Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by now, enough of the harsh reality of the Republican tax plan has been discovered by Americans. That is why most are opposed. They oppose a huge transfer of wealth to those who don't need it from the majority of middle class Americans who do need help.

They are against giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the largest corporations and the richest Americans with increased borrowing on our children and grandchildren. Their proposal would cost about $2.3 trillion in increased debt and interest.

They are raising taxes on almost 9 million middle-income people with very high medical bills. The Alzheimer's tax is a bad idea and people hate it.

People noticed that the huge permanent tax breaks for businesses and the wealthy--they have got theirs--but the tax relief for middle-income Americans is temporary and will disappear over time.

By 2023, the average American who makes $30,000 a year or less will see a tax increase. By 2027, all tax brackets under $75,000 are going to see a tax increase. Because the Republicans will change the way that tax brackets are adjusted for inflation, we are going to see people pulled up into ever higher tax rates--a stealth tax increase. For middle class Americans, their tax relief is a political football while the rich and the powerful are protected.

Of course, there are other strange things that are going to come out on an ongoing basis because of the crazy way this has been put together, and it is still being massaged behind the scenes. For example, we found just last weekend that some professionals who make between $500,000 and $650,000 a year are going to pay a marginal tax rate of over 100 percent. For that extra $100 they make, they are going to pay $107 in taxes. Absolutely insane.

People are noticing that this proposal is triggering spending cuts for Medicare--$25 billion scheduled for next year--and Medicaid cuts for the elderly and disabled are on the horizon.

There are more reasons to oppose this proposal than I have time to list here this morning, but perhaps the most fundamental flaw has not been given nearly enough attention. The Republicans would change taxation based on how you make your money, not how much you make.

The very highest taxes will be on the way that 80 percent of Americans make their income. W-2 salary and wages are going to pay the highest rate. It is going to be collected on each paycheck and very hard to cut corners.

This is going to open a whole new industry when people find that a CPA who works for a corporation making exactly the same money as somebody who is an independent professional doing exactly the same job but pays far more in taxes, people are going to cash in on a whole new industry in terms of how people can change how their income is characterized.

There will be a professional corporation, a passthrough business, a proprietor, partnerships, and closely held corporations. They will all be treated differently based on ownership, the day-to-day level of involvement, and the organizational structure. In short, all the people who employ lobbyists are going to be able to find a way to pay a lower tax rate than people who just get a paycheck for salary and wages.

Since when does reform of the tax system take this perverted form?

In fact, those people who are going to be changing the form to those other structures will be able to deduct, as corporations will, their State and local property taxes, but individuals will not. It is unfair and it is unwise. This massive transfer of wealth to the people who need it the least, financed by our children and grandchildren with higher debt, and creating a different class of taxpayer based not on how much you make but how clever you are to be able to utilize differences that are created by the army of lobbyists who are at work here on Capitol Hill. It should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the House Democratic whip lay out the case for the American public, I was struck by how stark the choices are and how much we are looking at failure at home and abroad.

We are watching the reckless action of Trump with his declaration that we are going to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, further isolating America. We are alone in this instance. People who are in the Arab world, European allies, are deeply concerned that this will have a destabilizing effect.

We are watching the countdown here as we are kind of scrambling to keep government open, when, for heaven's sake, these have been clear for months. Republicans occupy all the levels of power. Why can't they simply act to be able to send clear signals so the appropriators can work and government operates.

We have watched the expiration of the Children's Health Insurance Program, wildly popular with people across the political spectrum to be able to have this significant enhancement of health for children in this country, even more important because of the Republicans' relentless assault on the Affordable Care Act and destabilizing insurance markets. Yet State after State, including my home State of Oregon, is facing the difficult task of sending out notices to families that they are no longer going to have access to this critical healthcare.

In the backdrop of all of this, we are watching a Republican tax program which would be the largest transfer of wealth in our Nation's history paid for by mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren a trillion and a half extra debt. When you put in the fact that we will have to pay interest on that, $2.3 trillion to be able to give some of the largest corporations and the wealthiest Americans even more tax benefit, and we are neglecting fundamental responsibilities.

$2.3 trillion tax benefits for some who don't need it, and we still don't have an infrastructure plan, which the President promised a trillion dollars of infrastructure spending to rebuild and renew America.

Well, I will tell you, there would be bipartisan support for any reasonable plan going forward. In fact, we have people in the American transportation industry who are saying: Raise our taxes.

