'm curious about the scope of the changes. >> first let me say i'd be happy with my friend mr. smith if he'd like to expand some of these credits and make them permanent,
i'll call the ways and means committee meeting tomorrow. mr. smith: i have the child tax credit. mr. neal: ok, i'll look at that. the changes are not that big. the child tax credit, 26.5%, it was a compromise between mr. obama and david kim, the former chairman of the committee. on the top individual side, we proposed successfully 39.6 and if we want to have a long discussion about the salt deduction it was the salt deduction that complicated the top rate being cut to 37.5% largely because secretary mnuchin, in many conversations with me, he assured me time and again they would not cut the previous administration the top individual rate. he called me and he said i want to apologize to you profusely. he said when we saw what the salt deduction turned out to be we had to cut the top rate. the idea that these are all easily done, in the tax world, i
think mr. brady would agree with this even if he didn't agree with me in a philosophic tone, it's like squeezing toothpaste with the cap on. some of these things are altered. that's the reality. our best intentions are sometimes offtarget. but we do include tax buyback we provide a minimum international corporate texas of 15%. those are the most substantial changes. smaller change on the adjusted gross income we take that to $10 million from the ocialgal proposal of $5 million. that's 3%. then 3% on incomes over $25 million. i think that's in the ballpark. now we also share something else. mr. cole. we have to deal with the united states senate. and in this instance here, we had to mollify two members of our own party in the u.s. senate. we're trying to shape legislation on a daily basis with the other chamber.
so we made some adjustments, hardly radical. i think it's safe to say, 90% of what we did was met in public. changes that i noticed you on, they're the ones that probably stand out. mr. cole: mr. brady let me -- >> may i just segue because i have an answer for you. mr. cole: of course. >> an answer to your earlier question. we have been informed by my crack staff on the budget there's a section-by-section analysis with all the differences from the original bill that came through budget and this version, we're having a little struggle technically with wed lining the differences but they are posted online right now. mr. cole: i appreciate that. we have not seen them. so thank you very much. we'll we look forward to going through that. mr. ranking member, mr. brady, my good friend from texas. i want to get your view on the tax provisions that are in here but also the changes that were made and i'm curious as to
whether you think it made things better or worse. i know you weren't particularly happy with the first draft. >> could i take the question for a moment? mr. cole: i hope -- ypt to keep denying mr. brady his chance to speak for himself but i'll always come back to you, mr. chairman and give you a chance to respond and make any congressmens you want. mr. brady: i will say if you ask me is there anything here i like, the answer would be, i'm so thankful it's not named after me. >> we can do that. mr. brady: no you can't, mr. chairman. so a couple of thoughts here. i would like to introduce for the record a fact check. mr. mcgovern used the of the-repeated -- the oft-repeated
statement that the tax cuts bent went to the top. maybe the value of accuracy might prevail in these discussions today. secondly, there are a number of changes as the chairman said on different individual's corporate capital gain taxes and all but again, you know, what my biggest concern is, is this is remains more than $1 trillion on america's small businesses and job creators. it especially lands on main street businesses and tax increases in the international provision simply make it better to be a foreign company, better for them to be a foreign company than a u.s. company. and a number of these provisions like the new corporate minimum tax on book income, not an idea vetted through the ways and means committee, or in chairman neal's bill, i really do think
hurts most american businesses, manufacturers, technology, energy companies, because it hurts them and their consumers because it wipes out some pretty thoughtful pro-growth parts of the tax code that encourage more made in america issues. that may have been why it was left out or wasn't included in the earlier provisions. i think that's a step back in a significant way. i also think it's a mistake to punish companies that invest in their own stock. the tax cuts and jobs act we brought $1.5 trillion of american profits back from overseas to be invested right here in america. some companies had expansion claims ready to go. others invested in workers and technology. others didn't have that best way to invest so they invest in another good way, their own stock, their own workers, the retirees who depend upon them. there are some of those provisions. that are changes. but i think the end result is
still the same. these are crippling tax increases. they drive u.s. jobs overseas. $400 billion land on our small businesses who are struggling these days. and their workers always pay that price. and to wrap up, you know, i just think at the time our economy is struggling, these are provisions that hurt our economy in significant ways. shouldn't be here. mr. cole: let me ask you this. you have increased taxation, increased burden on businesses, don't they tend to just add it on to their prices and so the people that really pay it in the end are the people who buy the product and the service which is the american people, a lot of whoam don't make $400,000 a year, making considerably less than that. and we already have prices going up. we already have record inflation
over the last 30 years. 40 years. running now. wouldn't this contribute to that as well? mr. brady: that last part, the deficits and inflation. mr. cole: wouldn't these tax changes make inflation worse in wouldn't most of the burden, over # 0% of the burden on these kinds of changes tend to fall on people who use the goods and services. mr. brady: they land the burden on workers, middle income workers. the joint committee on taxation, the left-leaning tax policy center, made that case that the original bill that chairman neal proposed would raise taxes on about 75% of middle class americans. and rise to over 95% of them so they would see those tax increases there as well. i do want to make a point here. look, i know taxing the salt
deduction at $10,000 isn't popular in high tax states. but we arrived at that by taking the average state and local tax deduction across america and doubling it. so if you're impacted by it you're either doing very well, financially and in your home, or you live in a tax state, and these are good states. new york, california, new jersey, illinois, others, they're really good states that brutally tax their families and their workers. and there's no need to continue to subsidize those high taxes. so we used the revenue from capping the salt tax to double the zero tax rate for low income workers and to provide tax cuts all across the board in america. that is why three out of every $4 in tax reform bent to families and small businesses. not corporations.
mr. cole: let me ask you this. your state is one state impacted. medicaid is expected to go insolvent in the next five or six year, it's one of the concerns senator manchin, i think, raised in his discussions publicly about some provisions. is medicare expansion, which we've got in my state, that decision has been made, is that going to speed up insolvency in the medicare program or not? do you have concerns about it? >> two thoughts. one, on the medicaid expansion, that's an open-ended entitlement that continues to drive huge costs and what we're finding in a lot of state, not in texas, is that they continue the share of medicare funding in state budgets are beginning to swamp the money for school, for public safety, for roads, and infrastructure, thankfully we didn't go that route on the medicare side, ranking member cole, you know, we just think
it's reckless to expand funding in medicare when they're five or sick years from insolvency in the hospital trust fund. we think that ought to be addressed before you recklessly expand more services and more costs in that important program. we've got $50 million or $60 million americans i think depend on medicare they don't know that hospital trust fund is going broke fast. congress -- i wish we were spending time solving that. than doing this. mr. cole: dr. foxx, let me ask you, if i may, i'm a proponent of early childhood education. i expanded that funding considerably when i was a chairman of the labor subcommittee, and my home state which is usually at the bottom of most rankings is near the top of early childhood, but the approach here doesn't
discriminate on the basis of income or anything like that. we're helping a lot of people that don't need help instead of targeting too people who genuinely do need help. do you have concerns about that? ms. foxx: i do. when we had the markup in the education and labor committee i raised this as an issue, an amendment was offered at the last minute, that would actually have allowed people who make almost $1 million to be able to get a benefit from the child ta. and i just think that is an abomination. and we shouldn't be doing that. you know, the democrats have tried to sell themselves always as the party of working people and lower middle class people and i think what the ranking member of ways and means has said, what the budget ranking member, and what we've all said about inflation, everything about this bill helps the wealthiest 1%.
in this country. so it's, again, another sham. another forgery. there's not an attempt to truly help working people. if we were trying to help working people we'd bring down the cost of gasoline right now. the people who are going to work every day, who have to pay $3.39 a gallon for gas, and as mr. smith said, worry about thousand put food on the table as well as buy gas to go to work. it seems to me that it's an attack on working people, actually. and putting them in more of a bind. so no, it's not fair. to the working people of this country. we would do it differently. if we were in charge. and it isn't -- it isn't that we don't value wonderful child care. i mean most of us had to work, i
went to work the day my daughter was 2 weeks old. and i was fortunate to get very good child care for her. that child care center would probably never be licensed because it was run by an eld lerky -- eld lerly -- elderly couple who cared very, very much about little children but she got the best child care she could get. so i think what we want to do, we don't want to discourage real jus organizations from being involved in child care. we definitely don't want the government taking over child care. for american children. and indoctrinating them into things that the public schools are now doing. so it's not a good system for child care. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. cole: mrs. mcmorrisrodgers, let me turn to you. i know we both share a strong commitment on the pro life front.
