Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to rush their tax scam through Congress, raising taxes on tens of millions of people, borrowing over $1 trillion, just to give massive tax breaks to the people at the very top of the economy.

For the last 3 months since we passed the temporary spending bill, what has been their focus?

Has it been to deal with the lack of reauthorization and full funding for children's health? No.

Have they focused at all on the need to deal with the Dream Act and those DREAMers who are here, knowing no other place than the United States? Have they done anything on that? No.

They have an obsession about one thing: tax cuts for the wealthiest.

Have they done anything at all to deal with this opioid crisis? The President talked about it, declared an emergency.

What have we seen from the other side? Nothing, except an obsession to give tax breaks to the people at the top. For 3 months since we passed that temporary spending bill, that has been the singular obsession of the Republican majority.

That is not what the American people are looking for. That is not what they sent us here to do. We should do the work of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman, the ranking member, for yielding, and I thank Mr. Woodall for his comments. He and I have worked together on issues in the past. We worked together to try to protect our solar manufacturers in this country, so there are areas of agreement that we come to.

I think we also agree, I now hear, on this question of continuing resolutions. We both don't like them. And I think we do have to keep in mind that, today, we are 48 hours from the government closing, so I won't address any other subject than that question and the process that has led us to this moment where we are looking at another continuing resolution for 2 weeks.

I won't address the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage Simplification Act. While it may be an important piece of legislation, it is difficult to forget what has brought us to this moment where we are 48 hours from the government shutting down.

What is interesting to me about it is, it is true that the Republicans hold the majority in this House and set the agenda here; hold the majority in the Senate, set the agenda there. You have your Republican President, the leader of your party, your leader, who sets the agenda from the White House.

You have had the entire year to get a package of spending bills to the floor and through to the President. And here we are, 2 days away from a shutdown, because 2\1/2\ months ago, after nearly a year, the process came to a halt, and this body had to approve a 2\1/2\ month extension because we couldn't get the work done.

Now, instead of, over the last 2\1/2\ months, coming up with a full plan to fund the government and provide the certainty and security that the American people and our economy depend upon, after 2\1/2\ months, the best we can do is promise the people of the country and our economy 14 more days.

I mean, why are we here?

In the last 2\1/2\ months, have we seen any action? No, not on disaster relief for those places that are struggling through the worst moments that they have experienced; not to make sure that we have healthcare, health insurance, which was a bipartisan program, the Children's Health Insurance Program. Anything? No.

So that DREAMers aren't deported? People who only know this country?

And think about this: since the President, himself--and this is an area where we have some agreement--declared that we have a national emergency, our people, our children, are dying due to this opioid crisis, and where is the solution there?

Where is the debate there?

Where is the effort on the floor of this House to deal with these big, pressing problems that our country faces?

We have had the last 2\1/2\ months; we could have done it during that period.

But what has been the focus? A singular obsession around a piece of legislation that is purported to be tax reform, but at close examination by just about any significant economist, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents is the greatest, most significant, massive shift of hard-earned wealth from working Americans to people who make more than $900,000 a year.

The notion that, with all the difficulty we are facing in this country, with all the struggles we are having, with disasters that are yet to be corrected, with an opioid crisis that is yet to be attacked, with DREAMers who have uncertainty, with children with no certainty of healthcare, the most significant priority is not funding the government, but ensuring that people who make more than those suffering people, who make more than $900,000 a year, get more?

That is not a reflection of the priorities of the American people; and that is why it is so difficult for us, who are ready, honestly-- honestly ready to work hand in glove, knowing we are not going to win every fight, but give us a chance to sit at the table and have a conversation about where we might find some common ground.

And we do from time to time. It is not impossible. Even with my friends in this Chamber right now, we have found ways to work together. But we cannot do it, we cannot do it unless there is a commitment to do the work of the American people, and we have not seen that.

Mr. Speaker, look, I, like every Member in this House, recognize that we need to do something about taxes. We need bipartisan tax reform that actually works for everybody, but what the Senate passed through committee and what the House passed here a couple of weeks ago is not tax reform. It is a great big tax cut financed by middle class Americans and huge debt that will be passed on to our kids.

It is just not right. We shouldn't do this just to put points on the board. I mean, if we are going to get this right, we should do it in a bipartisan way, and many of us stand ready to do that.

What this shows--and the facts matter--is that every independent analysis, including our own analysis here in Congress that we have depended upon for years, shows that millions, tens of millions, over 80 million middle class Americans, will get a tax increase, all to finance massive tax cuts for billionaires and corporations, people at the very top of the economy.

This is a massive shift of wealth from hardworking Americans to people at the very top. We ought to do this right. We ought to do it right. We ought to stop this nonsense, go back to the process that we were elected to follow, and get this done in a way that is good for all Americans. This bill is not that.

