{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=88BD49AB-A610-49E2-92FC-07D0FEAD0A0F", "Hatch Sets the Record Straight on His Tax Reform Proposal", "2017-11-14", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u2014 Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, opened the second day of consideration for his tax reform proposal\u2014the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act\u2014by clarifying issues that were raised about the bill after its initial introduction. Hatch debunked the myths that there would be massive tax cuts for the rich, massive tax increases for the middle class, and irregular processes to pass the bill.\r\n\r\n\r\n[Video via YouTube]\r\nA number of issues were raised yesterday that, in my view, warrant some additional responses. First is the characterization of the bill as a massive tax cut for the rich.\u00a0 That particular claim was repeated, I believe, by almost every minority member of this committee. The problem with that claim is that it\u2019s just not true. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper, has concluded that, not only does the bill maintain the current level of progressivity in the tax code, but that the largest tax cuts \u2013 in terms of percentage of income \u2013 will go to middle-income earners. I understand that the distributional analysis is inconvenient for the Democrats\u2019 who are committed to the narrative that Republicans intend to give the so-called rich a huge tax cut, but JCT\u2019s analysis shouldn\u2019t be ignored altogether.\u00a0\r\nThe full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below:\r\nToday, the committee will continue its consideration of the chairman\u2019s mark for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.\u00a0 We will begin by walking through the mark with the help of Mr. Tom Barthold, the Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, and then proceed to questions from members.\r\nFollowing the conclusion of this this process, which will likely take some time, a modified mark will be provided to members later today which reflects input received from the amendments that have been filed. Because of a large number of amendments that we have processed, the modified mark will be given to members later today, as has been discussed with the Ranking Member, and everyone can then have time to read over the modifications. After that process, we will resume the markup tomorrow morning with the modified mark.\u00a0\r\nBut before we proceed today, I want to make a few comments.\u00a0\r\nI appreciated members\u2019 participation during yesterday\u2019s session. I was glad to hear everyone\u2019s initial thoughts.\u00a0\r\nHowever, a number of issues were raised yesterday that, in my view, warrant some additional responses.\u00a0\r\nFirst is the characterization of the bill as a massive tax cut for the rich.\u00a0 That particular claim was repeated, I believe, by almost every minority member of this committee.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nThe problem with that claim is that it\u2019s just not true.\r\nThe Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper, has concluded that, not only does the bill maintain the current level of progressivity in the tax code, but that the largest tax cuts \u2013 in terms of percentage of income \u2013 will go to middle-income earners.\u00a0\r\nI understand that the distributional analysis is inconvenient for the Democrats\u2019 who are committed to the narrative that Republicans intend to give the so-called rich a huge tax cut, but JCT\u2019s analysis shouldn\u2019t be ignored altogether.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nSecond, there was the repeated claim \u2013 supposedly based on JCT analysis \u2013 that the bill is a massive tax HIKE on the middle class.\u00a0 To reach this conclusion, members had to willfully twist the meaning of JCT data.\r\nSpecifically, members cited a JCT table concluding that some in the middle class may see a tax increase under the bill, while those same members completely ignored the fact that the very same data showed that the vast majority of middle class taxpayers \u2013 about 90 percent \u2013 were either going to get a tax cut or, at the very least, be held harmless under the bill.\u00a0\r\nYesterday, I mentioned a tax bill introduced by the Ranking Member a few years back.\u00a0 I noted that there were a number of similarities between his previous bill and the one we\u2019re debating today.\u00a0 However, there are some differences.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nFor example, I\u2019m not aware of any JCT distributional analysis on the Wyden-Coats tax bill, but the Tax Policy Center did look at some of the potential distributional effects of the Ranking Member\u2019s bill when he introduced it with former Senator Gregg.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nInterestingly enough, TPC found that close to 25 percent of middle-income taxpayers would have gotten tax increase under Wyden-Coats, and around 17 percent of the lowest income earners would have seen their taxes raised.