{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=E7F111A4-93AF-458A-815D-1693360D78A0", "Hatch Opens 4th Day of Tax Reform Hearings with Call for Civility", "2017-11-16", "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 fourth day of consideration for his tax reform proposal\u2014the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act\u2014by asking members to temper outbursts to permit a civil debate.\r\nHatch also reiterated the importance of lowering the corporate tax rate to make the United States more competitive. He also emphasized the need to repeal the healthcare individual mandate, which disproportionately burdens low- and middle-income families in Utah.\u00a0\u00a0\r\n\r\n[Video via YouTube]\r\nAs I've said, I don't begrudge\u00a0anyone for holding a passionate\u00a0viewpoint on any issue, and I\u00a0don't doubt my various\u00a0colleagues' sincerity.\u00a0But for the committee to\u00a0operate, we need to be\u00a0respectful and allow the debate\u00a0to unfold in an orderly fashion.\u00a0Members are, of course, free to\u00a0disagree about any issue, but no\u00a0one should interrupt another\u00a0member or shut down the other\u00a0side or impugn their colleague's motives.\u00a0In my opinion, we saw quite a\u00a0bit of that and some of it was\u00a0pretty inflammatory.\u00a0As for myself, I can take it.\u00a0I can guarantee that in my\u00a040-plus years in the Senate,\u00a0I've been called worse names. For the good of the committee, I\u00a0want to encourage my colleagues\u00a0to dial back the rhetoric and\u00a0turn down the volume of some of\u00a0our arguments.\u00a0\r\nSenator Hatch outlined how his tax reform proposal \u201cwill help businesses of all sizes,\u201d citing the bill\u2019s support from the National Federation of Independent Businesses and other small business organizations. Hatch also noted that members \u201con both sides have supported the proposition of lowering corporate rates for years.\u201d\r\n\r\n[Video via YouTube]\r\nContinuing the conversation from the previous day, Hatch reiterated that nothing in his tax proposal takes away anyone\u2019s health insurance. The JCT Chief of Staff, Tom Barthold, affirmed that the \u201cmodified mark leaves in place the existing premium subsidy credit structure\u201d and that the analysis \u201cincludes a lot of taxpayer behavior.\u201d\r\n\r\n[Video via YouTube]\u00a0\r\nLet's be clear:\u00a0Anyone who says we're hiking\u00a0taxes on low-income families is\u00a0misstating the facts.\u00a0Anyone who says people will see\u00a0their taxes go up because we're\u00a0taking away their health\u00a0insurance is also misstating the\u00a0facts.\r\nThe full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below:\r\nToday, we will continue our consideration of the chairman\u2019s mark, as modified, for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.\u00a0 Having walked through both the mark and modification, with extensive questioning and discussion, we began consideration of amendments last night.\u00a0\r\nAdmittedly, things were a little chaotic at the outset and I know some tensions ran high.\u00a0 We\u2019re going to improve the process and communication today and, hopefully, make things move a little more smoothly.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\r\nWith that issue addressed, I\u2019d like to say a few words about the tone of our discussion this week, because I think it has been a problem.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nAs I\u2019ve said, I don\u2019t begrudge anyone for holding a passionate viewpoint on any issue.\u00a0 And, I don\u2019t doubt my colleagues\u2019 sincerity in any views they express or any votes they take.\u00a0 But, for the committee to operate, we need to be respectful and allow the debate to unfold in an orderly fashion.\u00a0\r\nMembers are, of course, free to disagree about any issue.\u00a0 But no one should interrupt another member, shout down the other side, or impugn their colleague\u2019s motives on substantive or procedural disagreements.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nWe saw quite a bit of that yesterday, and some of it was pretty inflammatory.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nAs for myself, I can take it \u2013 I can guarantee that, in my 40 years in the Senate, I\u2019ve been called worse names than anyone on this committee would come up with.\u00a0 But, for the good of the committee, I want to urge my colleagues to dial back the rhetoric and turn down the volume of some of our arguments.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nThis is the last time I will raise issues about process for the duration of this markup, because, in my view, if we\u2019re going to have a lively debate, it should be about policy.\u00a0\r\nSo let\u2019s talk about policy differences for a moment.\u00a0 Let me reiterate what our bill does.\u00a0\r\nOur bill gives tax relief to individuals and families across the board, with the middle class getting the largest benefit, relative to their income.\u00a0 We provide this relief primarily by cutting rates and expanding credits for parents and families.\u00a0 \u00a0\r\nOur bill will also help businesses of all sizes.