Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately was unable to be present for a vote taken on the House floor on December 20, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

Rollcall Vote No. 472: nay.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, for years now, certainly over the last few months, we have been hearing concerns from our Republican colleagues about the exploding national debt. Yet, here they are today asking us to vote for another unpaid-for, multibillion-dollar, partisan tax cut. With the clock ticking on this lame-duck Congress and the Republicans' unchecked control here in Congress, they are rushing through another round of costly, reckless cuts.

Now, as my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the soon-to- be chairman of the Rules Committee, said, Democrats were locked out of the process for this 300-page bill. There were no hearings, no debate, no markup. It went straight to the floor with the hope that the American people aren't looking.

The thing is that the American people have made it very clear, both in polling and at the polls, that they did not support the Republicans' trillion-dollar tax cuts for wealthy corporations last time, and they certainly won't support even more tax cuts this time.

The distinguished chairman of the committee, a very thoughtful and sincere individual, talked about all of the successes of the prior tax cut. But remember what they promised when they rammed this thing through i 2017: that the corporate tax cut from 35 to 21 percent was going to unleash incredible investment in the country, creating thousands of jobs and new facilities and new investments in plants and equipment.

What has happened? This year alone, there was $800 billion in stock buybacks--let me repeat, $800 billion in stock buybacks--increased dividends that mostly go to wealthy investors, about a third of which actually go to foreign investors.

Where are all of these new investments? They weren't realized, and they weren't realized because the corporations said at the time that they don't need these crazy tax cuts. Republicans insisted on it. Part of the reason they insisted on it was because it is part of their three-step plan, which we talked about in 2017 during the debate on the tax cuts. We had charts. Here is what they are going to do: cut taxes; then complain about the additional debt; and then ask for cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in order to pay for those new debts.

That is exactly what we have seen this year. The majority leader of the Senate from my State complained the other day: Oh, these deficits are getting really high. The debt is getting really high. We need to look at these mandatory spending programs.

That is the playbook we have seen time after time after time. Let's stop pretending that my colleagues across the aisle are there for the American people. They aren't the party of fiscal responsibility or economic growth. They are the party of one thing and one thing only, and that is tax cuts for their wealthy corporate donors. This is a reflection of that truth.

The American people don't want these tax cuts, and our country can't afford them. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, just 8 months ago, the Republicans jammed through their massive, unpaid-for tax cut. Not a single Democrat voted for that bill, and for good reason. Nonpartisan experts told us that the tax cut would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy and big corporations while threatening our fiscal and economic health. It would

add more than $1 trillion to the Nation's debt. And the newest reports on the impact of the tax law further confirm those dire warnings: Corporate profits have soared, along with stock buybacks, while working-class wages remain stagnant and income and wealth inequality continue to grow.

Yet today, Republicans want to go even further, pushing their tax cut 2.0 legislation. It is not a surprise that they are extending the provisions of their tax bill. The expirations were always gimmicks to hide the true cost of the tax cut and evade the constraints on reconciliation bills.

This new legislation, once again, benefits the wealthiest Americans and adds trillions of dollars more to the Nation's debt in decades to come, further jeopardizing the Nation's already rocky long-term fiscal outlook.

This new tax cut 2.0 package, just like the one before it, is being rushed through the House with no hearings and no input from the American people. The Republican tax cut 2.0 legislation is another irresponsible tax cut for the wealthy that threatens our long-term fiscal and economic health, and we know how that story ends.

As Republicans have often demonstrated, they are committed to cutting more taxes for the rich, fretting when deficits rise, and then attacking crucial programs American families rely on, such as Medicare and Social Security, to pay for the debt increase.

Let's not add more to this three-step process. This is not the time to rush through another round of tax cuts. The rule before us would allow for passage of this irresponsible legislation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a real-life account of the raw deal Republicans gave the American people with their GOP tax scam.

Dennis, a retired constituent of mine from Louisville, who still works part time, recently wrote a letter to the Courier-Journal newspaper. He stated: ``The so-called tax cut for the middle class is going to cost me an estimated $600 more in taxes in 2018.''

Dennis pays his taxes quarterly, which is why he did these calculations now. He added in part: ``I urge people to look into this so-called great tax break for the middle class. This might change your mind on the current Members of Congress that have been misleading you to thinking they are actually working to help you, unless you are one of the big donors!''

Dennis isn't alone. By the time this scam is fully implemented, more than 80 million middle class families will see their taxes increase. That is not progress. That is a ripoff.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, just months ago, we were debating the so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. During that debate, I warned that it was the first of the Republicans' three-step plan to give to the wealthy and make hardworking families pay the price.

Republicans were successful in enacting step one, the tax scam that gave more than 80 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent. Just one company, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, is now pocketing $218 million more every week under this new law. They are not alone. These tax cuts are showering big corporations and Wall Street with taxpayer money at an obscene level. That was step one.

Step two, exploding our deficits, was confirmed this week by the Congressional Budget Office. They concluded that the GOP tax cuts will add nearly $2 trillion to the Federal debt over the next decade.

That brings us to step three. Having provided millionaires and big corporations with huge tax cuts that do little to grow our economy, the GOP has starved our government of revenues. So, naturally, they are using the resulting deficits as an excuse for massive cuts to programs that millions of Americans rely on, including Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.

That is what the amendment we are now considering would do. It would put in place a constitutionally mandated process solely designed to impose these extreme cuts. That is because it comes packaged with the GOP's new religious belief that tax cuts for the rich will save us all. They believe this despite the fact that history and nearly every respected economist will tell you that the only way we can responsibly balance our budget is to include new revenues.