The fuel tax has been raised in over half the States, including a number of red Republican States. There is a deal to be had when AAA and the American Trucking Associations say: Let's provide the leadership, make the investment, put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work in ways that will enhance the environment, improve the economy, and give people a sense of pride that we can actually come together and get something done.

It is waiting there. Yet we are spending $2.3 trillion to largely benefit the top 1 percent and the largest corporations, and we are ignoring needs like that.

The Treasury, we are told, has been doing studies that will prove that this will just pay for itself, and the Secretary of the Treasury has been asked: Show us the studies. What is the research? Where do you pick this number out of the air that is rejected by virtually every independent economist as well as past experience?

We see nothing.

The tax bill is constantly in flux. That is one of the prices that we pay, because they never followed regular order, they didn't attempt to work on a bipartisan basis. There were no hearings held on this bill. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I was shocked. This bill changed sometimes hour by hour. They still don't know what they have passed. They are talking about changing corporate tax rates, they are talking about dealing with some of the deductions that have been taken away, like for State and local taxes. It is in a state of flux.

What we do know is what was passed in the House is wildly unpopular. How do you take a tax cut that is unpopular by 75 percent of the population? It is because people are starting to look at it, and the closer they look, the more they are going to find it distasteful.

I am hopeful that we will be able someday to come to our senses, work together on things that will actually make a difference for the American public rather than make things worse.

Mr. Speaker, why should the United States of America be the only rich country in the world that cannot protect our families from gun violence?

It doesn't have to be this way. In fact, there are a number of States that have enacted gun safety protections. And in those States that have done so, there are fewer gun deaths and there are fewer gun injuries.

My State of Oregon is one of those that has enacted them, in part, because of votes of the people, not politicians. This proposal would strip away protections of Oregonians because there are 12 States that, basically, if you are 21 and have a pulse, you can carry a firearm. Others have much less-restrictive proposals.

This eliminates the ability of States to protect its own citizens. It is shameful. It is wrong.

Someday, Congress will come to its senses and enact reasonable gun safety legislation for the country. But until we do, for heaven's sake, don't punish States that have accepted their responsibility to protect their families.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to watch the Trump administration leading America in retreat, withdrawing positions of international leadership, hollowing out the State Department, crippling us for years to come.

Last night, there was an example of that retreat right here on the floor of the House as our Republican friends were unable to address their plan for raising taxes for Americans in every State by restricting their ability to deduct State and local taxes. Why force millions of Americans to pay taxes on taxes?

Why, Mr. Speaker, is there a proposal to destabilize insurance rates across America, leading to 10 percent premium increases year after year, and to have up to 13 million additional uninsured Americans over the course of the next 10 years?

They have no answer as to why to mortgage our children's future for greater benefits for the richest and most privileged Americans. When corporations are recording record-high profits and have trillions of dollars of

profits overseas, why are we borrowing to provide more benefits to the largest corporations and wealthiest people while we are ignoring the people who visit our offices every day seeking not a sympathetic ear, but action, for example, action on the opioid crisis and the epidemic of opioid deaths claiming 64,000 Americans last year?

Our former colleague, Patrick Kennedy, whose advocacy is informed by his own struggle to overcome opioid addiction, will testify today in the other body that we could easily productively spend up to $200 billion more dealing with the crisis, helping people with recovery. The Senate is proposing to increase one ten-thousandth of that amount--not $200 billion, but $20 million--to deal with this crisis because we don't have the money, yet we are borrowing $1.5 trillion to give additional tax benefits to those who need them the least.

We are not being able to adequately help our veterans, whose needs are clear to anybody who visits the Veterans Administration hospital in their State, or provide investments in roads and bridges and transit or in water and sewer that would strengthen every community, make it safer and business more competitive.

Good policy and effective investment is possible if we are not mortgaging our children's future, borrowing vast sums of money to lavish more tax reductions on people who don't need it, while ignoring the needs of people who do, who visit offices every day here on Capitol Hill.

America does not have to be in retreat, claiming poverty, that we are helpless to meet the needs of the American people, if Congress finds the courage and the will to do its job.

Mr. Speaker, I listen to my friend from Arizona, and I wonder what planet he is on. He is concerned about his little 2-year- old, yet they finance the largest transfer of wealth in our Nation's history by adding more debt on the backs of his children, our grandchildren, and generations to come.