i will just say as and poaptor, one of my most disappointing moments was the democratic decision this year for the first time to strip out hyde protections, weldon protections, hellms protection, that have been there for decades in many, many cases. i will tell you it's probably leading us toward a year-long c.r. unless those things are restored in the appropriations process. that simply, there won't be the votes to break a filibuster in the united states senate. so i'm hopeful my friends will reconsider their position is there anything in here, reinstating any of the hyde protections, or do they continue this sort of decision to remove traditional, what were once, at least, bipartisan, pro-life protections from the bill? mrs. rodgers: it's heartbreaking that the majority is choosing to remove hyde protections and actually impose the mandate on health insurance plans to cover abortion. in medicaid and other health
insurance plans in the united states. i recognize that we don't all agrea on abortion but it has long been the policy under the hyde amendment for taxpayer dollars not to fund abortion in the united states of america. and that has enjoyed bipartisan support. we've reflected on that many times in the energy and commerce committee as well as in this committee and on the house floor, that there was a time when many democrats voted in favor of the hyde amendment. in favor of ensuring that taxpayer dollars did not fund abortion. recognizing that we may not all agree but that taxpayer dollars, hard-earned taxpayer dollars of americans, this is an issue when you ask the question as to whether or not americans think that their taxpayer dollars should go to fund abortion, the large majority will say no. despite the fact that the country is divided on the issue itself. and unfortunately, this is an
issue that is very divisive and i tend to agree with your point about the c.r. and our ability to come together. i would hope that we could continue the policy of hyde, important protections, to ensure that taxpayer dollars are, you know -- people who have conscience. and very personally held beliefs, faith-based beliefs, against their taxpayer dollars being used to fund abortion should not have this imposed upon them by the federal government. it cops back to values again. it's like don't force my taxpayer dollars to go fund something i do not support. mr. cole: i understand our strong feel -- there are strong feelings on both sides but politically i point out to my friends, most of these restribs were passed by congresses where the democrats were the majority. and frankly, the majority is much more sub -- and frankly majorities much more substantial than today. i think that decision to -- at
the higher levels of the democratic party cost them a lot and drove a lot of pro-life people who might otherwise be democrats out of their ranks. that's a decision they're free to make but it will have legislative consequences here. it means that things that have traditionally been bipartisan, and appropriations bills have been to be can have to be bipartisan. those things don't come back, there's just simply, you know, you'll be living with donald trump's last negotiated budget which i don't think many of my democratic friends want to do. i'm anxious not to do that too. i think we need a defense increase and some other things where we would bargain back and forth but it's not going to happen unless the pro-life provisions come back. let me ask you this. and i guess i can put this to any of you. chairman rightlied me the point, we're not going -- rightly made the point that we're not going to vote today, we're going to
have a lot of discussions on this. are any of your committees going to reconvene in your committees in these respective areas house the expertise of both parties if you're going to do a tax deal, i have opinions on taxes but i know my friend, mr. brady, knows more about taxes than i will ever know from his long tenure and i'm sure that mr. neal knows more than democrats that aren't on the committee and haven't gone through years of hearings and so, you know, a lot of our very best people in all of these areas, you know, got one crack at one bill and that bill is now changed pretty dramatically in some areas. some of you might quibble and say not too much but i'm curious, would it be fruitful if we're going to spend time and have a discussion, let the people who know the most about energy and commerce talk about those provisions? those who know the most about ways and means talk about those provisions? the people who actually handle the budget deal with those sorts of things?
and i'll start with you, mr. pallone. you're reaching down there for the button. i'm alst interested in what you have to say. mr. pallone spb i will say what i think my colleagues have already said which is for the most part within the energy and commerce jurisdiction, we've just seen things drop out. mr. cole: you're sure there's nothing new in here? mr. pallone: there's nothing new i can think. there may be something around the margins but enwhi -- when i went through the list of items in the bill, items already in the bill, i didn't mention the things that dropped out. mr. cole: ok. mr. neal? mr. neal: same position. most of the things we'd be discussing cropped out of the bill -- dropped out of the bill. ms. foxx: i haven't heard from the chairman if we might meet again through best -- again but there's definitely a major change on the effect on
proprietary colleges and the significant number of people that they serve. as i said, veterans, primarily minority, and working people. and i think it would be very helpful if we had a discussion of that. but i haven't heard of anything. mr. smith: i have requested with the chairman of my committee to recop veen and modify the rules of reconciliation to give them the opportunity to increase the debt limit and to make sure that they have all the tools available. so would love for that to happen so we don't turn into another crisis in december. >> mr. cole, i believe it would be very helpful for the energy and commerce committee to reconvene. we marked up 16 titles within a three-day period. that is extraordinary. just huge changes within policy.
we were given the bill just days before the markup. we have not as an authorizing committee over major programs had the time to really go through and have the debate and now -- there are significant changes that we've identified. now this is under short amount of time. you know. take medicaid. a very important safety net program. a program that i believe it is so important that the states have the ability to structure their medicaid programs in a way that are going to best meet the needs of the most vulnerable in their state. that's the beauty of medicaid. and we need to make sure that we're protecting medicaid for those who need it the most. and it is the individuals with disabilities. it is some of the most vulnerable. low income. there are cuts from the mark to medicaid. and there's a penalty put in place for states that didn't expand medicaid. at the same time that the majority is proposing to, as i understand, a new medicaid
national program, taking away from the intent of medicaid and the importance of the state really being able to structure these programs. i know washington state, we expanded medicaid but we had to wait years to get a medicaid waiver to do what we wanted to do in medicaid. years. begging the federal government. we think we can do better. and yet oftentimes the federal government thinks they know better. there's new cuts, the medicare provisions have changed. i know senator sanders said he wants to expand it to vision, hearing -- yeah, vision, hearing and dental but this bill only includes hearing. this bill adds provisions related to the food and drug administration, f.d.a., that's new. those are all new. it would be helpful to go to committee and better understand what the provisions are on the f.d.a. it's a new blank check to ntia. we have not had any discussions about that.
they changed the name of the heat your home tax but it's still a tax on natural gas that's going to increase heating costs as we are heading into winter. the department -- mr. cole: it will increase cooling costs too. it will be a year-around tax on anybody that needs to cool down or anybody that needs to warm up, period. not just a winter problem. ms. ronellers: it really hurts those -- mrs. rodgers: it really hurts those on a fixed income the hardest because they're spending a higher percentage of their income on home heating and trying to pay their tbhism department of energy loan program that is really the -- it is an undefined loan program at this point. it was $700 million in committee. now i understand it's $3.6 billion. it would be help to feel go to committee. $3.6 billion to better understand what's the
plan there. so there's significant differences and i often -- we need to do the necessary work of legislating. that's why we're here. to legislate. we always learn from one another. and having that -- the authorizing committee do their work would be extremely beneficial. this is not the way to legislate. this is not representative government. this is not with our -- what our constitution, our founders envisioned when they set up this government. and actually one of the values that i really cherish is that our founders, they wrote the constitution to actually protect the individual from the government making all the decisions for them. that was -- that's what is unique about the united states of america. we -- this is a new form of government and it was to protect the individual, families, from the federal government making
all the decisions yet so much of this legislation is coming from washington, d.c. we know best. mr. cole: -- >> when we did the tax cuts and jobs act we did four days of markup. ranking member neal at the time and his team offered about 25 amendments. until every amendment had been offered and the bill was passed. this process was identical. chairman neal offered four days of amendments all during the daytime hours until we had exhausted all the of them -- exhausted all of them. while i disagree fiercely with the policies they were vetted and we had that opportunity. i would love for us to be able to come back on these two major change, the corporate minimum tax, the made in america tax we call it, and the one on retime that impacts retiermt plans. i think the consequences are keeper than people think.