Mr. Speaker, just calling this tax bill a middle class tax bill does not make it so. You actually have to read the bill. And if you do, you will find that the vast majority of the benefit goes to the people at the very top: the wealthiest Americans, multinational corporations. They are the beneficiaries of this Republican tax scam.

Saying it benefits the middle class does not make it so, and, in fact, many in the middle class, tens of millions of people in the middle class, will pay more taxes so that we can do what? Give huge tax breaks to the people at the very top.

And how do they pay for that? They borrow money.

All these deficit hawks, all these people over here who have said over and over again that it is immoral to pass debt on to our children and grandchildren will walk to the floor of this House and they will vote to send $1.5 trillion in debt to their kids and grandkids to give corporations and the wealthiest Americans a tax break.

It is immoral. It is immoral.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his incredible leadership on this subject.

You can't have it both ways. I just heard it said. You can't have it both ways. So what I suspect will happen after I get done, as has been the case with every one of the speakers on this side, the gentleman on the other side will say that residents in my hometown will get a tax break of X, $1,000.

I would ask the gentleman if he would add to that the amount of the debt that is being borne by each one of those families. Because the way I have got it calculated, it costs a family of four about $20,000 for your debt that you are willing to levy against our children and grandchildren in order to give the richest 1 percent of Americans a massive tax break.

You can't deny the math that almost all the benefit goes to the people at the top. The top 1 percent are huge beneficiaries. You can't deny the math that 5,400 families will get a massive tax break. You can't deny the math that says that every single American will take on additional debt; a family of four, $20,000 in debt.

I also was intrigued by the colloquy where Members came to ask the leadership if they will work with them to take out egregious elements of this tax

proposal. We get this sort of ``Yes, I will work with the gentleman'' answer.

I have a question: Why did you put it in in the first place? Why are you cutting brownfield tax credits? Why are you cutting new market tax credits? Why are you cutting historic tax credits in the first place? Why did you put it in in the first place?

You just wrote the bill. You just wrote it. It makes no sense. It makes no sense.

We can't pass debts to our children in order to finance tax breaks for the people at the very top.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats agree that we need to simplify our Tax Code and provide tax relief to middle-income families. Unfortunately, this Republican tax plan gives big tax cuts to the rich, huge tax cuts to corporations, and raises taxes--yes, the details matter--on tens of millions of American families, middle-income families making $100,000 or less.

It takes away for some the ability to deduct interest on their home mortgage; takes away the ability to deduct interest on student loans, for goodness' sake; and takes away the ability to deduct interest on medical expenses.

But for the loopholes that apply to the people at the very top, for the loopholes that apply to corporations, they leave them alone. They bring down their rates and let them keep their loopholes, and force us to borrow money from our children and our grandchildren to give great big tax breaks to people at the very top.

This is wrong. This is not what the American people elected us to do. We need to shut this down now. We need tax relief for middle-income Americans, not tax giveaways to the people at the very top. We ought to reject this plan, and we ought to do it now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think the House should note that the Speaker and the two gentlemen controlling the time are from the greatest State, the great State of Michigan, so I think we are in good hands.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3911, which is offered, as my colleague has said, in a bipartisan fashion by Representatives Wagner and Foster.

This legislation would allow the Securities and Exchange Commission to focus on the most high-risk areas when conducting annual examinations of certain credit rating agencies known as nationally recognized statistical rating organizations.

Credit rating agencies did, in fact, play a central role in the subprime mortgage meltdowns by routinely assigning inflated credit ratings to high-risk structured mortgage products. These ratings, which were issued by agencies operating under conflicts of interests, allowed banks to assume unreasonable amounts of risk and resulted in the loss of trillions of dollars when the mortgages underlying those risky investments began to default.

In the wake of the ensuing financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act strengthened oversight of credit rating agencies, including by directing the SEC to create an Office of Credit Ratings responsible for conducting annual examinations of the rating organizations.

Currently, each rating organization examination must include a review of eight topic areas designed to assess the adequacy of each agency's internal controls, conflicts of interests, and rating methodologies, among other areas.

This legislation, H.R. 3911, is responsive to former SEC Chair Mary Jo White's 2013 request to the Financial Services Committee for legislation that would allow the SEC staff to take a risk-based approach to annual rating organization examinations. Such an approach would allow the SEC to focus valuable resources on the areas where problematic conduct is most likely to exist.

H.R. 3911 is designed to strengthen regulatory efforts rather than provide a basis for reduced accountability. So I do urge the SEC to use the discretion afforded under H.R. 3911 in order to focus on areas that present the greatest risk of misconduct.