They want the public to have more of their money, yet they are not supporting our motion to instruct that would stop this notion that we are going to jack up premium prices 10 percent a year by destabilizing the insurance markets, the notion of these ugly surprises that the lobbyists have snuck in, and we will find out about them every single week going forward.

Reject this misguided approach. Let's work together.

Rebuild and renew America? The States can raise a gas tax. We refuse to acknowledge a straightforward proposition to do that here.

Let's reject this atrocity.

Mr. Speaker, Congress will once again take up the Farm Bill--a massive piece of legislation governing U.S. agricultural policies that is debated every five years. The Farm Bill affects everything from human health to the environment, from our national debt to the price of a gallon of milk. I've long argued that it is one of the most important bills that Congress regularly considers.

Time and time again, I've watched big agriculture businesses dominate Farm Bill negotiations, with the voices of those. who care about small and mid-sized farmers, conservation, research, and healthy food drowned out. Frustrated by the process, I've spent the past two years asking Oregon's farmers and ranchers, people in health care, nutrition, conservation, food processing and distribution, local government, and education, what they think the Farm Bill should look like.

There is clear consensus that Congress really can do better when it comes to our nation's food policy, but that will require a stronger, more unified approach.

Today, I am introducing an alternative Farm Bill, the Food and Farm Act. My bill follows four key principles to reforming our nation's food policies--focusing resources on those who need it most, fostering innovation, encouraging investments in people and the planet, and ensuring access to healthy foods. The legislation gets rid of certain expensive and inefficient subsidy programs so they can't be abused by wealthy agribusinesses. It also doubles funding to support environmental protection, invests in helping new and socially disadvantaged farmers, and ensures animals are more humanely treated.

I'm looking forward to continuing the conversation in the coming months to make sure that Congress sets a food and farm policy that works for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 17 environmental organizations opposing this legislation.

November 8, 2017.

Dear Representative, on behalf of our millions of members

and activists, we write to urge you to oppose the Republican

leadership's tax legislation, the misnamed Tax Cuts and Jobs

Act (H.R. 1). This plan would lavish huge and permanent tax

cuts to the richest 1% and corporate polluters that are

destined to be paid for by the health and environmental well-

being of communities across the country. The bill's debt-

busting tax cuts for the wealthiest are sure to mean deep

cuts to federal and state programs and safeguards that

protect our air, water, lands, and wildlife that benefit

people across this country every day. The plan puts at risk

our clean energy future by preserving tax breaks for dirty

energy sources while slashing them for cleaner forms of

energy. And if the tax plan itself weren't harmful enough, it

is also being packaged in the Senate with unrelated,

controversial legislation that hands over the pristine and

sacred Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploitation by Big

Oil.

This plan steers most of its tax breaks to the wealthiest

people in this country and corporations and adds at least

$1.5 trillion to the deficit. Americans across the country

will suffer because those tax cuts are likely to be paid for

by slashing services and safeguards that our government

provides, from healthcare to education to environmental

protection. The health of communities across the nation will

suffer if the Environmental Protection Agency is further

hampered in its mission to protect public health and hold

polluters accountable for violating laws like the Clean Air

Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. The people who work in and

benefit from America's thriving outdoor recreational economy

will take a hit if the national parks and other lands

stewarded by the Department of the Interior are forced to

suffer further cuts because of this reckless tax plan.

This tax plan also steers our nation's energy policy in the

wrong direction by leaving in place the vast majority of

existing tax preferences for polluting industries like oil,

gas, coal and nuclear and reducing, phasing-out, and

eliminating incentives for cleaner sources of energy.

Permanent tax breaks for fossil fuels dwarf those for

renewables by a margin of 7:1, yet this bill would suddenly

eliminate the tax credit for purchasing an electric vehicle,

disrupt the wind industry by reducing the credit for future

projects by a third and placing into jeopardy the eligibility

of existing projects, and eliminate the commercial solar

investment credit. While some clean energy technology credits

are reintroduced, they, too, are set to phase out. Meanwhile,

oil companies will receive a new billion dollar hand out

while only the smallest of existing preferences for fossil

fuels are eliminated--leaving more than $14 billion in

permanent annual federal subsidies untouched. Despite

rhetoric from GOP leaders that the tax code shouldn't pick

winners and losers, this bill very clearly picks polluting

energy sectors as winners yet again, putting at risk the

impressive growth of clean energy and robbing us and our

children of a cleaner future.