mr. cole: for what it's worth, as somebody who watches what goes on in your committee a great deal, i've told you this before, but i'll say it on the record, you guys put out the best information of any of the committees in my viewpoint. and it's just helpful this stuff is complex if you're in the really on the committee, you come to opinions. so missing the debate over something as you point out like the corporate minimum tax, sounds like a good idea in many ways. i understand. but i'd like to hear people that know what they're talking about, both of you do and the members you represent do. helps me get to where i need to be, otherwise i'm sort of catching snippets in the press or watching somebody try to sum it up on a cable news network in 90 seconds. that's a pretty bad way to make an opinion, or come to an opinion on something as important and flex as these things. let me just make a closing comment, mr. chairman.
yes, of course, i'm sorry, mr. chairman, please. >> thank you. question was made about whether or not the labor committee would reconvene. procedurally that would be awkward we did our work, we reported our bill to the budget committee, the budget committee sent the bill, i'm not sure how whatever we did would catch up with the bill. in terms of what changes apparently have been made, there's went from $3.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion, a lot of programs somewhat evaporated, the community college proposal is not there con instruction is not there. significant reduction. in job training. so those are the changes.
that are in the bill. with reduction from the top line being $3.5 trillion down to $1.7 trillion. mr. cole: that's helpful. i'm sorry i didn't call you, i got caught up with the witnesses in front of me. apoll -- i apologize, mr. chairman. it's going to be a while before we vote on this. i think obviously you've still got to work through some of the internal dynamics, it's a reconciliation package, a partisan pack and and decision, i recognize as chairman of ways and means pointed out, chairman neal, that you've got to work with the senate. you've got a lot of things you've got to work through. we're not very well suited to do what we're doing here today. you know. we are not good, per a procedural committee for the most part. we have a few areas of original jurisdiction. the chairman and i tried to work together in some of those --
some of those areas, i applaud him for his work. we have neither the staff nor the technical expertise to work through something like this in this committee. that's one of the things that does concern me about the decision to use this committee. so -- again, it's up to you what you do in your respective committees. i would just encourage you, i'm very appreciative of my friend from kentucky saying we are working on a side-by-side, we are going to get that out to you. that will help. we're not very equipped to do that kind of in depth stuff. that sort of back and forth. our job is a different one. it seems to me we're going at this particular bill, i have a phrase i would use for it but it would be inappropriate in a public setting but it's something backwards. as the phrase would be common in oklahoma. i much prefer it when you do your work and it moves forward. then we are so much better versed. we have the expertise of the
members and your committee staff. available us to. so this strikes me as an unusual way to begin a process on one of the most expensive, for a-reaching, you can like it or not like it, but nobody doubts the scope of what we're talking about. nobody here is saying on either side this is a little thing or it's not that big of a deal. it's a really big deal. and i take my word, my friends at their word. they want this to be a transformative piece of legislation. they want to i get it, you have all three branches for a fleeting moment. it's the way it normally works. no matter if it's us or you. trying to do big things. you are doing them on very narrow of majorities. that's one of the things that's twisting this. i know you didn't do this deliberately. but you've empowered everybody in the united states senate to quote our own president to be a -- well, not everybody.
you've empowered 50 people. you didn't empower 100. you emempowered 50 people -- you've empowered 50 people to do this basically. i remember in my own caucus operating with larger majorities that relatively small groups of people can have an outsize and sometimes not very productive impact on a process. so, you know, just as a legislator, i feel your pain. but as a republican, i feel like i'm going to be the victim of your pain because i don't like the product that's coming before us. again, mr. chairman, you've been very jen with us with the time. i appreciate that very much. i appreciate all of you and you being here and answering the questions that i had. thank you very much. i yield back. mr. mcgovern: thank you very much. before i yield to mrs. torres, i want to provide my friend from oklahoma and i think mrs. fischbach requested it to a section-by-section red line
changes in the bill. this will be online shortly, if not already. so people can -- again, the 21st century, go online and look at some of this stuff. i will be happy to leave this with your staff. mr. cole: could you sign it? mr. mcgovern: i'm happy to sign it with all my best wishes. [laughter] mr. mcgovern: i can get you as many as you want. mr. cole: i'd prefer -- mr. mcgovern: i prefer we not kill as many trees. we rely more on -- electronically if we can. [indiscernible] you can get that. and then i neglected to give unanimous consent to mr. brady who wanted to offer his article from "the washington post." i'll ask unanimous consent to insert a report from the economic policy institute that said that tax cuts and jobs act overwhelmingly benefited the rich and corporations while overlooking working families.
i'd like to insert that entire article in the record from december, 2019. and then another article from "forbes" written october, 2019, entitled trump tax cuts helps billionaire pay less taxes than the working class in 2018. and then to mrs. mcmorris rodgers, the consumer rebates and credits included in the build back better framework will save the average american family hundreds of dollars per year in energy costs which i think is a good thing. the final thing i'll say because ms. foxx and i think mrs. mcmorris rodgers keep mentioning government, government control, government control. i wish people would also appreciate the fact that there are a lot of people who do not want government interfering in the most personal, private matters in their life. and the fact of the matter is we have many on the other side who want to deny women reproductive freedom and rights. we also have some people on the other side talked about banning
books in school which is a frightening thought. so let's -- let's understand that government intrusion, unfortunately, is coming from people on the right. having government dictate how they should control their lives. with that i'm happy to yield to mrs. torres from california. mrs. torres: thank you, mr. chairman. and so much has been said already. just -- mr. mcgovern: not everybody has said it. mrs. torres: not everybody has said it and not everyone has used the number of adjectives since -- to attack either this hearing or the members that are present. so let me just start by apologizing to our dear chairmen that are here trying to do business, serious business for the people of the united states of america. you know, on the issue -- i'm
not going to be schooled on my morals, you know, in front of people that continue to protect one accused sex trafficker to continue to serve in committee while not trusting women to have a right to decide about their own bodies, their reproductive rights. i am not going to be schooled on my morals from people that aided and abetted an insurrection by continuing to support president trump's false claims of election fraud. false claims. so, you know, i am not going to kick anyone around, but i am
going to state for a fact that the minimum wage is still $7.25. $7.25. you can barely buy a gallon of milk with that money. so the people that come here to school us and call us names for caring about the poor and the people that we represent, you know, i'm sorry you feel that way. i'm sorry you choose to keep your head in the sand. but i don't. the promise of america, you know, also includes liberty and justice for all. and i truly believe that. i'm not accusing that you don't.
i'm simply stating the facts that an insurrection happened because some people decided to continue to spread the lie. so don't come here and school me about right and wrong because you have no footing to stand on to school me on right and wrong. for my district, we're really going to help a lot of people. there are currently 187,600 children that are benefitting from the child tax credit. that's only 2,000 more children than mr. kevin brady, only 2,000 more in my district are
benefitting -- in your district, sir, that you're willing to vote against. for pre-k, there are 61,400 children in my district that are going to have an opportunity to go to school, to learn in a healthy environment. and just maybe in communities like mine where parents, you know, are leaving before the sun comes up and don't come back home until long after these children get out of school will have an opportunity to end that pipeline to prison, in many
cases. so there's 140,000 or 77,000 families that would benefit from that. 52,300 kids under the age of 6 will have access to kindergarten. you know, does it matter if their parents think that they're above middle-class families because they make maybe $20 an hour, maybe $15 an hour? i don't think so. i think children deserve to have that. mr. brady, in your district, it's 65,700 children that will have access to preschool. i know it's been a long bill and you might not have that in front of you. mrs. mcmorris rodgers, you have 139,000 that have access to the child tax credit, and 48,600 children will have access to preschool. ms. foxx, 136,000 children are
benefitting from the child tax credit in your district, and 50,000 will have access to preschool. i think that's huge for you. but for me, i am going to keep focusing on my district. i wish we would have had more money for community college, but there's $40 billion there for community college. i have been very focused on providing training basic skills for workers in my district so that there are readily available workers for those small manufacturers that are trike to make -- trying to make it in
america. while this number may not get us, you know, to where we want to be, it is a great start to continue to focus on those workers, you know, to work with our community colleges to expand job training, certified courses so they can get those jobs and hopefully get to the middle class. you know, in california, a lot of people want to boo-hoo the affordable care act. i don't think congress went far enough, butives so -- but i was so delighted to hear today -- not today -- this week that 94% of california residents have health insurance. 94% of california residents have health insurance. we embraced your bill.