So let's call this balanced budget amendment what it is: a stunt to give Republicans political cover for their deficit-exploding tax scam. The party of so-called fiscal hawks has become the party of fiscal hypocrites. They know it, and so do the American people.

While this bill may be a political gimmick, it is a dangerous one that will have dire consequences for our economy and American families. To begin with, when in effect, it would require that the entire Federal budget this year be cut by at least 20 percent. That would be not just unprecedented, it would be devastating.

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans' healthcare, infrastructure, job training, nutrition assistance, and programs that help make housing affordable and higher education attainable would all be jeopardized.

But that is not all. This amendment would put an intolerable financial strain on every State in this country, forcing them to do more with less. My State of Kentucky relies on Federal funds to cover 37 percent of the Commonwealth's budget, including 16 percent of education funding and 32 percent of transportation funding. Speaker Ryan's home State of Wisconsin relies on Federal funds to cover 24 percent of its budget. Chairman Goodlatte's home State of Virginia relies on Federal funds to cover 20 percent. All of that is at risk under this amendment.

It would not stop there. This amendment would not only threaten our ability to respond to economic crises, it would likely make them much worse. During economic downturns, Congress can help stimulate the economy by cutting taxes and increasing investments, as we did during the 2008 financial crisis. But if this amendment had been in place then, our economy would have been in serious jeopardy, facing a much higher risk of a full-on, prolonged depression and massive job losses. Should our country face another financial crisis, this amendment would be the worst policy at the worst time.

So, in sum, this amendment would threaten the retirement security of

every senior who relies on Medicare or Social Security and every working American paying into these programs now. It jeopardizes every Federal program that helps our communities grow and hardworking families succeed. It places extreme financial strain on every State in the country, and it would make it much harder for our government to respond to crises or even function effectively. Other than that, it is a great idea.

Mr. Speaker, this is terrible policy that ignores reality and real consequences and is purely intended to save Republicans' political rear ends.

It is not just me making this case. Republican Senator Bob Corker stated recently: ``Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. If we were serious about balancing the budget, we would do it. But instead of doing the real work, some will push this symbolic measure so they can feel good when they go home to face voters.''

Well said, Senator Corker. If my Republican colleagues truly believe this is a good bill and that it is good for the American people, then it is time for them to go home.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I saw a dramatic bit of evidence as to why the American people overwhelmingly reject the Republican donor relief bill known as the tax reform bill.

Chairman Brady of the Ways and Means Committee, the author of this bill, was asked why he didn't do anything in the bill to change the carried interest deduction, that provision which allows billionaire hedge fund managers to pay a lower income tax rate than tens of millions of regular Americans.

He said the middle class Americans don't care about that, working families don't. I understand why he didn't want to try to defend the protection of carried interest. There is no defense for it.

But here is why every American ought to care: Because every dollar of lost revenue that goes back to those billionaire hedge fund managers will result in cut services for the vast majority of Americans, for Medicare, for Medicaid, for Social Security, and for many others. It will add to the debt that their children and grandchildren will have to pay for.

Mr. Speaker, that is a good reason why everyone should care about this bill, why it is a scam on middle class Americans, and why it ought to be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow Kentucky native for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today, my Republican colleagues will vote to approve a historically unpopular bill.

The American people don't buy Republican claims that the bill will help middle class families. In fact, in several years, more than 83 million middle class families will see a tax hike.

The people see that Republicans have sold their souls and principles to give tax cuts to wealthy corporations and to pay back their billionaire donors. They know the Republicans have abandoned any claim to fiscal responsibility. After all, nonpartisan analyses conclude this bill will add more than $1 trillion to the debt.

But the Republican leadership has a plan to make up the difference, and it is something else. They are already working on legislation to make massive cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs families need.

This isn't tax reform. This isn't help for the middle class. It is a scam, it is fraud, and it will have dangerous, long-lasting consequences for the American people.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule and to reject this scandalous Republican donor payback legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a horror show today, this is a horror show debate, and this is a horror show process, but it is a disaster for the American people.

The tax bill we are debating today will abandon millions of American families. It showers the wealthy and corporations with massive tax cuts, and it adds $1.5 trillion to our deficits. The top 1 percent get this massive payout in the neighborhood of $500 billion; hardworking families get pocket change.

But millions don't even get that. In fact, 36 million middle class families will pay more in taxes because of this bill. Our Republican colleagues will be taking money out of the pockets of these families to give more tax cuts to the rich.

But it doesn't stop there. It never does. This is part of a dangerous three-step process that we have seen, unfortunately, far too often:

The first step, Republicans enact massive tax cuts for the rich, claiming they will generate enough growth to pay for themselves. I know my Republican colleagues desperately want the American people to believe that this is what will happen. But the record is clear. It failed in the 1980s, and it failed in the 2000s. It was an epic failure in Kansas.

This is about politics, not reality, for them, which brings us to step two. Once these cuts fail to produce the growth that they promise, Republicans will shriek about the impending doom of high deficits and debt. Then they will quickly move to step three, demanding cuts in vital programs that benefit working families throughout our country.

We have seen this act before. As I said before, it is a horror show. There is a reason why a lot of people are looking at this and saying this is the great tax scam of 2017--because it is the great tax scam of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today is not a real effort at responsible budgeting. It is a means to an end: a single-minded plan to make it easier to enact tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations, regardless of the consequences for everyone else.