The GOP leadership's plan is to package this tax

legislation in the Senate with unrelated, controversial

legislation that would open up the iconic Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge to drilling. This legislation would

irreversibly damage one of America's greatest wild places and

is only being included in a desperate attempt to secure

enough votes in the Senate for tax cuts for corporations and

the wealthiest Americans. The Arctic Refuge's spectacular

landscape of rugged mountains, boreal forests, and wild

rivers supports more than 250 species including polar and

brown bears, musk oxen, and birds that migrate from all 50

states and 6 continents each year. The indigenous Gwich'in

people call the refuge's coastal plain ``The Sacred Place

Where Life Begins,'' an area that serves as the calving

grounds for the Porcupine Caribou Herd which they rely on as

a primary source of food, and for cultural and spiritual

needs. This provision is being included in an attempt to

generate $1 billion in government revenue to pay for the

package's tax cuts for the wealthy, but multiple analyses

show that it is unlikely to raise anywhere close to that

amount. In short, including drilling in the Arctic Refuge in

the tax legislation is both environmentally and fiscally

irresponsible.

For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 1 and instead

work together on legislation that will truly benefit our

communities, power our economy with clean, renewable energy,

and protect the environment that we all depend upon for our

health and well-being.

Sincerely,

350.org, Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological

Diversity, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice,

Environment America, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace,

Hip Hop Caucus, League of Conservation Voters, Natural

Resources Defense Council, Oil Change International,

Public Citizen, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society,

Union of Concerned Scientists, Voices for Progress.

Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump is going to be on Capitol Hill rallying Republicans to vote for his tax bill perfectly designed for his benefit: eliminating the alternative minimum tax, one of the few ways he pays any tax at all; abolishing the inheritance tax, allowing him to pass on tax-free hundreds of millions of dollars to his family; and expanding access to the lower passthrough tax rates for many large and profitable businesses. Donald Trump lists hundreds of passthrough entities on his financial forms.

Donald Trump is the king of debt, and this monstrosity of a tax bill is fueled by increasing the national debt $2.3 trillion and cutting taxes for the wealthy financed by increased debt burden on our children and grandchildren.

Of course, details are starting to leak out, such as special deals for baseball teams. Breaking a bipartisan commitment to the wind energy industry is already causing their stock prices to fall, jeopardizing billions of dollars of projects and putting tens of thousands of jobs at risk with the only retroactive provision in the bill breaking a bipartisan commitment that many of us worked on with the energy industry.

The Republican proposal showers riches on the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations who are not going to create jobs and raise wages. What they are going to do is buy things and make more money. What is going to happen is that, in the years ahead, taxes are going to rise for millions of Americans and even more in the future.

Now, this tax perhaps has the most cruel element--what I call the Alzheimer's tax--repealing the medical expense deduction used by over 9 million middle class Americans who saved almost $90 billion in 2015-- gone.

This stunning action places additional burdens on many elderly and vulnerable middle-income Americans trying to plan ahead for the crushing financial burden dealing with Alzheimer's. We never had a hearing on anything like this. It wouldn't stand the light of day. The American public will be cranky about this.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018 (Roll no. 631). This bill is far from fiscally responsible.

We've yet to reach a bipartisan budget agreement, thus, this NDAA's base budget authority is $77.4 billion above the cap set in the Budget Control Act. The GOP has demonstrated no concern for what this continued policy of budget-busting will do to our country's deficit. It will inhibit our ability to respond to future threats and will hollow out benefits for military personnel and veterans.

Of deep concern to me is the bill's full funding of nuclear weapons modernization and maintenance programs. The Congressional Budget Office released a report just last month highlighting that the true cost of these programs over the next 30 years will be $1.2 trillion dollars. That's more than 20 percent higher than earlier estimates. This bill fails to make the tough decisions it needs to about our defense spending.

The legislation does take several steps in the right direction. It expresses a sense of Congress that climate change is a direct threat to national security, raises military pay by 2.4 percent and includes measures to counter Russian aggression. The bill also authorizes 3,500 visas to the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program--a program I worked to establish to help our Afghan allies seek refuge in the United States after they become the target of threats because of their assistance to U.S. personnel.

However, the fiscal reality of enacting this legislation is deeply troubling. On balance, the costs of this bill outweigh its benefits and I cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, after spending a bizarre week in the Ways and Means Committee with a moving target of the Republican tax plan, we find out, amazingly, that it is actually getting worse and worse.

