tv House Lawmakers Consider the Reconciliation Bill CSPAN October 31, 2021 5:01am-7:00am EDT
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. clerk call role. >> mrs. torres. >> absolutely not. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> miss morelle. >> no. mr. >> mr. desaulnier.
ms. ross. >> no. >> mr. neguse. no. >> mr. cole, mr. coal aye. >> mr. burgess. eye. >> mrs. fischbach. >> absolutely yes. mr. chairman. >> no. the clerk will report the total. 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. to do.
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