If approved by the House today, an irresponsible $1.5 trillion tax bill will come to the floor in a matter of weeks. It is being rushed because Republicans don't want the American people to know what is in it. They don't want you to find out that it overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy while increasing taxes on millions of middle class families.

Rushing through legislation that impacts nearly every American family and business is reckless, and voting on a bill that rewrites our Nation's Tax Code a week or two after it is introduced without any real input from the people who will be impacted is negligent. But that is what you do when you can't defend your own policy.

And there are a lot of unjustifiable provisions in this budget. On top of massive tax cuts for the rich, it cuts vital national investments, threatening our economic progress and our national security. It cuts more than $4 trillion in mandatory spending, including nearly $2 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid alone.

The enormity of these cuts and the severity of the consequences for American families cannot be overstated. But more cuts will be coming once the Republican tax cuts blow an enormous hole in the budget. We will see a tax on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, nutrition assistance--on important benefits that help American families get ahead.

I know my Republican colleagues desperately want to believe that the tax cuts in their budget will pay for themselves and usher in a new era of economic growth--or at least they want the American people to believe that. But the record is clear, this approach has failed time and time again.

And now, even though the evidence and experts have concluded that these tax cuts will not create an economic boom but will, instead, lead to a higher concentration of wealth among the rich while dramatically increasing deficits and debt, my Republican colleagues are trying to do it again.

Everything we do in Congress should be about making the lives of American families better and more secure. We owe them a budget that invests in their future, a Tax Code that is fair, and a full and honest debate on both. This budget and the tax cuts that will follow are a failure on all fronts.

I, therefore, urge my Republican colleagues to abandon this dangerous budget and start addressing the needs and priorities of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a distinguished Member of the House Budget Committee and Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the prior speaker, my friend from California, that Arthur Laffer was also the architect of the Kansas plan, which was disastrous for that State. So citing him as a source, I would be a little bit careful.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ half minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we wind down our arguments here, once again, we have had a very fascinating discussion and, once again, we seem to disagree on virtually everything.

For instance, I have heard from the other side many times over the last few days and today that we really can't say what the impact is, the claims that we are making about whether this bill will help the rich or help the middle class or help lower income individuals, because we don't have the details. Well, that is absolutely correct; we don't have the details.

But then, if we don't have the details, how can the other side talk about the huge benefits that this proposal, this tax proposal that is yet unwritten, will provide for the middle class? And how can they deny that it will benefit the wealthy disproportionately?

We know from the outline that was released by the other side in recent weeks that they intend to eliminate the estate tax. The estate tax only benefits wealthy Americans, people with estates over $11 million for a couple.

They want to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. We know the alternative minimum tax only affects wealthy individuals. There was one estimate that the one year of President Trump's tax return that we have, that in that year alone, the alternative minimum tax, if it were repealed, would have saved him $30 million. So we know that affects very wealthy people.

We know that if you reduce the top rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, that benefits very high-income people. So we do have enough information to draw some pretty definite conclusions about the impact that the released outline, at least, will have on wealthy Americans, and we can draw some of the same conclusions about how it will hurt middle class Americans.

If, in fact, the Republican tax bill repeals the deduction for State and local taxes. In my State, there will be half a million people who will lose an average of $9,900 of deductions every year. So we absolutely know the impact that the proposal, as we know it now, will have, and I think it is fair--given that there will be no hearings on this bill--it is fair to raise the alarms about what the potential for this bill is.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now have the distinct honor of yielding 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to say that, for anyone watching this debate or watching any of our discussions out there in the country, I know it often appears that we don't get along, that we hate each other, and that we are at each other's throat, but nothing could be further from the truth.

It has been such an honor to work with Chairman Black as a member of the Budget Committee and all the Members. We do all respect each other and get along. We just have some very serious disagreements about policy. That is fair. That is what this country is about.

Once again, since I may not get to do it again as Chairman Black pursues another office and probably won't appear with me on the same program anymore, I just want to wish her the best and say what a joy it has been to work with her.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to cut to the chase: the Republican Study Committee budget is so extreme, it cannot be taken seriously. It cuts spending by $10 trillion over 10 years, which is $4 trillion more than the already irresponsible spending cuts in Chairman Black's budget.

To its credit, the RSC tells us where those cuts will come from, rather than leaving large amounts unspecified or using matching asterisks or phony economic assumptions to reduce spending.

The RSC budget cuts Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It cuts programs that ensure basic living standards, protect the environment, and help families afford college.

For 2018, the RSC budget matches the President's level for defense, including war funding. But for nondefense discretionary spending, the RSC budget provides $394 billion, which is $122 billion, or 24 percent, below the austerity cap.

There is no way this House or any House would approve an appropriations bill that inflicted a 24 percent cut on all government operations. If just two programs--veterans' programs and NIH funding-- were excluded from those cuts, everything else would be cut by more than 55 percent.

So yes, this budget claims to reach balance, but it would achieve it by making cuts that would be catastrophic. Not even Congress is that self-destructive.

I contend that the two Republican budgets actually show how dismissing the notion that revenues must be a part of any solution to restrain deficits and debt, compounded with the flawed notion that balance must be achieved in the short term, will inflict intolerable hardship on the American people.

While totally unintentional, they make a pretty compelling case that for Congress to responsibly address our debts and deficits, while funding the Federal programs and investments that the American people want and expect, raising revenues has to be part of the equation.