It is vital that our ratings organizations are accountable, and I believe this bill is an important step to ensure that the inflated ratings that led up to the financial crisis are not repeated.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3911. I thank Representatives Foster and Wagner for their bipartisan work on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just reiterate two things. One, I think here is an opportunity for us to demonstrate that there are times when we come together to deal with specific problems in a bipartisan fashion. We ought to encourage it, and I am pleased to be a part of it.

Again, I would like to reiterate the point that this legislation is not intended to weaken oversight; in fact, it is intended to focus oversight on those areas of greatest risk. It is my hope and my sincere belief that that is the approach that the SEC will take upon passage and enactment of this legislation. It is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to support H.R. 2148, and I want to start by thanking the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger) for their work on this bipartisan legislation, a bill that deals with capital rules for commercial real estate loans, including acquisition, development, or construction loans.

It is critical that Federal bank regulators maintain the strong capital rules that have been implemented after the enactment of Dodd- Frank. These rules have made the U.S. financial system much safer, while protecting consumers, investors, and taxpayers in promoting stable economic growth.

Unlike some proposals that have been introduced that would gut the regulatory framework of Dodd-Frank, I am pleased that this bill reasonably seeks to resolve a valid concern raised by community banks that certain capital rules relating to high volatility commercial real estate, or HVCRE, loans are far too complex. This is an issue that financial regulators like the FDIC have also acknowledged must be addressed and must be fixed.

The problem, in fact, was highlighted in their Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act report, which was published earlier this year.

In September, financial regulators released a proposal to revise the capital rules to make the calculations more straightforward. This is a good step in resolving this issue.

Although I am supportive of H.R. 2148, there are some concerns that I have heard and that I can appreciate, including that it could provide for more rigid definitions relating to capital rules.

The highly technical standards are important, though, to demonstrate congressional intent. But Congress may not need to act, if bank regulators correct the problem on their own.

In addition, according to the FDIC Inspector General, commercial real estate loans generally account for more than one-third of community bank lending. The GAO found that failure of many small banks in the last crisis were ``driven by credit losses on CRE

loans, particularly loans secured by real estate to finance land development and construction.'' We have to be cautious, and we should be sensitive to these risks.

Notwithstanding all of those legitimate concerns that we should keep in mind, I support this legislation and hope that it will send a clear signal to the regulators that they should consider and address any comments on their proposed rule without delay that is fully sensitive to the risks that I have discussed.

Importantly, in committee, Congresswoman Maloney offered an amendment that I was pleased was adopted. This amendment better aligns this bill with the regulators' proposed rule to fix this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, H.R. 2148, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Huizenga, for his work on this. I also thank Mr. Pittenger and Mr. Scott as well.

This is a piece of legislation, again, as the previous legislation did, that demonstrates that we do have the capability of solving a problem and coming together on specific issues when we can.

In this case, we have legislation that, I think, strikes that important balance in maintaining important regulations and standards in place that prevent the kind of catastrophes that we have seen in the past, but also, in this case, anticipates that there is a legitimate problem that needs to be solved, particularly in this case, in ensuring that development can occur in those places where it is often very difficult to see development take place. This is something that is absolutely critical and makes sense. This legislation strikes a good balance between those competing interests.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, well, not surprisingly, Republicans have had to delay the release of their tax plan because it is so deeply unpopular. We haven't seen all of the details yet, but what we know about it is that this is really bad for working families.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that the Republican plan raises taxes on many middle class families to pay for a massive tax cut for the people at the very top, the wealthiest Americans.

The details matter. A family of four earning $50,000 could see their taxes go up 380 percent. Meanwhile, 80 percent of the benefits of this ``billionaires first'' tax plan go to the richest 1 percent--80 percent of the benefits to the richest 1 percent. That is not middle class tax relief.

And how do we pay for these massive tax cuts to the wealthy? What are we going to do?

We are going to see cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and education.

If anybody thinks we can do this and go big on infrastructure and rebuild America's capacity to produce, they better think twice. Plus, saddling our grandkids with a huge debt.

What happened to the deficit hawks in this place?

This is wrong, and we ought to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I think all Americans and certainly Members of Congress agree that we need to simplify our Tax Code, make it easier for middle class families to get ahead and to stay ahead. Unfortunately, what we know about the Republican tax plan, as the details begin to leak out, go in a different direction.

This is a tax break, a big tax cut for billionaires at the expense of working families. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a family making $50,000 could see their tax bill increase by as much as 380 percent--less money to set aside for retirement, less money to set aside for a child's education, less money to pay the bills that families who struggle work hard every month to pay, in order to fund a tax break for the wealthiest Americans.

5,400 families would get a $270 billion tax cut funded by increased taxes on people who work hard every day just to make ends meet. Just saying that this is tax relief for all Americans over and over again does not make it true. The details actually matter.