We have just discovered that the Senate is going to repeal the individual healthcare mandate to to provide funding for more tax cuts for America's wealthy.

The cost of that?

There will be 13 million additional uninsured Americans, and everybody in the individual market will see their premiums increase another 10 percent next year and every year therefafter.

Well, tomorrow, Trump is going to come to Capitol Hill to hold a rally

with Republican Members to try to make some of these nervous people feel a little more comfortable. No wonder Donald Trump is eager to see this bill pass. It is designed for Donald Trump.

First, he is the self-proclaimed king of debt. Well, you got it in spades with this bill because the Republicans have raised the debt ceiling $1.5 trillion to finance these tax cuts for people who, frankly, don't need them. Because you have to pay interest on that, it is a $2.3 trillion additional burden on our children and grandchildren.

It eliminates the alternative minimum tax. Even though Trump refused to honor his commitment to release his tax returns, one was leaked to David Cay Johnston, and it showed the only reason he paid substantial taxes in 2005 was because of the alternative minimum tax. Getting rid of that would save him $31 million in one year.

There is a special break for passthrough entities. It is, theoretically, for small businesses, but many of the passthrough entities are not small businesses. They include hedge funds. Donald Trump's disclosure form lists hundreds of passthrough entities. That is how he does business.

Of course, the biggest and most outrageous loophole is to completely eliminate the inheritance tax over the next 10 years. This will save a couple thousand people, extraordinarily wealthy people, $172 billion that would otherwise come to the government to be able to fund programs for our veterans, deal with the opioid crisis.

Donald Trump will be able to pass off hundreds of millions, maybe a billion or two, tax free. Remember, most of that money had never been taxed in the first place. You don't become a billionaire on W-2 income. It is all appreciated, untaxed capital.

Well, it also shatters a bipartisan agreement for alternative energy. Donald Trump is doubling down on energy of the past, trying to breathe life into a failing coal industry. Their bill would break a bipartisan agreement for wind energy, which we carefully negotiated on a bipartisan basis, and the industry has gone ahead and pledged billions of dollars.

Eliminating that agreement, the only retroactive provision in the bill, puts at jeopardy billions of dollars of investment and tens of thousands of jobs. Score one for Donald Trump.

But the worst element of this bill, I think--and there is a lot to choose from--is its Alzheimer's tax. It would deny the medical exemption to over 9 million middle class families to be able to deduct extraordinary medical expenses.

Think of a family that is trying to cope with the challenges of a loved one with Alzheimer's. This costs them tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars in a year. It takes away the tax deduction from them.

This is an outrage. It is made for Donald Trump and large corporations, but, sadly, it increases taxes on many middle-income Americans, especially with the Alzheimer's tax, denying some of the middle class families in the most difficult circumstances a little tax relief. It is inexcusable.

They couldn't defend it in committee. Let's see how the Republicans defend it on the floor of the House. But more important, let's see how they defend that to 9 million American families.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy.

I was listening to our friend from Louisiana, and I sympathize with much of what he was saying. I have been working on flood insurance reform for 20 years.

We are caught in a dynamic here where it is never really good enough and there are challenges for people who played by the rules at the time.

The problem is that we are not doing a good job of evaluating, moving forward, and making the changes. It is true that some of this has an impact on Louisiana. I am sensitive to that. But at the same time, there are policies that have been resisted by some of those same state leaders.

We must swallow hard and understand that we are on a path here that impacts people all across the country. We do not have accurate flood maps, and people resist updating them. We have many people who are paying far less than the actuarial costs for their flood insurance. There are millions more who are subsidizing all this because they are paying unfair premiums. We do not invest in pre-disaster mitigation. We will save $4 in disaster relief for each dollar we invest upfront to protect property and lives.

I am prepared to support the underlying bill. It is not perfect. There are changes that I would make. I understand some of the challenges that people are going to suggest in terms of the impact on some lower-income citizens. I sympathize with that, but the answer is not to continue to keep people in harm's way. The answer is not to rebuild people's homes right back where they are going to be putting their property and their families at risk. We

should not continue to resist reform, because it is hard. Ultimately, that adds to the price tag and it adds to the dislocation.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we don't lose an opportunity to start changing this situation.

When the floods came in Houston, I got calls from some reporters because I had been dealing with problems in Houston going back 20 years. This is an example of where we failed to deal with repetitive flood loss and where we have watched unchecked sprawl put millions of people at risk for greater harm.

