- 1 year ago
On "Forbes Newsroom," Congressman Chris Deluzio (D-PA), a member of the For Country Caucus, discussed why he voted against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Hi, everybody. I'm Brittany Lewis, a breaking news reporter here at Forbes. Joining me now
00:07is Congressman Chris Deluzio, a member of the four-country caucus. Congressman, thank you so
00:12much for joining me. Hey, Brittany. Thanks for having me on. The one big, beautiful bill act,
00:17President Trump's nearly 1,000-page domestic policy legislation was signed into law last
00:23week on 4th of July. You, along with every Democrat in the House, voted against it. So
00:28to start off the conversation, can you talk to us why you don't support this agenda?
00:33Well, I think it's pretty easy. The bill will take away health care and more from a lot of Americans
00:38to pay for pretty reckless tax giveaways, some of the richest, most powerful corporations and people
00:43who have ever lived, and all while jacking up our debt in the order of trillions of dollars. And I
00:50think it's important here, it wasn't just all Democrats who voted against the bill. You had
00:53some Republicans vote against the bill as well. It tells you there was some bipartisan opposition
00:59here, which I shared the concerns on all those fronts, whether it was health care or food assistance,
01:05the fiscal irresponsibility. I actually was just meeting with some of the leaders of the building
01:11trades in western Pennsylvania, around Pittsburgh, talking about their concerns around the job-killing
01:16parts of this bill. Even the National Building Trades Union called it, perhaps, the biggest job-killing
01:23bill in the history of this country. And it did that, the bill, by taking away all these tax credits that
01:29were investing in lots of good new energy sources that now will see those jobs go away. And so I think
01:36all those things together really punched a wallop here, packed a wallop that could really hurt a lot of people
01:42in my part of the world and all over the country. To your point, some Republicans in the House and
01:48Senate voted with Democrats against this bill. Senator Lisa Murkowski, she voted for it, but this
01:55is what she said while defending voting for the bill. Do I like this bill? No, but I tried to take care
02:00of Alaska's interests. But I know in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going
02:05to be advantaged by this bill. What do you make of that type of thinking here? That, hey, I mean,
02:11this is helping the constituents I serve in my state, but other Americans aren't going to be
02:17served by this bill. What do you make of that? Well, certainly lots of Americans are going to
02:21get hurt. And I think a lot of Alaskans will, too. I don't represent Alaska, but I can see the numbers
02:26on the health care cuts and all the rest or what it would mean for her constituents, just the same as it
02:31would mean for mine. And I think our jobs are to fight hard for the people we represent and to fight
02:36hard for the country. And I look at this as the bill isn't just bad for Western Pennsylvania, where
02:42we see there are a bunch of hospitals at risk of closing. I've been hearing about concerns around
02:47nursing homes, too. Again, lots of folks who will lose their health care, but that's playing out all
02:54across the country. And so to me, standing up for Western Pennsylvania means the same as standing up for
02:59all Americans and voting against this bill. And again, I think it's important that you saw both
03:05some Republicans and all Democrats oppose the bill. So to see that bipartisan opposition mattered.
03:13Economists largely have the same takeaway when it comes to this legislation,
03:16that the poorest in America actually stand to lose money when you factor in different cuts to
03:21different programs, and the richest in America will become richer. In your private conversations
03:26with Republicans, how are they squaring that? You know, I think they're doing some magical math
03:34around the cost of the bill and the way the tax giveaways at the very top are going to happen. And
03:40I think they're better suited than me to describe their rationale for supporting the bill. But the
03:46impact on the deficit and the debt is pretty clear. We're talking trillions of new debt that my kids
03:52and everyone's, you know, kids and grandkids for generations to come will be stuck paying for.
03:58And I'm someone who thinks hardworking people, working class people in this country could use
04:02a tax cut. I'm all for bringing down taxes for hardworking people. What I'm not for is taking
04:09away health care and food assistance to pay for tax giveaways for powerful and profitable
04:13corporations. And for people, and I'm not exaggerating, people who make billions of dollars a year.
04:19We could have easily passed a tax cut bill targeted for working class and middle class
04:24Americans. And we didn't have to do anything like take away health care to pay for tax giveaways at
04:29the very top, all while jacking up the debt through deficits each year. So I think it's fiscally
04:34reckless. And I really don't understand why the Republicans went down this path.
04:38Congressman, I work for Forbes. So we talk about big numbers all day long. I want to wrap our head
04:44around this because this number is just so big. Estimates say the package adds close to $3.4 trillion
04:51to the national debt. So what exactly does that mean? If you're the average American, if you're
04:56a Pennsylvania and you Pennsylvania and you hear that you hear that the debt is going up by trillions
05:02of dollars over the next decade, what specifically does that mean for you?
05:07Look, you should be worried about it, right? Our country's fiscal standing matters.
