Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, because hidden deep in this bill is language that indeed will increase income taxes on middle class American families by thousands of dollars a year. My Republican colleagues claim the bill is not a tax increase on the middle class. They argue that Grover Norquist says it's not a tax increase. They say Democrats have, and I quote, ``decided to dance the Washington two-step,'' claiming this bill contains a new income tax on working families. In hearing all that, I have one simple question: If the Republican plan is not that of a massive, new income tax increase, then why did the Republican majority refuse to allow a vote on the amendment which I offered? My amendment simply said that no section of this bill would take effect if it raised taxes on any American family of four earning less than $110,250 a year. That's all it said. It just makes it clear you can't raise taxes on the middle class. That's all it said. It is a straightforward and simple amendment.
Joe Crowley: “Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, because hidden deep in this bill is language that indeed will…”
Editor's note · Context
Crowley opposes a bill he claims will increase taxes on middle-class families.
Share
More from Joe Crowley
Further parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York will state his parliamentary inquiry.
We would not have to wait for a determination. It would not be just aimed at one or two individuals, but would affect the regime.
I do think that a $2 trillion or $2.5 trillion or whatever that number is going to be, it is going to be transformative, tremendously transformative.
On May 10, 2018, I was absent for recorded votes 178, 179, and 180. Had I been present, on rollcall 178 I would have voted ``yes'', on rollcall 179 I would have voted ``no''; and on rollcall 180 I would have voted ``no''. PERSONAL…