One of the things that amuses me, in a very kind of dark way, is that I remember so well, in 2010, when Republicans actually rode to victory in the House by claiming that we Democrats were going to cut $750 billion out of Medicare. That wasn't true, but they claimed it.

Now, in this Republican Study Committee budget, they have doubled down on that. It is not exactly double, but they are going to cut it by $898 billion. I don't think America's seniors and the disabled population would feel very good about that.

I would like to thank my colleagues for bringing that important issue to the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is fascinating to have this debate and speaking in such high-principled ways about the need to reduce deficits and debt. I don't think any Democrat would argue that we need to do something to reduce deficits and debt. We face a very dire, long-term fiscal future.

But we also lose sight of the fact that the American people expect something from their government. They expect our government to keep them safe, but they also expect their government to protect their drinking water, protect their air, to make sure that the food they eat is not dangerous, to provide law enforcement and help local law enforcement to do many things.

The budget, as well as Chairman Black's committee budget, would decimate all of those services that the American people expect from the Federal Government.

I think only about what is going on right now with Houston, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands and the enormous cost that the Federal Government is going to have to bear to help restore those communities and those territories to some degree of normalcy. That is what they expect the American Government to do. These budgets would make that all but impossible.

So we look at it both ways. Later, we will propose a Democratic alternative that actually makes those kind of investments and makes sure that the notion of American security is not just a huge military, but is a foundation of investment in human capital and research and infrastructure that will allow this economy to grow. We do it with keeping debt at the same percentage of the economy, as it is now, because we are willing to raise revenues.

On the other hand, Republican budgets, both the Republican Study Committee budget and the chairman's budget, anticipate enormous tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations--tax cuts that have been proven to do exactly the opposite of what many on the other side claim they do, which is to stimulate economic growth.

We will hear claims that, yes, we can cut taxes by $2 trillion or $3 trillion over 10 years, and they are going to be paid for by this renewal of economic activity. But history tells us that is not what happens. Not only history tells us that, but virtually all the economists in the country tell us that, too.

Goldman Sachs, Steve Mnuchin's previous employer, says that the tax cuts outlined last week would maybe create an additional 0.2 percent of growth in the economy.

CBO and the Federal Reserve say tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Even Bruce Bartlett, the author of ``Reaganomics,'' says this whole notion that tax cuts pay for themselves is nonsense. He actually said bull, which is half of what he said, but you get the idea.

This is not easy. We can speak in the darkest terms of how we are imposing this debt on our grandchildren and try to use emotional arguments. But the fact is, we are dealing with a very realistic, pragmatic dilemma, and that is: how to do what the American people expect us to do without making the future impossible.

It is not done by the Republican budgets. We think it is helped along by the Democratic alternative, and we look forward to having that debate just a little bit later this morning.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I feel like I have to be Paul Harvey for a second and talk about the rest of the story.

Because while what Mr. McClintock said was true about the initial phases of the Reagan administration, at the end of the Reagan administration, the national debt had almost tripled, and he had been forced to raise taxes a couple of times in the interim.

So, again, we can argue about how positive cutting taxes were in the Reagan administration, but the end result wasn't particularly good for the American economy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just say that we need to cut right to the chase.

It is unlikely that either the Republican Study Committee budget or the Republican Budget Committee budget could pass this House. It certainly couldn't pass the Congress.

This is all about moving the ball forward so we can push through a massive tax cut to the wealthiest Americans, with 51 votes in the Senate. That is what this day is about, and that is what this process is about.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject both the Republican Study Committee budget and the Republican Budget Committee budget, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, Democrats and Republicans are looking at the same challenges facing our country and American families. Education, healthcare, and housing costs have all increased while wages stay stagnant.

It used to be that the two parties would debate different strategies to address the problems facing the American people. Sadly, those times are behind us.

In giving millionaires, including the majority of this Congress, the President, and wealthy donors a giant tax cut, the Republican budget does not even pretend to address the problems facing the American people. Not only does it ignore working families, it increases their challenges.

The Democratic budget alternative, in stark contrast to the Republican budget, begins to address the real challenges our country faces now and in the long term.

We are less than a decade removed from the worst economic crisis in most of our lifetimes, and we have a chance to rebound in a way that builds a foundation for our country to thrive for generations, but we have to seize that opportunity.

Rather than giving resources to people and businesses that already have them, we are calling for targeted investments in programs that grow our economy, create good-paying jobs, and provide real support for working families and real security in retirement.

Rather than sending thank-you notes to the corporations that bankroll campaigns, we have an opportunity to make vital public investments that lead to a brighter future rebuilding roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure, all of which lead to good jobs now and in the long run.

Rather than giving the President a multimillion-dollar refund on taxes he refuses to disclose, we can invest in retirement security for seniors who didn't inherit millions. We can invest in affordable education so young people do not have to grow up wealthy to have a shot at earning it in their future careers.

Instead of taking healthcare away from people, straining emergency rooms, and making Americans sicker, we have an opportunity to continue investing in affordable quality healthcare for all of us, finally eliminating a great burden on American families, a burden that no other developed nation shares.

This budget is an opportunity for our country to invest in our future, and if we adopt the Republican budget plan, we will have squandered it.

Democrats believe in a government that prioritizes American families, and they should be the priorities of this Congress. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget and support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a distinguished member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan), a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, it is clear that we have a very different budget and a very different understanding of the challenges facing our country. We see that so many Americans are working harder and longer and can't remember the last time they got a raise.