we expanded what you gave us, and as a result, people have access to a doctor. and in this bill, while we didn't go all the way, we did help those people in those states that unfortunately didn't see the value of expanding chair, medicaid -- medicare, medicaid, so thank you for that medicaid, so thank you for that. it may not benefit my state but healthy americans benefit the entire country. home care, you know, while we didn't get $190 billion, we got $150 million.
i have so many seniors that deserve to have this care and so many minimum wage workers that are working in this industry. maybe they will get a raise. maybe they will get the acknowledgment that they deserve for the hard work they do, changing the diapers of people, feeding them. someday we're going to be there. housing -- $150 billion for affordable housing. i have been very focused on housing since i left the state assembly in the state of california, and we can do a lot of good with this money. we can focus on providing
shelter for so many people. there's been a lot of talk around salt and how it only helps, you know, the 1%. that's not accurate. that's another falsehood. it is also a falsehood to say that states or state legislatures like california are the ones that are taxing and spending, you know, on their constituents. my constituents have supported bond initiatives, voter-approved bond initiatives, because the federal government has failed to pay for their fair share in improving our roads, our bridges, our parks, our schools,
internet, all of those things. and out of desperation, those voters said, put a bond initiative on the ballot, and the promise was, a 30, 40, our 50-year bond initiative, if you vote for it, you get to deduct it in your taxes. but the republicans in their tax scam went back on their word and taxed all of those people. the biggest middle-class tax increase they gave when they passed that tax bill. yet, they sit here and want to school us on moral values. well, i want to thank all of you for your work. and i know that the numbers, the
smoke and mirrors in this room about the numbers not being so high here or so high there. you know, we started with over $3 trillion in this -- and this bill is at $1.7 trillion. and while some of these changes are temporary, they're tefr rather because -- temporary because there are people that just simply won't votemporary because there are people that just simply won't vote to help the poorest of the poor in our communities. but we will vote for this. thank you, mr. chairman, and i'm going to yield back. mr. mcgovern: thank you very much. dr. burgess. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. chairman. and i observe that my ranking member on the budget committee doesn't have the best poker face -- let me ask you, jason, is there something on your mind that you'd like to share with us? [laughter]
>> thank you, representative. there are always things on my mind. you know, i just -- i'm just -- as i said, we got the bill an hour before so i'm trying to look at if they've decided to retain a lot of the provisions in the bill that was all about the wealthy and, unfortunately, there's way too many provisions that they decided to retain and i'll tell you, someone who represents one of the poorest congressional districts in the country, i understand that those provisions that are providing like home buying credit of -- if you make up to $200,000, you can receive $80,000 to purchase a home in california. mr. smith: that's kind of big. and the fact that meghan markle
and prince harry, you know, sending their kids to free pre-k, you're helping the wealthiest of the wealthy. like i said about salt, the state and local tax deduction, the gimmicks they use to try to pay for it and just adding on years later to cap it, that's ridiculous. but it's $200 billion that they're using for the top one percenters. it's plain and simple. it's the top 1% of the earners in our nation that in this bill that they claim that is only, you know, $1.7 trillion, when it's in fact $4.6 trillion over 10 years, $4.6 trillion over 10 years, that's the bill. because they use the budget gimmicks of changing the years and doing the phase-ins differently. $4.6 trillion. but these tax breaks for luxury vehicles, you make up to
$800,000 a year, you get a huge tax credit. and guess what, the current electric vehicle tax credit, 80% of the people that utilize it make more than $100,000 a year. it's all about the wealthy. it's about rewarding wealthy environmentalists. they're wealthy -- their wealthy environmentalist friends. for example, when i gave an example of things they made permanent was the climate provision. and that's what the wealthy environmentalists want, and that's their number one priority based on the text of this legislation that we've been reviewing in the last hour and a half. mr. burgess: i certainly thank the gentleman for his insight. mr. pallone, that brings me to a question, because we did spend some time marking up some of those provisions in the energy and commerce committee. if i could, i'd like to ask you
a question about the methane emissions fee. is that still in the bill as it exists today? mr. pallone: what we did is we've changed the -- that provision slightly to address concerns of the texas delegation and some of the senate and the concerns that were expressed that i believe we've addressed were that some have said when you try to capture -- sorry -- when you try to capture the flair from the methane, the flair, that they had -- that they had a problem getting the e.p.a. to approve the permit for the pipe that would allow that. so we said that there wouldn't be any penalty, if you will,
until those permits are approved. so that was one provision. and then the other is, rather than just have a penalty, i would call it a carrot and stick approach. we have the carrot, so we added the carrot of providing the rebate funding upfront to encourage the oil and gas to correct the situation and capture the -- mr. burgess: let me interrupt you for a minute. you said you worked with members of the texas delegation. did you work with republican members of the texas delegation? mr. pallone: well, let me just say this. i think there were enough people from texas that have been bothering me for the last month that you probably -- i could safely say that some of them were of the republican ilk. mr. burgess: republican members in the house of representatives from the state of texas? mr. pallone: i didn't speak to you personally. mr. burgess: if you recall when
we debated in this committee, i talked about stranded gas in the permian basin. mr. pallone: i think you will be perfectly happy what i did today. mr. burgess: pipelines from the permian to houston, san antonio, dallas-fort worth, port of corpus christi and freeport so it can be lek which find, so there exists pipelines, infrastructure that's already in existence. it would simply have to be recertified. all i asked for in my amendment was give us the same consideration that you give wind and solar for those energy units that are going to be brought back from the flair fields to the population centers and to the export centers. why is that so hard? mr. pallone: it's not that it's hard. look, as you know -- i mean, i can spend all night on this if
you want. i don't think you want me to. look, the bottom line is methane is -- methane is one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas, right, those emissions, and we want to encourage the oil and gas companies to address this meth -- these methane emissions. mr. burgess: correct. you're better off if you don't flair and don't vent. best way to prevent that, send the natural gas down a pipeline where it can be utilized, where it can be sold, heat a home from an air-conditioner, it effects it in a positive way. mr. pallone: i agree. the way this has been changed from what was in the committee was rather than -- maybe it's not a good expression, but rather than just have a penalty, which i call a stick, we're now having a carrot where we'll give the money upfront to try to achieve that.
mr. burgess: which was an amendment i offered you when we marked it up. mr. pallone: it's probably somewhat similar. then you also have the problem with, you know, again, i am not an expert on this, but where some of these efforts to correct the situation, we're -- were not permitted and were delayed. we said we won't impose any penalty until the e.p.a. permits those pipes that would correct the situation. mr. burgess: basically who pays the methane emission fee? mr. pallone: i wouldn't call it a fee. if you want to you can use that term. you basically would pay a penalty if you don't move towards trying to capture this flair. mr. burgess: who pays? who pays? who will open up their wallet and pay the dollars for the methane emission fees? mr. pallone: the companies, oil and gas companies. mr. burgess: so the customers will pay the methane emission fee. mr. pallone: anything that's a public utility ultimately, you
know, some of that -- mr. burgess: which is exactly the point. i don't understand why we wouldn't have worked together on a valid proposal that is not mine -- jim wright, member of the texas railroad commission has suggested we could get this stranded gas out of the permian back to power plants in the eastern part of the state where the people are to the ports where we could export it and we could do that with existing structure with a few -- with a few incentives thrown their way so the startup costs would not be so difficult. mr. pallone: but i don't think what we've done, dr. burgess, is inconsistent with what you just said. mr. burgess: but my amendment was defeated on party lines in committee. i must tell you, i couldn't understand it. mr. pallone: look at the language there. mr. burgess: i'd love to look at your language. it's hard to get. let me ask you this because we argued a lot about -- >> mr. burgess -- mr. pallone: you have it right now. we can get it if you like.