This bill isn't perfect, but I hope that it starts the process where we can come together as it goes through the legislative process. I hope we can make adjustments to start us along that path, and that we start swallowing hard, making sure that everybody gives up a little.

The Federal Government needs to invest more. People need to stop building in harm's way. We need to do a better job of flood recovery and pre-disaster mitigation. I think this bill represents a good faith start along that path, and I hope we can use it as a foundation for further progress.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time.

I have enjoyed listening to the debate back and forth. There is no area in Congress that I have spent more time on, over the course of the last 20 years, than dealing with flood insurance. I was the author of the last major piece with our former colleague, Doug Bereuter. I agree with much of what was said on both sides.

There are remaining significant problems. Insurance is not priced properly. It is not that it is too expensive or it is too cheap, it is not priced properly. We have some winners and losers now, but too many people are subsidized by the majority.

We are not doing all that we can. The Federal Government ends up holding the bag for billions of dollars for unnecessary flood damage with storm after storm after storm; and, by the way, there are more on the way.

It doesn't have to be this way. Part of the problem is that because, inevitably, when we talk about reform, it costs money, and there are some people who end up paying more. It is easy not to update the maps. It is easy not to have people pay actuarial rates. It is easy not to force local governments to do their job and not allow building in harm's way.

I strongly agree that, in times past, low-income and minority people were subjected to real problems and more flooding than they should have been. But now is the time to try and pivot and do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of groups that are supporting this legislation.

National Association of REALTORS (NAR), National

Association of Home Builders (NAHB), Property and Casualty

Insurers Association of America (PCI), American Insurance

Association (AIA), Reinsurance Association of America (RAA),

Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers (CIAB), National

Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU),

Financial Services Roundtable (FSR), Mortgage Bankers

Association (MBA), American Land Title Association (ALTA),

The SmarterSafer Coalition, National Wildlife Federation

(NWF), National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), National

Apartment Association (NAA), Community Mortgage Lenders of

America (CMLA), Commercial Real Estate Finance Council

(CREFC), Real Estate Services Providers Council, Inc.

(RESPRO), The Real Estate Roundtable, Leading Builders of

America, The Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), Building

Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International.

The Realty Alliance, Habitat for Humanity, Institute of

Real Estate Management (IREM), International Council of

Shopping Centers (ICSC), Association of Bermuda Insurers and

Reinsurers (ABIR), Wholesale & Specialty Insurance

Association (WSIA), Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

(SBE Council), Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship

(CRS), Coalition to Reduce Spending, American Consumer

Institute, CCIM Institute, Council for Affordable and Rural

Housing, NAOIP, The Commercial Real Estate Development

Association, National Association of Real Estate Investment

Trusts (Nareit), National Affordable Housing Management

Association, National Association of Housing Cooperatives,

National Leased Housing Association, Taxpayers for Common

Sense, R Street Institute, National Taxpayers Union (NTU).

Mr. Speaker, the list is an interesting collection. It includes environmental groups, consumer groups, housing advocates, businesses, fiscal watchdogs, and taxpayer

advocates. And all of them don't agree with every detail. Many of them would identify with some of the debates, but they agree that this bill is a step in the right direction, and we should use it.

What we vote on today--and I hope that it passes, I am going to vote for it--is not the last word. As it wends its way through the legislative process, if we all do our job of making it better, we can have that high-five moment that I think we all look forward to.

Mr. Speaker, since its inception, public broadcasting has truly remained both a national and local institution offering educational programming for youth, emergency communications, cultural programs, and providing for the unique broadcasting needs of rural and small towns. In fact, more than 170 million Americans rely on public broadcasting every month.

Fifty years ago, the enactment of the Public Broadcasting Act created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and led to the establishment of the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Today, I commemorate this law's 50th anniversary signing and celebrate the critical services public broadcasting continues to provide as America's most trusted source of news and information.

It's no surprise that an overwhelming majority of Americans want to maintain or even increase the federal contribution. That's why Congress, time and time again, has committed to funding public broadcasting through the appropriations process. Each federal dollar dedicated to public broadcasting leverages six private dollars, usually voluntary contributions.

My colleague, Ryan Costello, and I founded the bipartisan Congressional Public Broadcasting Caucus to unite Members of Congress who understand that public broadcasting's mission is alive, well, and deserving of our support. We'll continue working to highlight the importance of the service, the needed federal support, and the valuable contributions to our citizenry.