We know families are worried about how to pay for college, or if their parents' retirement is secure, or if they will ever be able to afford to stop working. And we know that trillions of dollars in tax cuts for millionaires and large corporations will turn these fears of hardworking Americans families into reality.

Just a few minutes ago, my Republican colleague from Ohio talked about what the American people want. On many of those things, we agree. But I know one thing the American people don't want. They don't want massive tax cuts for the top 1 percent of Americans.

The Democratic budget rejects tax cuts for the wealthy. We invest in programs that will grow our economy, create good-paying jobs, provide real support for working families and real security in retirement. We make education

and childcare more affordable, and we support policies to help every American get the healthcare that they need.

Those are the priorities of our budget, and they are the priorities of the American people.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Chairwoman, I suppose I should be saying thank you. I will get a huge tax cut under the Republican tax cut plan, as well the majority of those people sitting here--the majority of our colleagues in Congress--who are, like me, fortunate enough to be millionaires already.

Forgive me if I am in no mood to say thank you, because I was elected not just to represent millionaires, but to represent aspiring millionaires, working families, seniors, and veterans. For all of them, for anyone who isn't already a millionaire, this budget is a slap in the face.

With all of the problems facing our country right now, all the people struggling to get ahead, it is unfathomable to me that this Congress could look at people like me and say: Hey, that guy, let's give him more money. In fact, let's give all millionaires hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax cuts.

Really, I am small potatoes. President Trump, according to his financial disclosure, will get hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts.

Where is all that money coming from? If you are listening to this and you are not a millionaire, probably from you.

To pay for our own tax cuts and the tax cuts for wealthy donors, Republicans are going to increase taxes on 45 percent of American families with children. That is just the start. Seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families will see their healthcare cut.

Poor seniors will lose benefits that help them keep food on the table and their homes heated in the winter. Veteran benefits, meals for hungry schoolchildren, programs that make education affordable and job training available, investments that generate economic growth and create good-paying jobs are all at risk in this budget.

They are also cutting corporate tax rates, which we will be paying for by plunging our Nation into deeper and deeper debt, giving multinational giants another advantage over small- and mid-size businesses in the name of perpetuating the myth of supply-side economics.

Supply-side failed. They renamed it trickle-down, but nothing trickled down. Now it is job creators. When that fails, maybe they will call it ``I get mine now; you get yours later--maybe.'' But whatever they name it, it is a sham. This plan is a hoax on the American people, and it will make most people's lives more difficult.

So forgive me if I am in no mood to say thank you for the extra money in my pocket. With millions of Americans struggling and scraping to get ahead, and with my tax cut increasing their challenges, I cannot begin to justify my extra money, and, quite frankly, I cannot fathom how my Republican colleagues are able to justify theirs.

With this budget, Republicans aren't just passing the buck, they are pocketing it. Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican budget.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget we are debating here today is a shockingly extreme document that gives to the rich and takes from everyone else. It calls for more than $5 trillion in spending cuts that threaten our economic progress and our national security, and it willfully ignores the needs and priorities of the American people.

This budget isn't about conservative policy or reducing the size of our debt and deficits. It is not even about American families. This budget is about one thing: using budget reconciliation to ram through giant tax giveaways to the wealthy and big corporations and to do it without bipartisan support.

This budget and the tax cuts it exists to support are built on a foundation of lies. They are part of a dangerous and deceptive three- step process Republicans have used before with serious consequences for our Nation and the American people.

This is what they do. First, my Republican colleagues call for massive tax cuts for the rich, claiming they will generate so much economic growth, that they will pay for themselves. Last week, congressional Republicans announced a $2.4 trillion tax cut plan that benefits the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Yes, I said trillions with a T.

For example, under this tax plan, millions of families making $50,000 a year would be subject to a tax increase, while millionaires get a $230,000 average tax cut. That is not tax reform. That is a shakedown.

In total, individuals will see their taxes go up by more than $450 billion, while corporations, wealthy pass-through entities, and rich estates get a tax cut totaling $2.9 trillion.

One might justifiably ask why anyone would want to do that. After all, the income disparity in the United States is greater than almost every other country on Earth, and it is getting larger. Just a few decades ago, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earned about one- fourth of all national income. Today, it is close to 40 percent. Yet, once this plan is fully phased in, 80 percent of the entire tax cut in this plan goes to just the top 1 percent, while 45 percent of all households with children see a tax increase.

You could be someone who gets a $1 million salary, owns billions in corporate stock, be a partner in a hedge fund, or just the heir to a massive fortune, no matter the type of millionaire you are, Republicans make sure you will get a tax cut. No matter how many times President Trump, Secretary Mnuchin, or my colleagues across the aisle say it and how much they hope the American people will fall for it, these tax cuts won't pay for themselves.

That is not just my argument. That is the conclusion of the Federal Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office, and respected economists of all stripes.

Conservative economist and former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said: ``There is just no evidence that the tax cuts actually pay for themselves.''

Even Goldman Sachs, Secretary Mnuchin's former employer, says any growth will be minimal, maybe up to two-tenths of a percent.

Bruce Bartlett, the man who wrote Reaganomics, which codified the trickle-down theory, told Congress last week that he now thinks it is: ``bull.'' Well, that is half of the word he used, but you get the idea.

The historical record is clear. We went through this in the early 1980s, the early 2000s under George W. Bush, and we recently saw it play out to disastrous effect in Kansas. Now congressional Republicans want to try it again.