05:11Our country's ability to pay our bills and to meet basic needs to keep us safe,
05:17to guard against threats at home and abroad, to meet the promise of things like Social Security
05:23and Medicare. All of that gets put at risk when we take on all of this debt. And again,
05:27this is not debt that this country is taking on to go fight World War II. This is debt that this
05:32country is taking on to help pay for tax giveaways to big corporations and the richest people in the
05:37history of humankind. I think it's foolish and reckless. And, you know, it's both conservative
05:43and liberal economists. It's experts who worry about our fiscal health who are sounding the alarm
05:48that just tacking on more and more debt, as you say, into the trillions is putting our country in a
05:54dangerous place. It's really, I think, fiscally irresponsible. And once again, I don't understand
06:01why my Republican counterparts have gone down this path to take on all this new debt, to put us
06:07at fiscal risk, to jeopardize the country's ability to issue new debt, to put our credit
06:13rating at risk, all to pay for tax giveaways at the very top. I think it's foolish and doesn't make
06:18any sense to me. And some Republicans are saying that that number isn't accurate, that that 3.4 trillion
06:23or adding trillions of dollars to the debt isn't accurate because you need to factor in the expansion
06:28of the tax cuts. What do you make of that, A? And B, is that a public PR spin? Are they saying
06:35that in private? I mean, what are those conversations with your Republican colleagues when it comes to the
06:40debt and deficit? Because Republicans have long touted themselves as deficit hawks.
06:46Well, the evidence is pretty clear. When we have had Republican presidents, they've ballooned the debt
06:50much more than Democratic presidents, certainly in my lifetime. And look, I don't know what my
06:56Republican counterparts really think and believe about this. But as you say, lots of them talked
07:00for a long time about being hawks on the deficit. I talk about fiscal responsibility a lot.
07:06This is fiscal irresponsibility to pass this bill. And, you know, what we have seen from the first
07:13Trump term, I wasn't in Congress yet, but the tax cuts there at the very top, they did not generate
07:20extra economic activity that would pay for the big, huge hit to the debt and the deficit each year.
07:26So that hasn't worked. And my constituents in Western Pennsylvania know this myth of trickle-down
07:31economics. It has not worked out for us. It's not worked out for the American people. It's not worked
07:36out for the country's balance sheet. And so I think, again, this is just a pretty reckless path to go down.
07:42And instead, what we should have done, what we should do, is tax relief for the wide expanse of
07:49American people, or working class, middle class, you name it, and to ask those who make hundreds of
07:55millions and billions of dollars to pay a little more in taxes. That's what this country has
07:59traditionally done. I sometimes cite the top tax rates when conservative Republican Dwight Eisenhower
08:05was president. They were double, if not more than double, what they are now for the richest Americans,
08:09who I know can afford to pay a little more. Congressman, I would love to pick your brain
08:14just a bit on the timing of some of these features that are going into effect from the legislation.
08:19Some of the Medicaid changes go into effect after the 2026 midterm election. Some of the tax cuts
08:25are happening before. Do you think that timing is political in nature? What do you make of that?
08:31I do think it's political. I think it's clearly political. And I'll tell you, I was taking some
08:35questions today from some union workers in the building trades to ask me about the impact of
08:40this tax bill on overtime pay. And I was glad to see there's a little bit in there to give a
08:45deduction for overtime pay. I think it should be more generous. But here's the thing, that expires
08:50in 2028. But what doesn't expire is tax cuts for someone who makes a billion dollars a year.
08:56It doesn't make sense. Again, I think it exposes just a really reckless approach from President Trump
09:03and congressional Republicans here. Congressman, I would love to get your take
09:07and turn to things abroad and the situation specifically in the Middle East. Last month,
09:12the United States bombed multiple Iranian nuclear sites involving us in a war between Iran and Israel.
09:19President Trump announced days after that, that the two countries reached a ceasefire agreement
09:22after tumultuous 12 days of fighting. Now, President Trump says Iran wants to meet with the U.S.
09:29for talks. What do you make of where diplomacy now goes from here?
09:34Look, I think diplomacy can succeed. I think it was important that the president secured a ceasefire
09:40agreement between the Israelis and the Iranians. And as I'm sure you know, and your viewers know,
09:45the Trump administration was pursuing diplomacy with the Iranians before the decision to strike.
09:51I think it's wise, given how weakened the Iranians are, to try to reach an agreement to limit
09:58and make it impossible for them to obtain a nuclear weapon, which I think would be disastrous
10:02for our interest and for the region. And so I would urge any administration, I urge the last one,
10:09I urge this one, to try to reach a deal that can constrain the Iranians' ability to develop a
10:14nuclear weapon. We've got pretty clear data that when there was a nuclear agreement in place,
10:19the Iranians were enriching less uranium than they were able to enrich once the Trump administration
10:25took us out of the nuclear deal with the Iranians. That tells us that a deal with, I think,
10:31strict scrutiny and safeguards can work. The devil will be in the details. But I very much encourage
10:36this administration to get back to the negotiating table in diplomatic talks and try to hammer out a
10:42deal that can protect us and our interest in the region. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
10:47he touted the U.S. strikes as a historic victory that has already changed the face of the Middle East.