Mr. Speaker, as time goes on, people are going to have a chance to look at the details of the Republican tax plan. It is clear that the benefits are concentrated to those who need help the least, ignoring those who need help the most, and producing an unaffordable deficit in the future.

But one of the most disturbing elements of this is that the Republican plan would gut the agreement that we negotiated in good faith with the wind energy industry to be able to wean them off tax subsidies. It was phased down in exchange for that certainty. The industry has up to $50 billion that is at risk by having the Federal Government pull the rug out from underneath them.

We were well on the path towards sustainability with a clean American bill--low carbon energy. It puts at risk 50,000 jobs as a result of the reversal in course, and it raises questions for American business whether or not they can trust the American Congress to keep a deal.

This is an element that must be changed. We must respect the agreement that we made and protect the massive investment in manufacturing and employment.

Mr. Speaker, the exercise my Republican friends are going through with their budget and tax cut proposal would be amusing if the consequences were not so serious.

Coming to Congress, I worked hard to earn a position on the House Ways and Means Committee, which has been the focal point for critical decisions in the past dealing with tax reform, with Social Security. I respected its historic role and the way that its members worked together in a thoughtful and bipartisan basis.

Unfortunately, unlike what has happened for other major tax reform efforts, currently there has been no effort for laying the groundwork, working with people in both parties, dealing with the hard decisions that are necessary for tax reform that will move our country forward. My Republican friends refuse to deal with the heavy legislative lifting necessary for true reform.

In fact, my Republican friends now have given up on tax reform. They are rushing through, in a matter of days, not reform but as big a tax cut as they can possibly get, predicated on strong-arming their Members with narrow control in Congress and disregarding the fundamentals of responsible budgeting.

The budget resolution that the House will soon be considering by the Republicans to enact their tax cut via the process known as reconciliation is a fantasy. Read it carefully. It is predicated on increasing our national debt $1.5 trillion, when previously they promised that their tax reform would be budget neutral.

It is predicated on $4 trillion of unspecified budget cuts that will be concentrated on Medicare, Medicaid, and the other programs that Americans care the most deeply about.

The proof for this fantasy is the fact that even though Republicans have an ironclad grip on the appropriations process in both the House and the Senate and they don't have to worry about filibusters, they don't need any Democratic votes at all, but they still cannot summon the courage of their convictions to implement the beginning of this strategy.

It doesn't have to wait for 2 or 4 or 10 years. They could start now with the

budget cutting that they are relying upon for this fantasy budget, but they know that the American people won't stand for it and their own Members wouldn't vote for those cuts now even though there is nothing stopping them.

That is why it is absolutely essential that, even if they are modestly successful with this reckless agenda, that we take steps to prevent the resulting fiscal train wreck, because we have seen deficits explode in the past where rosy projections about economic growth and stern budget cuts fail to materialize.

The landmark 1986 tax reform legislation, the last time we had real tax reform, by the way, predicated on bipartisan cooperation and a lot of hard work, had no discernible impact on economic growth, even though it was, in fact, worth it.

As a result, I will be offering standalone legislation and amendments in the Ways and Means Committee to establish a circuit breaker that will suspend the tax cuts if the rosy projections fail to materialize. If deficits explode and budgets are not cut according to their plan, then the American people should be spared the economic chaos by calling a timeout and rolling back these reckless proposals, allowing us to catch our breath and hopefully develop better policy based on bipartisanship and facts, not fantasy.

America deserves a far-better vision than the Republican budget fantasy and the reckless tax cuts that they are pushing so hard to enact. At a minimum, we should have a circuit breaker to stop it if they can't follow through on their promises.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote yesterday on the passage of H.R. 3551, the C-TPAT Reauthorization Act of 2017 (Roll Call No. 569), I would have voted ``aye.'' This legislation would reauthorize a program at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that encourages cargo importers, carriers, and other entities involved in international trade to cooperate with CBP to strengthen global supply chain security.

Had I been present for the vote on the passage of S. 504, the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Business Travel Cards Act of 2017 (Roll Call No. 570), I would have voted ``aye.'' This bill would permanently authorize CBP's ability to issue travel cards that provide U.S. business leaders and government officials with short-term entry to APEC countries.

Had I been present for the vote on approving the Journal (Roll Call No. 571), I also would have voted ``aye.''