We all know the truth. The tax cuts in this plan will increase deficits and debt by approximately $2.4 trillion in the first 10 years alone and trillions more in the years after. These aren't special, supernatural tax cuts. They aren't going to magically defy expert analysis, historical precedence, and empirical evidence. This budget will

blow enormous holes in the Federal budget, which brings me to the second part of the Republican deception.

When the growth fails to happen as promised and these tax cuts keep digging our economy down deeper and deeper, Republicans will again bemoan the horrors of deficits and debt.

These cries will lead us to the third and final part of the plan. They will call for congressional action, not to roll back the tax cuts to the wealthy that caused all the damage, but for drastic cuts to important programs that the American people need and support. Education, healthcare, research, infrastructure, and veterans' benefits are already threatened in this budget. It includes an astonishing $5.4 trillion in spending cuts; $1.5 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid alone. It even assumes $49 billion in cuts to veterans' benefits.

The enormity of these cuts and the severity of the consequences for American families cannot be overstated, but more cuts will be coming if my Republicans get their way with this budget. We will see more attacks on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, nutrition assistance, on important benefits and services that help American families get ahead, and on key investments that keep our economy and our Nation strong.

To be clear, and with all due respect to my friend and colleague from Tennessee, by voting on this budget, for this budget, they are jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 515,000 hungry children in Tennessee so that the wealthiest person in that State, who has a net worth of $8.8 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Democrats have a different budget and a far different vision for our country. Our priorities reflect the priorities of the American people.

We invest in programs that will grow our economy, create good-paying jobs, and provide real support for working families; public investments that lead to a brighter future, such as rebuilding roads, bridges, and other vital infrastructure; retirement security for seniors now and for millions of Americans who fear they will never be able to afford to stop working; affordable education so that young people will be able to compete for the careers of the future; affordable, quality childcare for hardworking parents; and affordable quality healthcare for all Americans.

We believe in a government that helps individuals with nowhere left to turn and a Tax Code that helps families get ahead. Those are American priorities, and they should be the priorities of this Congress.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would note for my colleague from Indiana that by voting for this budget, he will force 1,150,553 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Indiana to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $8 billion, can get a massive tax break.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to note for my friend and colleague from Florida that by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 1,448,000 hungry children in Florida so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $13.2 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chair, I would note, for my friend and colleague, that by voting for this budget, he will force 678,763 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Oklahoma to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $10.2 billion, gets a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlemen from California an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chair, I want to note for my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 2,319,000 hungry children in California so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $62.4 billion, gets a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to note for my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he will force 2,154,337 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Ohio to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $6.2 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

And just in case my colleagues on the other side are wondering where this information comes from as to the wealthiest person in each State, it is from that notoriously leftwing magazine, Forbes, this year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chair, I would like to note for my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 809,000 hungry children in Georgia so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $12.6 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I would note for my colleague that by voting for this budget, he will force 594,596 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Arkansas to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $38.5 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from South Carolina, and I certainly have a great deal of respect for his thoughtfulness. But I also must note that if he votes for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 366,000 hungry children in South Carolina so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $3 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I would note for my colleague from Illinois that, by voting for this budget, he will force 2,066,376 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Illinois to pay more for lifesaving Medicare, all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $8 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who is the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note for my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 2,060,000 hungry children in Texas so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $38.2 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would note for my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he will force 1,895,558 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Michigan to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $5.9 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and an alumnus of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note for my colleague that by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 200,000 hungry children in Arkansas all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $38.5 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would note for my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he will force 1,519,461 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Georgia to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $12.6 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) the Democratic Caucus chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note for my friend and colleague that by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 216,000 hungry children in Minnesota so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $5.4 billion, gets a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would note for my colleague that by voting for this budget, he will force 1,895,558 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in Michigan to pay more for lifesaving Medicare all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has net worth of $5.9 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to note for my colleague that by voting for this budget, he is jeopardizing meals and food assistance for 734,000 hungry children in Pennsylvania all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $3.8 billion, gets a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from Florida an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleague that, by voting for this budget, he will force 941,169 seniors, disabled individuals, and other seriously ill people in South Carolina to pay more for lifesaving Medicare, all so that the wealthiest person in his State, who has a net worth of $3 billion, can get a massive tax cut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi), a distinguished member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time both sides have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from Washington an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge), a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee and a fellow rabid Cleveland Indians fan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we have had numerous letters submitted to us taking a position in opposition to this budget resolution, and I think they are pretty compelling, and I would like to read from some of them.

Here is a letter from the Main Street Alliance:

Main Street Alliance, a network of small business owners

throughout the country, strongly urges you to oppose H. Con.

Res. 71, the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. This budget,

if enacted into law, would cut $3.4 trillion from Medicaid,

Medicare, Social Security, education, employment and

training, food and housing assistance, and infrastructure

spending over the next 10 years. This will significantly harm

small business owners and their employees, damage local

economies, and decimate State budgets.

We urge you to protect Main Street small business owners,

working families, communities, and economies, and oppose the

House budget resolution. Reject any budget that enables tax

cuts for the very wealthy and large profitable corporations

to lose revenue, since it will force deep cuts in vital

programs that harm small business.

This letter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare:

On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the

National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare,

I urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the House fiscal year

2018 budget resolution, and the Republican Study Committee

budget. Instead, I ask you to support the Democratic Caucus,

Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Congressional Black

Caucus budgets.

The committee-passed budget resolution would slash funding

to Medicare and Medicaid, repeal the Affordable Care Act, and

make it easier for Congress to cut Social Security, all to

pay for massive tax cuts for the very wealthy and profitable

corporations.