mr. burgess: i have pages of it in front of me. so my understanding is you struck the clean electricity performance program from the language of the bill, is that correct? mr. pallone: that's correct. mr. burgess: so again, an amendment that i offered in our markup defeated on party lines, i'm happy you accepted it. i think that's the right thing to do. chairman pallone, if we work together occasionally, as "the dallas morning news" pointed out, a bill this large, there has to be a few things that are good. the problem is there's so much other stuff it becomes difficult for us to understand it and certainly accept it. i'll ask you something that's a little bit unrelated. i sent you a letter early part of october asking for some oversight in our committee about dollars expended in the american rescue plan. and we really should have that look where we're spending it,
what is it, jason, $4.6 trillion today but we already spent $1.9 trillion, stories from the news media this summer, 2.5% could be spent by cities and localities. they're worried about federal clawbacks. reluctant to let the money go. we ought to look at that. we ought to understand what has happened to the dollars that we've already sent out the door. mr. pallone: i'll be glad to talk to you about doing more oversight in that regard. mr. burgess: i was going to point out, even, chairman mcgovern, i write a lot of letters, but chairman mcgovern does answer my letters or tweets at me which is satisfactory. [laughter] >> mr. burgess. mr. burgess: yes. mrs. rodgers: going back to the methane fee, they may have named the program different but it's basically the same and includes the $1,500 per ton tax that
ultimately is going to be paid for by consumers. mr. burgess: so natural gas tax survived the cutting room floor is what you're telling me? then that will be borne by the consumer, the person who is least likely to be able to afford it. families will spend another $2,000 a year starting this year, this winter, heated their homes and providing electricity for air conditioning. that's added to the extra dollar a gallon they're paying at the pump. and i know they shouldn't smoke but if they do they'll be paying more money for their cigarettes. those are all people that earned under $400,000 a year. and they are paying the cost of this bill. so they are paying the tax. ranking member brady, let me ask you a question. this, too, is offtopic. we began this discussion today talking about investments for the good of the country. and there were some fingers -- figures released today about the growth figures, the g.d.p. figures for the last quarter.
and i don't know. i'm a glass half full kind of guy. 2% growth seems pretty good, right? mr. brady: no. yeah. so look at 2021 heading into this year. it should be just a boom year. we have regions reopening. a better than expected recovery. trillions of spending, stimulus spending and lifesaving vaccines. instead, economic growth and job growth has gone down almost every quarter. the president is 0-3. has missed every economic projection. this quarter, growth should have been around 10%. it wasn't just 2%. you take out the inventories, temporary buildup, growth was zero. literally, the economy didn't grow last quarter. so trillions of dollars got you zero. i mean, literally zero. and now we are being asked to trust, again, the trillions more
will get this economy going, but in fact, these crippling tax increases will cost, in my view, millions of american jobs. it will worsen the labor shortage that drives the prices, makes recovery much harder. and then, again, driving jobs overseas by favoring foreign companies over u.s. companies i think is a horrible mistake. mr. burgess: that's related to the corporate tax, correct? mr. brady: yes. the international tax changes for the most part. mr. burgess: so we used to hear about things that were described as corporate inversions. and i don't know that i heard about those for a while. is there a reason they stopped happening? mr. brady: yes. so those were the answers the day the tax cuts and jobs act was signed into law. inversions, companies that bought or sold, bought overseas companies, in some cases went to zero. went to zero. we've seen none. it was the signature economic
failure of the obama-biden administration. remember, it seemed like every month we were opening up going online and seeing another u.s. company, you know, pack up and move their jobs overseas, their manufacturing plant overseas. all those communities just got hammered. i know in the two years after the tax cuts and jobs act, u.s. manufacturing created over -- added over 300,000 jobs, record number of manufacturing jobs when they had been losing them almost every year under president obama and vice president biden. burj burng those are -- mr. burgess: those are the jobs that would have taken a magic wand to bring back? mr. brady: yes. mrs. torres could not support the tax cuts and jobs act. i respect that. but i'm really proud that we expanded double the child tax credit for thousands of her children, her family of four, average family of four in her district saved $2,000 a year.
that's important for children. and i'm really proud that wages for blacks and hispanics grew almost 70% more after the republican tax reforms than during the obama-biden administration. in fact, in one year, wages for families, household income grew more in one year than all eight years combined of president obama and vice president biden. these tax hikes -- what i worry about -- is they take us back to those bad old days. mr. burgess: i couldn't agree with you more. let me ask you something. because we're both from texas. we were startled at the -- well into the year, several months into the biden administration, and the centers for medicare and medicaid services announced they were rescinding the texas medicaid 1115 waiver. this was a rescinding of the
waiver happened four months after it was approved which, you know, left our state and our -- the state was halfway through their legislative session, their budget session at the time. hospitals had already done their planning for the year. this funding was -- the extension of the 1115 waiver was removed, which meant the 1115 waiver would likely expire at the end of the -- either the end of the fiscal year or the end of the calendar year. i can never keep it straight. less than a year's time from when that waiver was rescinded. so safety net hospitals who had required on that and had needed the certainty to be able to plan those programs for their most vulnerable citizens, they lost that. and the waiver also established the transition away from the -- some of the other public health programs that have been going on for some time and they wanted to go in a new direction.
ok. but, again, all of that planning was for naught and the waiver was jeopardized. i understand they continue to work on it and people are continuing to talk and that's good and i encourage the folks at the center for medicare and medicaid services to continue to work on that. however, in this bill now, in front of us, there's kind of an unprecedented move. it's going to further jeopardize care for people who are uninsured, underinsured, by preventing just a few states -- texas, tennessee, and florida -- from having uncompensated care pools. so section 3724, adjustments to uncompensated care pools and disproportionate share of hospital payments would selectively damage hospitals and uncompensated care pools. in fact, prohibit a state from
establishing an uncompensated care pool in a state like texas, tennessee, or florida, which seems punitive to me. mr. brady: yes. why are you selecting a few states and punishing them for finding a different way to take care of those who are uninsured? the medicaid 1115 waiver was really important to republicans and democrats. mostly important to families of color, those with lower incomes, those in underserved and rural communities. for example, in the valley, you know, we notice as a state that many of our hispanics were using the emergency rooms for routine dialysis and others. so the community came together, used those medicaid funds to create a facility that treats them more regularly and kept them out of the e.r. all of those -- those patients who can least afford it will be damaged if this administration doesn't grant that waiver. we are hopeful. we've been told this isn't
targeting our state politically. i hope -- i hope that is the case, we're operating on that assumption, and we hope there's no further targeting of states, especially the poor. mr. burgess: so it's not just the uncompensated care pools, it's also the disproportionate hospitals. we created an almost s.g.r. type problem with disproportionate share hospitals that was -- remember the affordable care act. everybody would have insurance so hospitals wouldn't have additional payments. in fact, they were probably overpaid. so disproportionate care hospitals were going to give money back to the government. there was an offset. and then every year since the disproportionate share hospital was to be collected, we'll delay that. unfortunately, just like the s.g.r., the meter continues to run. and so the dollars continue to
accrue somewhere in some account and will have to be offset when we finally face the music because we know it was misguided. you all -- both our committees worked on drug pricing. and in the energy and commerce committee, we had a vote on that provision in the bill and it tied. in this case, the tie doesn't go to the runner. the tie -- the tie meant the amendment or that provision did not -- was not reported out of our committee. but then the ways and means committee did report it and then we heard it in the budget committee. so i think it is still in the base legislation, is that correct? >> we haven't given up on it. mr. burgess: i wish you would. >> let me respond since you're pointing that out. mr. burgess: three democrats on our committee -- three democrats -- mr. neal: one in our committee. mr. burgess: that's four votes and you can't lose four votes
when this comes to the floor. mr. neal: if we come up to a reasonable plan and there's some time to go. let me talk about the conversations i had. there's no state more from -- mr. burgess: i hear from people in your state all the time. mr. neal: so i've got a strong relationship listening about innovation and creativity. you have to be able to afford it. and here's what i said to members of that industry. the worse news they've had in 10 years is donald trump criticizing them over drug pricing. and you know what, they've said to me that's the turning point. donald trump took a more vigorous position than members of congress on the republican side were willing to take. we're looking to a path of cooperation here. not to kill creativity. not to kill innovation but to cop to grips with the reality that drug pricing is out of hand in america. mr. burgess: i think president trump was seeking a solution and did move the needle on it. mr. neal: he moved the needle all right.