10:54What are your thoughts on that characterization? Well, I think we've seen some jockeying back and
11:00forth from our own intelligence and defense community's assessment of the attacks. And as
11:05a member of the Armed Services Committee, as you can imagine, I won't get into the kinds of briefings I
11:10receive in those classified settings. But let's start with number one, I share the goal that the
11:15Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon, period. I'm also someone who believes deeply, and I've thought
11:20this, whether there was a Democratic president or a Republican president, that we've seen presidents
11:25for too long ignore Congress's constitutional power here to decide whether we send Americans to war.
11:31And in my book, certainly sending Americans over the airspace of a foreign country and dropping bombs
11:37is the kind of conduct that only the Congress can authorize in this kind of strike. And so I've been
11:43disappointed to see this president do that. I've been disappointed in the past
11:47to see Democratic and Republican presidents ignore Congress. And I think Congress has to step in
11:52to assert its role and to frankly stand up for the American people who get to decide whether we send
11:57Americans into the hell of war, as I say. I'm a veteran of the war in Iraq. I know what it is to
12:03see our country deliberate and deliberate poorly, to be frank, as they did 20 plus years ago with the
12:10decision to invade Iraq.
12:11And to that point, Congressman, after the U.S. struck the Iranian nuclear sites just a few weeks ago, there were
12:18real fears of a potential World War III, the United States entering another war in the Middle East. As someone
12:25who is a veteran, who was deployed to the Middle East, I mean, do you share those fears right now?
12:30Yes. And I don't want to see us embroiled in another Middle Eastern war with who knows what
12:39timeline to end. So I'm glad to see that this ceasefire was brokered between the Israelis and the
12:44Iranians. I hope that it can hold. I hope that diplomacy can be successful with the Iranians to
12:49reach some agreement to block their development of a nuclear weapon and to give us some pretty strict
12:54safeguards in place. But certainly I don't want to see young Americans fighting in another
12:59forever war in the Middle East. And I don't think that's a partisan position. I think if you ask
13:03veterans of my generation, Republican or Democrat, they tell you the same thing. They want our
13:07government to be much, much more careful about committing American lives and American treasure to
13:12fight. And I don't think it's in our interest to send Americans off to fight another war in the
13:16Middle East right now. Congressman, I would love to end the conversation on a bipartisan note. And I really
13:20enjoy my conversations with members of the four country caucus, because I think that Democrat or
13:25Republican, when you're in this caucus, you really want to try to find
13:29areas of agreement, areas of common ground, places where you can find solutions. So you
13:34introduced a new version of the Railway Safety Act with Republican four country caucus member
13:39Nicola Loda back in February, two years exactly to the day after the devastating train derailment
13:44that affected areas and communities in both Western Pennsylvania as well as Ohio. Can you talk to us
13:51first about the legislation? I think it's really important, as you said, you know, my constituents in
13:55Western Pennsylvania and our neighbors in East Palestine and beyond in Ohio lived through just a
14:01horrible day when the Norfolk Southern train derailed and we saw that toxic fireball into the sky. I mean,
14:06people all over the country saw it on the news. And while the news isn't paying as much attention
14:11anymore, we still need rail safety legislation. I think it's so important. That's been bipartisan.
14:17Nick Loda, fellow Naval Academy grad, four country caucus members, you say, has been a great partner in that
14:22fight along with Mike Rooley, who represents that part of Ohio. I think we can get this done. I think it's one of
14:29those rare opportunities where you've got Democrats and Republicans who know we need rail safety to get done. And for
14:35me, the four country caucus has been a place where I know I can find a willing Republican partner on issues where we can
14:42find some common ground. And I think what I and plenty of us in the group take to it is we all know what it is to put our
14:49country first. We've worn the uniform. We've served in different ways across a variety of regions and
14:55branches of service. But that mission first mentality means when there's a place that we can find common
15:01ground. I know those guys and gals are willing to try to work together. We need a little more of that
15:05in Congress, to be honest with you right now. And so then to that note, I mean, what's next for this
15:10legislation? I hope we can get a hearing and a transportation infrastructure committee where one of the
15:15committees I serve. I've made this point before, but it was one of the only bills that then President
15:21Biden and then candidate Trump agreed and supported. And so now with J.D. Vance as vice president, who
15:27was one of my Senate leads on this bill, and President Trump and Democrats, Republicans in the
15:33Congress supporting the Railway Safety Act, let's pass the bill. That's my message to Republican
15:38leadership. As you see, you've got bipartisan buy-in. Let's get this thing passed into the
15:42president's desk to get signed. Congressman, I really appreciate the time today. I appreciate
15:46the conversation. You are welcome back anytime. Thanks for joining me. Thanks for having me on.
Comments