This from the American Public Health Association:

On behalf of the American Public Health Association, a

diverse community of public health professionals who champion

the health of all people and communities, I write in strong

opposition to the House FY 2018 budget resolution, H. Con.

Res. 71. This proposal does not eliminate sequestration and

would drastically cut nondefense discretionary spending. Such

cuts would devastate our Nation's public health and safety

net system and would have a disproportionate impact on our

Nation's most vulnerable citizens.

The proposal also includes the House passed repeal of the

Affordable Care Act that would force millions to lose

coverage, end the Medicaid expansion, drastically reduce

Federal funding for the Medicaid program, and lead to

increased cost and fewer benefits for millions of Americans.

This letter from the AFSCME, American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees:

On behalf of the 1.6 million members of AFSCME, I urge you

to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the fiscal year 2018 budget

resolution approved by the House Budget Committee and

scheduled to be considered in the full House.

This budget would impose considerable hardship on many

Americans in order to slash taxes for the wealthy and

corporations to boost defense spending. Rather than

increasing revenues for investment that creates jobs and

spurs economic growth, the proposed budget creates a fast-

track process for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit

corporations and the wealthy.

In fact, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center,

the Trump GOP tax cut would largely benefit the richest 1

percent. The budget also relies on the gimmicks of dynamic

scoring and sham accounting, hiding the true cost of

unnecessary and harmful tax cuts.

And this, from AARP:

Proposals creating a defined contribution premium support

program, restricting access by raising the age of

eligibility, or allowing hospitals and providers to

arbitrarily charge customers higher prices than Medicare can

make healthcare unaffordable for older Americans. These

proposals do little to actually lower the cost of healthcare

but simply shifts cost from Medicare on to individuals, many

of whom cannot afford to pay for their care.

Efforts to reduce or cap Medicaid funding could endanger

the health, safety, and care of millions of individuals who

depend on the essential services provided through this

program.

Furthermore, caps could result in significant cost shifts

to State governments unable to shoulder the cost of care

without sufficient Federal support.

Proposals to block grant the program or impose work

requirements will make SNAP less responsive and accessible in

times of need, and without clear work requirement exemptions

for the elderly and disabled, would bar these individuals

from receiving SNAP benefits.

We ask you to reject the cuts proposed in H. Con. Res. 71.

We stand ready to work with you to develop proposals that

protect and improve Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a robust debate. We had a robust debate in the Rules Committee yesterday, and we have had robust debates in the committee markup and during hearings, as well, over the priorities of this country.

As we close this debate tonight, recognizing there will be a few minutes tomorrow for comments, I just want to say that, since this could very well be the last time that I get to appear in Budget Committee business with Chairman Black, I have truly cherished the 9 months that we have spent working together.

The chairman is a gracious, fair, thoughtful, and very, very collegial individual, and I wish her the best in her campaign, at least through the primary. I thank her and her very, very competent and professional staff for all of the courtesies they have shown us during this year and this process.

I also want to pay tribute to the Democratic staff, people who work very, very hard every day and are brilliant in their fields and make me sound smarter than I probably am, but I would like to read their names: Jon Antista; Erika Appel; Ellen Balis, the staff director; Hayden Flanery; Jon Goldman; Elliott Grantz; Jocelyn Harris; Najy Kamal; Sam Lau; Sheila McDowell; Diana Meredith; Farouk Ophaso; Kimberly Overbeek; Scott Russell; and Ted Zegers.

They do terrific work, and I want them to know how much I and all the members of the Budget Committee, the minority, appreciate their work.

I would also like to thank my personal staff, led by my chief of staff, Julie Carr, for the work they contribute to this process as well.

In closing, there are a few comments I want to make about this debate.

We heard several times during the day that it is really not fair to talk about the consequences of the tax proposal that will be the end result of this process because the details haven't been ironed out yet. That is, you know, fair enough as it goes, but there were enough details in the outline that we saw last week to make a pretty good guess as to what the impact of these tax cuts would be.

Now, we have read over and over, as Republican speakers spoke, the fact that they were willing to jeopardize the health and safety and nutrition of their citizens to give the wealthiest people in their State tax cuts. Most of these numbers that we read were in the billions of dollars: $38 billion, $16 billion. These are individuals with net worths of astounding amounts.

The outline that was publicly released last week said that the Republicans intend, under this tax proposal, to eliminate the estate tax. If they eliminate the estate tax, much of that money is not going to be taxed. They will get to keep it. I don't think that they are going to be out there creating new companies. Maybe their children will do it if they inherit it. Maybe they have given some of it away so those estates aren't quite as big. I suspect many of them have.

The point is, when you are talking about wealth, collectively, the wealthiest persons in the 50 States, collectively, have $750 billion in net worth, which means that, if they paid the estate tax, there would be over $300 billion in money that they would save if you eliminated the estate tax.

So while, yes, we may be off plus or minus 3 percent or 5 percent or 10 percent, the fact is that this is an enormous break for the people who have been the most fortunate in this country. I think it is more than fair to say, if you say you are going to eliminate the estate tax, if you say you are going to eliminate the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, and we can go look at President Trump's 2005 tax return, which said he paid $31 million in tax because of the alternative minimum tax, it doesn't take any details to know that he would have saved $31 million in that year if you eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

So, yes, the rates may vary. Ultimately, the tax bill that we have presented to us may not lower the highest rate from 39.6 to 35 percent, but if it does, we know the impact that that will have. We know who will benefit most from that. It is the wealthiest 1 percent of this country.