This is a big tax break for the wealthiest Americans. People like the Trumps and the DeVoses don't need more relief. We need to reject it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my friend, for yielding.

Mr. Chair, this is a subject that I think we have a great deal of experience on in this country. It is only a decade since the housing crisis wreaked havoc, not just on individual families, but on whole communities.

The notion that one of the available tools that we can deploy to deal with the consequence of this sort of predatory activity by going right at the source of that predation and require them to supply the resources to offset the impact of that activity is something that we really ought to think carefully about.

Mr. Chair, mortgage foreclosures wreck families, but also wreck communities. We ought to use every tool we can to prevent them by ensuring that individuals know and have access to the resources they need in order to prevent this from happening again. The impact is devastating, and we ought to do everything we can to prevent it from happening again.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and particularly for this thoughtful amendment. I am from Flint; born and raised in Flint. I represent Flint. I was here on the floor and I was the one pushing for the legislation that the gentleman on the other side mentioned that provided $120 million to help offset the cost of this terrible tragedy.

When I introduced the first legislation, we calculated what the total direct and indirect cost was: $1.5 billion.

Now, here is the point: again, we ought not put a community like Flint in the position of having to depend on this Congress to fully fund the total cost of that recovery, or another community that might be facing a similar situation.

If the gentleman is sincere that Congress can act to help offset the incredible indirect costs that my home community is facing, then I would suggest the gentleman join me in my effort to do just that. So far, Congress has not done that.

The notion that we would exempt the people of Flint from access to the resources that could be determined by a court as being part of the justice that they deserve is not an act that we ought to engage in.

Flint, as sad as this case is, is not an anomaly. Flint is a warning, and when we need to make sure we heed that warning.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Republicans brought their extreme budget to the floor, a budget that forces the middle class to pay more in taxes just to give the wealthiest Americans a massive tax break.

This budget slashes investments in our future, such as rebuilding roads and bridges and education, just so it can provide huge tax breaks to the absolute wealthiest Americans. Billionaires would receive a massive tax cut under this plan.

Under this ``billionaires first'' tax plan, according to the nonprofit, nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, middle class families would pay an average of $1,290 a year more in taxes, while 80 percent of the benefits would go to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans: the superwealthy. By repealing the estate tax, 5,400 families would receive a $270 billion tax break.

Who pays for this? The middle class.

How? By passing the costs on to them and increasing our deficit at the same time. Trillions of dollars would be added to our deficit.

Giving billionaires a massive tax break is fiscally irresponsible and morally wrong. We ought to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, middle class families should be the focus of tax relief, not billionaires, not the wealthiest Americans. Unfortunately, the Ryan-McConnell tax plan fails that basic test.

Independent analysis shows that the Republican plan would actually raise taxes on many middle class families, giving billionaires, the top 1 percent, the biggest breaks. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that middle class families could actually pay an increase of $1,290 a year. Even worse, the families I represent would be asked to foot the bill for a big, massive giveaway to the rich.

Under the Republican plan, the wealthiest families, 5,400 families that are the superwealthy in this country, would get a $270 billion break through the repeal of the estate tax--100 families in my home State of Michigan, the DeVos family, certainly the Trump family. This is not representative of the values of the American people.

Just saying that the people at the top won't benefit doesn't make it true. Read the bill. Look at these analyses. This is a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans, and it is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, after what has happened in the last couple of days, this terrible tragedy in Las Vegas, this Congress should be spending every minute focusing on what we were sent here to do: taking action to enact commonsense safety measures to reduce gun violence.

But what do we hear on that subject from the leadership on the Republican side?

Nothing. But what we get is yet another attack on the individual rights of women in this country to make decisions about their own healthcare, about their bodies, about themselves.

Those sorts of decisions should be made between a woman and her doctor. This has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. People in Washington, D.C., sitting in this Congress, should not be able to interfere in the private health decisions that women can only make for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, here we are 9 months into the year, and the Republican-led Congress has zero major legislative accomplishments to show for it. While Democrats continue to offer an agenda that gives Americans a better deal, really a better life, Republicans are continually obsessed with their Republican healthcare bill, this repeal and replace.

Recently, they have had to pull back again from their Graham-Cassidy approach to this. Why? Because it means less care, less coverage, higher premiums, higher copays. It is bad policy. We ought to be focusing on what we need to do to make it right to fix the problems we see in healthcare, not this obsession to check a political box and repeal healthcare for the American people.

Meanwhile, there is no infrastructure plan. America's roads and bridges are falling apart. There is nothing on the floor of the House to address that--something the American people all agree we need to do. There has been nothing done to make sure that 800,000 DREAMers are not deported away.

They have a tax plan that rewards 5,400 American families with a quarter of a trillion dollars in tax breaks. This is the wrong direction for America.