\u00a0\r\nNow, I don\u2019t raise this to play tit-for-tat.\u00a0 And, I do think there are reasons to not consider analyses by outside think tanks to be the gospel when it comes to these matters.\u00a0 But, I do think it\u2019s fair to note, for the record, that the Ranking Member, in the relatively recent past, authored and championed tax reform legislation that, according to the standards he and others have used to criticize the current bill, was far more problematic and, according to a think tank often cited by members on the other side, would have raised taxes on far more middle- and low-income taxpayers than the legislation we are considering this week.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nNext, I want to address the many complaints about process we heard during opening remarks yesterday.\u00a0 Members lamented the lack of hearings, arguing that the 70-plus hearings we\u2019ve had since I\u2019ve been the lead Republican on this committee weren\u2019t enough and that we needed multiple additional hearings to examine the specifics of the chairman\u2019s mark.\r\nWhat they didn\u2019t mention was that this demand would be a significant departure from the way this committee has traditionally operated.\u00a0 Historically, the committee hasn\u2019t held hearings on specific marks issued by its chairmen.\u00a0 We certainly didn\u2019t do so when we considered the Affordable Care Act, or any other major mark in the modern history of the committee.\u00a0\r\nIt is, therefore, absurd to demand that we do so now.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nIn addition, we heard members complain about the partisan nature of this exercise.\u00a0 Yet, I don\u2019t believe a single committee member of the minority even acknowledged the fact that, three months ago, every single one of them signed a letter indicating, among other things, that they would not engage in a bipartisan tax reform process unless Republicans agreed up front to not use reconciliation.\r\nGiven the history of this committee and Congress\u2019s recent history with regard to tax policy, such a demand is entirely unreasonable.\u00a0 It is not a rarity for major tax bills to move through reconciliation.\u00a0 And, the potential use of reconciliation in no way bars the possibility of bipartisan compromise.\u00a0 Knowing this, I can only conclude that the intent of my colleagues\u2019 letter was to communicate that they had no intention of engaging meaningfully in tax reform.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nBut, even if I\u2019m wrong in that interpretation, over the past 10 months, I have made countless public statements where I called on my Democratic colleagues to join in this effort, to offer their views and advice without preconditions or upfront demands.\u00a0\u00a0 Yet, to my knowledge, no one on the Democratic side said anything to suggest that my conclusion about their prerequisites was incorrect.\r\nFor what it\u2019s worth, I\u2019m still hoping we can get some Democratic votes in favor of this bill.\u00a0 As I mentioned yesterday, the vast majority of the major proposals in our bill have enjoyed bipartisan support in the recent past, including from Democratic members of this committee.\r\nMiddle-class tax relief is something that members of both parties should be able to get behind.\r\nLowering corporate tax rates and making America\u2019s businesses more competitive is something that both Republicans and Democrats have sought to do for years.\r\nAnd, updating our outdated international system has been a bipartisan endeavor for a while a now.\u00a0 As I noted yesterday, the Senate minority leader, as a co-chair of one of our working groups, drafted a report calling for international tax reforms that are consistent with what we\u2019re trying to do with this bill.\u00a0\r\nI intend to move forward.\u00a0 If members want to vote on the substance of the policy and not with an eye toward next November, I think a few more will eventually find themselves supporting this approach.\r\nThis is a good bill.\u00a0 It will give real tax relief to middle-class families.\u00a0 It will grow our economy, increase wages, and create jobs.\u00a0 I think that, ultimately, most members who decide to vote against it based on partisan strategy will regret taking such a course.\u00a0\r\nOnce again, the next step in this process is to walk through the mark.\u00a0 We\u2019ll begin that process in a few minutes.\u00a0 \u00a0\r\nTo view a full copy of the chairman\u2019s mark,\u00a0click here.\r\nA score of the mark may be found\u00a0here.\r\nA section-by-section of the mark may be found\u00a0here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=88BD49AB-A610-49E2-92FC-07D0FEAD0A0F"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 2.386961132287979, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}