\u00a0 Our pass-through solution is simple and effective, which is why the bill is supported by the National Federation of Independent Businesses and most other small business organizations.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nThe business section of the mark also includes, among other things, a significant reduction in corporate rates.\u00a0 I know my colleagues have characterized this in a number of ways.\u00a0 But, this is not some radical, right-wing approach.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nAs I\u2019ve noted, members of this committee on both sides have supported the proposition of lowering corporate rates for years now.\u00a0 The ranking member actually introduced legislation that would have reduced the rate to 24 percent.\u00a0 Yet, now it appears that the notion that we\u2019d even consider moving down from the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world is something totally abhorrent to Democrats.\u00a0\r\nI\u2019ve yet to hear an explanation from anyone on the other side as to why they\u2019ve changed their minds and are now characterizing our efforts to modernize America\u2019s business tax system as a \u201ccorporate giveaway.\u201d\u00a0 That would be interesting to hear.\u00a0\r\nAs we debated at length yesterday, the mark will also zero out the punitive individual mandate tax established under Obamacare.\u00a0 Despite claims to the contrary, we contend that this is a pro-family, pro-middle class, and pro-growth proposition.\u00a0 It will undo one of the most regressive taxes in the tax code, and allow us to provide additional tax relief to middle-class families.\u00a0\r\nBy now, I\u2019m sure most of my colleagues are aware of the most recent developments with JCT\u2019s updated distributional analysis.\u00a0 I expect our friends on the other side will try to make some hay out of the new table this morning, and that\u2019s their right.\u00a0\r\nBut, I want to provide some context before that begins.\u00a0 We developed a modification to the chairman\u2019s mark that included additional tax relief for families throughout the middle class.\u00a0 Once again, it expanded further the child tax credit, made it more refundable, and provided it to a greater number of families with children.\u00a0 We also adjusted the rates downward for middle class families.\u00a0 And, of course, we relieved those middle and lower income families of the burdens imposed by the individual mandate tax.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nWith those changes in place, JCT noted a projected uptick in taxes owed by those in some lower income brackets.\u00a0 Obviously, we have no intention of raising taxes on these families.\u00a0 Every Republican on this committee has been committed to providing tax cuts to every income cohort.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nSo, here\u2019s the rub, JCT\u2019s analysis doesn\u2019t show that we\u2019re raising taxes on lower income Americans.\u00a0 We\u2019re seeing some taxes go up in the distributional analysis because of a scoring assumption, not because of tax rates or even tax policy.\u00a0\r\nCongressional scorekeepers have assumed that, if the individual mandate were to be repealed, a segment of people will opt voluntarily to not get health insurance.\u00a0 The assumption extends even to those who currently get their insurance for free under Medicaid.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nSo, JCT began with an assumption that some people in the lower income brackets will opt to not purchase health insurance and thus not take advantage of available tax credit subsidies.\u00a0 Without those credits, they see an overall uptick in their tax liability.\u00a0\r\nI don\u2019t fault JCT for this.\u00a0 They have to make assumptions in order to make credible projections.\u00a0\r\nHowever, in the world that exists outside of those assumptions, people will be making their own choices.\u00a0 In fact, our bill will give them additional freedom to do so.\u00a0\r\nNothing in our mark will impact the availability of premium subsidy credits.\u00a0\r\nNothing in the mark will direct or suggest to taxpayers that they should not take advantage of the credits.\r\nThis is the result of an assumption about economic behavior that is 100 percent voluntary.\u00a0\r\nI believe JCT has additional data that will demonstrate that, but for the behavioral assumptions that accompany the repeal of the individual mandate tax, our mark provides significant relief to all low- and middle-class income brackets.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nI know that we\u2019re going to hear arguments to the contrary this morning, but let\u2019s be clear: Anyone who says that we\u2019re hiking taxes on low-income families is misstating the facts.\u00a0 Anyone who says people will see their taxes go up because we\u2019re taking away their health insurance is also misstating the facts.\u00a0\r\nTo view a full copy of the chairman\u2019s modified mark,\u00a0click here.\r\nA score of the modified 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=E7F111A4-93AF-458A-815D-1693360D78A0"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.5153088606894016, "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"}