yeah. mr. burgess: but look, one of the things that really -- there was a lot of discussion in the energy and commerce committee on the concept of reimporting prices from european countries to our country. the quality adjusted life year. popularized by zeke emanuel when the affordable care act was written. that became a feature of our discussions in committee. and the question was -- are we importing the quality adjusted life here to our country from european countries? are we going to be importing a system where we say relative value of the lives of patients? mr. pallone: can i just say, dr. burgess, i know you don't support -- at least i don't think you support negotiating prices. my situation is very similar to congressman neal's. you can come to my new brunswick
district office and literally across the street is the international headquarters for johnson & johnson. i have so many drug companies, probably more people that work in the drug industry, i would say maybe even than you. we might be first and second. and i would never seek to do anything that would diminish innovation or more research because so much of that research is in my district. but the bottom line is the only way we're going to have a significant reduction in prices is if we allow the government, in this case, h.h.s., to negotiate prices on these drugs that are, you know -- where the price has increased dramatically and so many people need them in order to get through the day. and we are still working -- and i do believe we will have a proposal that achieves that through negotiated prices. mr. burgess: so when we worked on the affordable care act many, many moons ago, and this issue came up, for whatever reason,
chairman wexton would not hold a hearing on this with doug elmendorf and members of the committee asked the director how much money are we going to get to offset other things we want to do by negotiating drug costs? and he said, unfortunately, it does not deliver any savings. mr. pallone: i don't agree with that. and neither would -- mr. burgess: he said because the p.b.m.'s are already doing that. and they're doing it better than the government ever could. look, i'm no fan of the p.b.m.'s, and i think they've been harmful in some situations. but here is the bottom line. just straight up negotiating wasn't going to produce the result you wanted. so the speaker decided that we'll change this from a negotiation to a hostage-taking and if you produce a new product, an innovative product but your price is more than we
think is fair, we're going to claim 95% of the gross receipts of that company. i mean, that is a death sentence for the companies you claim to -- to help. mr. pallone: the excise tax is only to bring the drug companies to the table so they'll actually negotiate. mr. burgess: if you drag them to the table with a gun to their head, i don't think they'll negotiate. mr. pallone: there has to be some sort of stick because they won't go to the table. mr. burgess: in fairness, our colleague, morgan griffith, pointed out last year or in 2019 when speaker pelosi brought this bill to our committee. in short order just like we fend to do things. -- tend to do things. and again during our markup, our colleague, morgan griffith, pointed out you may have constitutional problems. this may be an illegal taking. and he studied it more since the
h.r. 3 debates of october, 2019, and i think he feels even more strongly about it today. we can let him speak for himself. and he also suggested there may be other problems with this legislation. so why, why do we have to continue to do this this way when there are other alternatives? h.r. 19. we offered h.r. 19 last congress. 17 or 18 provisions in h.r. 19 were signed into law, bipartisan provisions. the purple book now online. orange book now online. so people who want to make generic drugs can have access to the information they need to provide those. mr. pallone: you can't get -- look -- mr. burgess: let me finish this thought. gottlieb, the administrator of the food and drug administration, i forget the actual numbers, but he approved more generic drugs in his short time at the f.d.a. than really
anyone had ever seen before. and that had the effect of bringing down overall drug prices in the two years that dr. gottlieb was head of the f.d.a. those are the types of programs that we should be looking at. why do we fight over something that's either not achievable or unconstitutional, that's going to drive innovation away from our country, i don't know why we would do that. but at the same time, that seems to be the determination of the speaker of the house of representatives. i'm ready to hear your answer but certainly not ready to accept it. [laughter] mr. pallone: ok. we don't agree, obviously, on a lot of this. but the bottom line is, whether you're talking about methane or you're talking about prescription drugs, if you don't have some kind of stick or enforcement mechanism, i mean, all the efforts to provide additional money, to provide credits, to provide this, sure,
it's helpful. i'm not suggesting that. i talked about the carrot and stick approach with methane. but if you don't have some kind of penalty to the drug company, then they're never going to come together table. mr. burgess: how about you provide an incentive? mr. pallone: we're never going to agree. mr. burgess: there is -- mr. pallone: say, ok, i want to negotiate. sure, i'll be glad to sit down with you. if they don't what do you do? you have to have some kind of penalty. you have to have some kind of a stick. mr. burgess: i know you want the government to control things. but as i told people over and over again in our committee, if you don't understand the -- you're going to get this answer wrong every single time. mr. pallone: i'll have an incentive and they'll -- and then you'll do it. but it doesn't work that way. mr. burgess: what happened with the cure for -- please, we're bothering the clerk. let me say this. we have a cure for a that did
not even exist 40 years ago, hepatitis c. we have a cure. that's a gift from the almighty. and now, the cost was really high. now it has fallen because, why, not because of generics. mr. pallone: the cost of prescription drugs skyrocketed in the last few years even with covid. there's no way this is going to happen without the government playing some role. mr. burgess: no, i disagree. i have offered -- i have offered approaches to look at what we're doing with the rebate structure. why don't we make insulin available either at no cost or the rebate paid to the patient? mr. pallone: that will be part of this as well. there will be some of the things you are talking about and there will be more research. but you have to have negotiation. i am a big supporter -- let me say one more thing. i am a big supporter of generics. i totally agree generics will
bring down prices. the drug companies continue their exclusive period way beyond the initial five years for molecular or 10 years for biochemicals. some of these drugs have been out there for 20 years before they get the generic because they managed to get around it and not the generics come to market. mr. burgess: which is precisely why in h.r. 19 last congress and this congress, we could have worked on what's called the patent thicket and fix the problems that exist there so that -- i mean, it's continuing to endure to this day. you haven't done anything in two congresses to fix that problem when it was in that power to fix it and we demonstrated. we have accomplished that. signed into law. so -- mr. pallone: you have so many of
these companies that are way beyond the five years that continue to have exclusivity and charge higher and higher prices and gouge the public. mr. burgess: why would we not try to solve that problem? mr. pallone: we are trying to. mr. burgess: no, you're not. you're taking a bludgeon to the companies -- we just went through a pandemic. aren't we grateful in the -- mr. pallone: raised the prices 300% during the pandemic. mr. burgess: that's not true. mr. pallone: it is. i can show you. >> xhorn, you guys. -- common, you guys. -- come on, you guys. mr. pallone: i don't know how long you want to go here. mr. burgess: the quality adjusted of life here is not something we should be importing in this country. people are not willing to accept a fact that we put a price on someone's life versus someone else's life. this patient is worth more than that patient. this patient is older than that patient so we're going to pay for the drug for this patient and not for the other patient. this patient is disabled so we're not going to pay for that
drug for that patient. that's what the quality adjusted life year does. and we have reimported that in your language in h.r. 3. it's not acceptable to people. mr. pallone: it's not exactly h.r. 3 which you're going to have but the principle of negotiating the price has to be the key part of this. mr. burgess: so let me ask you one other question. the federal medicaid language that you had in the bill that we had in committee. did that survive? mr. pallone: no, it has not. basically, what congresswoman mcmorris rodgers said, we had three years where the medicaid expansion -- texas hadn't expanded -- we were going to put those people in the a.c.a. so they could have the subsidy that you have for those that are already getting the a.c.a. subsidy and then after that, we were going to have a federal medicaid program that they could tap into. the federal medicaid program is
out. we still have the subsidy for those people for the next three or four years, whatever it is, so if you're in texas and you're in that expansion population, you can sign up for the a.c.a. and you'll get the same subsidy you'll get for all the other people. burj burng is the inteks -- mr. burgess: is the intention to bring back the federal medicaid program? mr. pallone: me, personally, i would love to have the federal medicaid program. mr. burgess: it's been a shared federal-state responsibility since 1965. mr. pallone: i'm trying to do what's necessary to get the people in texas and florida have health insurance. mr. burgess: let them have their 1115 waiver and don't take it away at the last moment. mr. pallone: that's not going to accomplish -- mr. burgess: is there a practical effect for exhausting the medicare trust fund? mr. brady: well, yes, there is, obviously. that's a pretty severe step. no one i think wants to see that. i think it is similar to the
debt ceiling. you know, that's not a room you want to cross in. i think treats more uncertainty in a major crucial health care program for us. and so does medicare stop the minute you cross that and it is insolvent? no. does it create severe financial changes to try to accommodate that? yes. mr. burgess: and those will be financial changes that congress would be required to address? mr. brady: yes. to be honest, we don't know the extent of that yet, but we do know, for instance, hearing, vision, dental, very important for seniors. it's already available in medicare advantage. about a third of the seniors pick that and have that. in fact, in many of these areas, as we look at the original proposal, frankly, folks in underserved areas already have the option in their community for it. mr. burgess: the open enrollment
period and those commercials run nonstop, hearing, dental, vision available on medicare advantage. ok. i yield back. mr. mcgovern: mr. perlmutter, i yield you 60 minutes. mr. perlmutter: ok. i am going to keep it tight. we have 20 more witnesses after you all. so -- 20, yeah. mr. brady, i just -- you threw a lot of numbers at us. i am going to throw some back at you. this time last year when joe biden beat the ex-president, stock market was about 26,000, actually 26,659. today it hit 36,000. ok. that's 10,000 points. and each point is about $1.4 billion. so that's $14 trillion since joe biden beat the ex-president by
seven million votes. at the same time -- and so the stock market is up 25%. that was a big point that the ex-president liked to make about how the stock market was doing. it's up 25% since joe biden beat him. at the same time, unemployment is down 30% since this time last year. durable goods are up by 13% and g.d.p. is up by 9% since joe biden beat donald trump. so there's a lot of positive news out there. and this bill, this build back better bill, is going to make it even better because of things in it that i think are so important to america, like housing. there's a part of this build back better bill that builds
senior housing, disabled, disabled housing and low to moderate-income housing. $150 billion dedicated to that and to housing allowances and home care. now, i don't know about your district -- and mrs. torres went through everybody's district -- but i know in my district, we have a severe need for senior housing. this will help with senior housing, certainly in my district, and with disabled housing. there is a component in this bill for rebuilding our energy sector. mr. burgess was complaining about that, but in fact, colorado in part we've seen old electrical grid fail and spark fires because of extreme drought. and this summer, we didn't have the fires in colorado. they were in california, but we
suffered the smoke. and so the fact is we need a resilient system, whether it's in the electrical grid or water systems, our roads and bridges, and that is part of both the infrastructure package, which we've been looking at, as well as the build back better bill. my district, i have a lot of seen divorce, because people don't -- seniors, because people don't like to move from colorado. i have a lot of young families in my district. and the universal pre-k as well as the expanded child tax credit will benefit thousands of families in my district. it already has. so i really just appreciate this. i got a couple questions to the
chairman. so mr. yarmuth, there has been a lot of conversation about the effect of this build back better on inflation. what's your take on all of that? mr. yarmuth: well, thank you, mr. perlmutter. first of all, there have been a lot of numbers thrown at you. i want to comment the ranking member on budget talks about -- mentions a $4.6 trillion cost in this bill. that's nonsense. it's manufactured numbers. and for him to say that and for members of his party to repeat that is so dishonest. what he's doing is saying, ok, you have childcare in there for one year. if it were for 10 years, then it would add up to a certain amount. well, it's not in there for 10 years. it's in there for one year. what they did -- they did exactly the same thing with the 2017 tax cut. they sunset provisions to make the numbers look better. now, we would have have -- we were authorized to spend $3.5
trillion, that was the resolution passed by both the house and the senate. that's what we created, we drafted all these bills, the 13 committees wrote that legislation to spend $13 trillion -- $3.5 trillion. we can't get it passed by the senate. i'd love if we spent $4.6 trillion in this bill. it would be marvelous. it will be a justifiable investment in this country but we're not. don't say it's $4.6 trillion. it's $1.75 trillion over 10 years. this gets to the answer to your question. over the 10-year period we'll spend $1.7 trillion. yes. that's $175 billion a year. over the 10-year period, that's about 3% more than we would spend anyway. that we're already scheduled if we don't do anything. 3% more. and for 3% more, you offer anybody that deal, universal
pre-k, childcare, senior care, climate change policy, that's a hell of a deal. i think everybody would go for it. would you spend 3% more in taxes? hell, yes, we would. it's less than 1% of the entire g.d.p. over that 10-year period. so the idea that people think that if we spend less than 1% of g.d.p. over 10 years to make these incredible investments for the country that we're going to spark inflation? that defies any economic law, common sense, you name it. the american rescue plan, the cares act, all of those were a little bit different because we injected a lot of money into the economy in a very short period of time. this is a very different proposal. this is a proposal -- i make this speech everywhere i go. for the first time in my 15 years in congress, the congress, the administration is finally investing in the future of the country. this is a visionary piece of
legislation. this is not -- this is -- come on, jason. be civil. this is not -- mr. mcgovern: that wasn't mister -- [laughter] mr. yarmuth: sorry about that. sorry about that. [laughter] mr. yarmuth: the american rescue plan, that was designed -- the cares act, to deal with the pandemic, to deal with the economic impact of the pandemic, to shore up cities and states and towns because of the economic cost of the pandemic. again, perfectly justifiable. different orientation. this is to prepare generations of young people for the future. this is to allow the two million women who are now not working because they don't have childcare the ability to afford childcare and then to be able to work to make a better living. same with those people who are caring for senior citizens.
part of this thing -- and this is what we have to make sure we emphasize. we talk about childcare. i think most people think well, this is about giving vouchers to people or subsidizing their payments. a lot of this is to create the capacity -- the capacity for the childcare. so to allow people to be paid more to do this work so that children actually have quality care to go to. . so all of these things again, they represent a remarkable opportunity for our future and something that's absolutely necessary. we talk about climate policy, i won't get into that. once more onto the question of inflation. 17 nobel winning economists have put out a letter that said this program, this program will be the most important thing you can do to get control of longer term
inflation because again it increases productivity, increases the capacity of the economy and therefore you can create -- you can have more activity without raising prices. we know that right now, much of the inflation we're seeing is pandemic related. we have supply chain issue. the cost of shipping has gone up. >> everybody knows toilet paper cost a lot when the pandemic it h us, lummer went way up. they've come way down. mr. yarmuth: they have come way down and a lot of prices are compared to last year in the depth of the pandemic. gas prices was lower because nobody was driving. go back to 2019, gas prices were virtually where they are now. we've got a lot of disportions -- distortions in the economy right now because of the economy recovering from it. the g.d.p. question is another one they have last quarter saw the surge of the delta variant
all over the country that was a significant fact yoer -- factor in keeping g.d.p. growth down. very vigorous. in terms of long-term inflation, nobel prize economist is says this is good for long-term control of ep flains -- inflation. the fed says we have lots of space to do this, they're vick lant about inflation because we're all worried about the impact on particularly working families. cost of milk, cost of bread, that doesn't help anybody. but again, we'll work through these issues that related to the pandemic economic. but this bill, again, less than 1% of g.d.p. over the next 10 years is not going to cause inflation. >> thank you. you want me to yield back? mr. mcgovern: i'm happy to yield to mr. reschenthaler, newly married. [applause] mr. reschenthaler: thanks, guy,
appreciate it. so there's the old phil hartman sketch on snt snt, just a caveman lawyer? that's how i feel when it comes to look, i'm just a lawyer, not an economist. when i go to the grocery store things cost a lot more. would you like to talk about inflation, i know i'm feeling the pimple. my constituents are feeling the pinch. it's undisputable we're paying more for goods we need every day. i yield to you. mr. smith: i can tell you my constituents don't believe it's transer to. there was a lot of talk about the stock market. the people that i represent, they care about the supermarket. and they care about the prices at the supermarket. they don't care about what's going on on wall street or the stock market. they care about what it's going to cost to put food on the table, clothes on their backs and gasoline in their cars. i do want to, before i hit more on the inflation, representative if you'll allow me i would like
to address the prior comments by the chairman whenever he was saying that i was being dishonest. to say that the bill before us is $4.6 trillion. it is $4.6 trillion over 10 years if you don't allow the items that you have sunsetted at the year 22 to expire. that's what it is. unless the democrats want to allow the child tax credit to expire, on the year 2022, one year in, if they want to allow their obamacare subsidies to expire, that means they would want the child tax credit to expire and the earned income tax credit. so my $4.6 trillion, mr. chairman, is in regards to that,
it's not a dishonest number, just listen to all my words. representative, i will also add to it. inflation. gas prices in my state are up 80% since january 20. meat sup 14%. clothing is up 10%. that's not transer to. that is affecting real americans every day. and i -- i just, even the white house, even the white house, the o.m.b., at the beginning of the year, before they passed the biden bailout bill projected inflation to be 2%. it's triple. it's 6%. on course to be the highest they've been in 40 years. even the white house projected 2%. and now it's 6%. they were that far off. but it all happened after they started this reckless spending.
here's another $4. # trillion they're wanting to add fuel to the inflation fire. mr. reschenthaler: ranking member, brady, would you like to say anything about this? mr. brady: i think mr. smith's point is correct. democrats did the same thing with another bill. you made the case if it was all expended it would be 2.3, you used that probably yesterday in your discussions. so i think jason's point, fair, apple-to-apples, $4. # trillion seems accurate. inflation is on track to be the highest in 40 years right now. it is almost every month president biden has been in office prices have been risen higher than paychecks have. and that isn't abating. in fact a numb of the big
factors, you know inflation dunn happen just because of cars or just because of gas. there's a bunch of stuff in there. what isn't in there yet is housing. about an 18-month lag here. all those huge, high increases in rents, in home prices, will start showing up december, january, february, in a big way, so inflation happens when expectations are there. right now, consumer expectations, the poll we saw the survey we saw a few days ago, it's the highest it's been in a decade or more. so yeah, the worry and no one wants this. no one wants inflation to get baked in to our economy. that's why if you pour another $2 trillion or $4.6 trillion into the economy, when you're also discouraging workers from reconnecting to a job, you have a recipe for very high inflation for a very long time.
mr. resh b that willer: -- mr. reschenthaler: i want to ask about the -- closing the tax gap. if you could hit on that too, i'd appreciate it. i yield. >> mr. brady is correct we used $2.3 trillion but interest rates were considerably different in 2017 than they are now. and the money for the tax cut in 2017 was were roed. that's an important consideration. and senator mcconnell led the charge fn onthe senate side for that very reason. so let me just go back to this issue and i'll come back to your question, on inflation. mr. neal: nobody in this room knows what inflation will look like in a year. we do know the following. in history, nobody has changed the rules of supply and demand. right now, the issue of demand is in front of us because much
of the work that we did in a bipartisan manner, put a lot of money into the pockets of consumer at the time, many of whom needed by others sat on it. american corporations are sit option more money than they have in a long, long period of time but demand right new particularly as we run to the holiday season, part of this is supply chain. we can't control because of the pandemic in places like malaysia. what's happened with the port of l.a. and port of seattle and port of boston, this has contributed to the challenge. i do think it's a fair statement to say none of us know what an inflation trend is going to look like in short order. i think they've done a good job at the federal reserve board. i.r.s. -- do you want me to talk about -- mr. reschenthaler: i want to know if you want to expand on the quote, i.r.s. closes tax gap. mr. neal: from 2010 to 2020, i.r.s. funding fell by 20%.
you are much more likely to be audited if you claim the earned income tax credit than you are if you are paid in dividends and stock options. the reality is because of withholding, because of withholding, wage earners in america comply weekly at the extraordinary level of about 97% of compliance. pretty wild. when you stop and think of it. the average number for the rest of american, closer to 85%, 86% that tells you the story right there. people who go to work, money is drawn down from your check every week or every month so we think that by investing in new technology, new software, that we can discourage a lot of those who are beating the system currently. and we believe that the number is probably in that $400 billion range based on an $80 billion investment. technology, new personnel. and the last point we think that individuals that we're going to have to hire going into the
future, they have to have c.p.a. backgrounds, tax lawyer backgrounds, because people on the other side gaming the system have those abilities. mr. reschenthaler: ranking member, i know you're trying to get my attention, i wondered if you have concerns about the i.r.s. and politics. mr. brady: here's where chairman neal and i agree, people ought to pay their taxes and we ought to close the tax gaps. here's the problem. what's being touted as the tax gap is data from seven years old, a couple of local researches and a bunch of guesses about cryptocurrency, foreign transactions and concealed income. i think these are funny numbers. they're given to us, so you'll accept it. i think those numbers don't ring true. what i do think would ring true is if we -- and we've introduced legislation, you may be on them, to acquire an accurate tax gap analysis each year.
verified by joint committee on taxation. telling us where the contributions and tax gaps are so we can go after it together we think there's a much smarter way, especially without the i.r.s. bank surveillance approach. 1-2-3 inning as common goal just different approaches. mr. reschenthaler: we're talking about this to do with taxes as well. i'm still very concerned this is going to lead to tax increases on the working class, middle class, and the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation found and i'm quoting, found that within 10 years, 66.3% of the corporate tax burden will be borne by the lower and middle class and of course that makes sense. the corporations will pass that on to the consumer. additionally, left-leaning tax policy center found that president biden's plan would raise taxes on 75% of middle class families next year, rising to 95% of middle class families over the long term. would you like to --
mr. brady: those were estimates on the ways and means bill that was marked up and passed out, to include corporate tax rate increases and the tobacco tax. about $100 billion on that as well so we believe that there will be tax increases from that minimum corporate tax rate, but that hasn't been assessed yet, to be fair. again, that hasn't been vetted. we don't know the impact there. we do know increases on the middle class, low income from the tobacco increase. the other thing that worries me as well too is the international tax laws. you think that wouldn't have an impact necessarily on middle class workers but when you -- when you become so much less competitive than the rest of the world, when you see investments in job and research driven oversea, my view is it
definitely has an impact on those workers. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, ranking member brady. ranking member mcmorris rodgers, i'm from pennsylvania, a big oil and gas state particularly in my part of the region. i'm worried about taxing natural gas. just in pennsylvania alone the average family saves $1,200 in a year in lower energy costs. this is -- that is transer to, corporations will pay that, they'll have consumers pay that they're also going to have savings when corporation manufacturers reduce energy costs because there'll be savings. so what i'm trying to say is not only does the average family save more because of low cost of energy, they're also paying less if we didn't have these other issues going on in the economy. for the cost of manufacturing because energy prices are low. do you have concerns if we start taxing oil and gas, that will also have an impact on working
and middle class families? mrs. rodgers: absolutely yes. definitely have concerns heading into winter. there are growing concerns right here in the united states of america over reliability, affordability. it makes no sense that we are shutting down american energy. the provisions in this bill around the methane tax, the natural gas tax, it is estimated that there's going to be tens of thousands of jobs that would be cost here in the united states of america. and that it would increase natural gas bills this winter by 34%. that is on families all across this country. we are -- we saw the administration shut down the keystone pipeline day one, that was 10,000 jobs. and the estimates are that this will be additional tens of thousands of jobs. we had a natural gas employee, union workers out of california,
testify, it might help if i turn that on. so oftentimes i hear from the majority that all of these jobs are going to be able to transition, right. we had a union workers from california testify in march, he said, i'm not seeing it. i'm not seeing it. it makes my skin crawl was hisser words. he said we finally reached a point where we're energy independent and now we're going to go -- we're going to go -- we're -- we're -- we're going co-pick, we're going to shut that down, shut down american energy, we're going to go all-in on wind and solar. that is those supply chains all come from china. we're going to turn our back on american ingenuity, technology that's leading the world right now. we are leading the world in bringing down carbon emissions because of techling in innovation, carbon capture,
carbon sequestration. we're leading the world and it's going to cost jobs, going to cost us american leadership, jeopardizes the progress, the leadership that we are making, it is going to hurt the economy and it's going to her jobs. going to hurt jobs. mr. reschenthaler: you hit it. we're the only nation that's signed on the paris climate agreement that reduced carbon emissions. we talk about carbon emissions, even if we reduce to zero which i don't think is possible in the mid-term, you still have china putting out 27% of the world's global emissions. what's worse is china is not reducing that. they're actually going to increase their emissions. on the front page of "the new york times" -- >> you can watch the rest of this on our website, c-span.org we take you live to the u.s. house of representatives. today an age discrimination bill is on the agenda. you're watching live coverage on c-span.