As I will say tomorrow when we close this debate, I am in the top 1 percent. Half of this body are millionaires. They are all going to benefit. We are all going to benefit. Meanwhile, the people who rely on many of the programs that will be slashed under this Republican budget will suffer. That is not fair.

Now, Republicans will make the argument, as they always do because this is a matter of religious faith to them, that if you give people more money, they will magically create all this growth. Well, has that really happened?

Out of the Fortune 500 companies, I think, in a recent study, 92 of them paid 20 percent or less in corporate tax. Collectively, they eliminated 300,000 jobs over a 5-year period. So they had more money than corporations paying 35 percent. Did they use it to create more jobs, more wealth among middle class and working families? No. They used it to pay dividends, to buy back stock, and to increase the wages of their CEOs.

That is what has happened in modern history every time we lower corporate tax rates or we let them bring taxes in from overseas. They do not create more jobs with the money that they save.

So I think it is very, very fair for us to look at this entire process, the budget proposal, which does anticipate a tax cut--which they claim is revenue neutral, but it is a tax cut--and the outline that we saw last week and say: Who, really, is this going to help?

It is not going to help the people who need the help. It is going to give more money to the people who already occupy one of the strongest economic positions in a country with the greatest disparity of wealth in the world.

So as we conclude this debate, I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the alternatives that will be proposed by the Democratic Caucus, by the Congressional Black Caucus, and by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and compare the values and the priorities of those budgets to those that the Republican budget represents.

I think, on balance, anybody in good faith will say that those budgets, not the Republican budgets, are the budgets that will create a stronger, fairer society in this country, and those are the ones that we should proceed to adopt.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment and urge my colleagues to reject it.

Some Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration are engaged in a steadily escalating campaign to tear down the Congressional Budget Office and anyone else who does not tell them what they want to hear. This amendment is a direct assault eliminating half of CBO's budget.

The CBO is our impartial referee. Its vigorous work has been indispensable for Congress as we consider legislation that impacts the lives of the American people. This amendment is not good for democracy, and it is not consistent with the principles of good government.

Republicans claim to care about fiscal responsibility, but this amendment would destroy the office we rely on to help us meet that standard.

My Republican colleagues are willing to compromise the integrity of this House solely because they cannot defend the bill repealing the Affordable Care Act. They cannot effectively explain to their constituents why they voted to leave more than 20 million Americans uninsured and dramatically increase the cost of insurance for millions more.

They are unable to justify cutting $1 trillion from Medicaid and jeopardizing care for seniors in nursing homes, children, and families struggling to make ends meet. What they are doing in all of this is to provide cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

This amendment is a clear attempt to divert attention from that reality and to hide the truth from the American people. It will set a dangerous precedent.

As students, we would all like to grade our own papers, but we can't do that in Congress. We have to have somebody impartial who will grade them for us and tell us what this means to our budget and to the American people.

Congress created CBO to give us our own sense of budgetary information and expertise so we would not have to rely on administration estimates. CBO improves our ability to protect the power of the purse. For more than 40 years, the CBO has steadfastly fulfilled its mission providing impartial analysis and expertise to inform our decisionmaking.

The CBO Director and all personnel are appointed to their positions without regard to their political affiliation, solely based on their ability and qualifications. They show no allegiance or deference to any political ideology or party when preparing their analyses.

It is all too easy these days to take refuge in information that tells us only what we want to hear. But that does not lead to sound policy. CBO does not exist to give us the information that we want to hear. Its job is to give us the information that we need to make informed, responsible decisions. It is one of few institutions in Washington that serves that role.

It is beneath the Congress to attack the CBO which is only doing its job. It should be embarrassing to my Republican colleagues that they are launching these attacks simply because they do not have the courage to defend the damaging effects of their plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This needs to stop.

Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, I set off on a long-shot campaign run by a talented and passionate but also overworked and inexperienced staff, many of whom were learning on the job. Yet everything went pretty smoothly--smoothly enough, obviously.

A big reason for this was an unpaid volunteer who just seemed to know how to do everything. She would show up with a warm, ever-present smile, eager to tackle the smallest task or take on the most challenging responsibility. Whatever was needed, Carolyn Whitaker-Tandy made everything easier. When it was time to hire a district director, Carolyn made that decision easy, too.

I am fortunate to have had my friend Carolyn running my Louisville office since day one. Though I will miss her leadership, I am proud that she is moving on to new opportunities. I know the people of Louisville are better off because of her service. I saw it firsthand every day for more than a decade.

For all she accomplished, her commitment, and her continued friendship, I am forever grateful. I expect great things from Carolyn and her amazing family, and I wish them nothing but the best going forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, my neighbor from just down I-64, for organizing this Special Order honoring the life of Senator Bunning this evening.

This is the first time in my 11 years serving in Congress that I have spoken from this side of the aisle, and it is a fitting occasion that I do that. I am proud to join my Republican colleagues and friends this evening.

During his baseball career, Jim Bunning was once asked what his proudest accomplishment was, and he recalled the fact that he went nearly 11 years without ever missing a start. ``They wrote my name down, and I went to the post,'' he said.

I can't help but think that is a fitting way of also describing his political career and his love of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Kentuckians wrote his name down time after time again, and he went to work for them, no questions asked.

Jim and I obviously didn't see eye to eye politically all the time, and as amazed as I was by the curve balls that he threw on the field, I sometimes found myself equally amazed by some of the curve balls he threw off the field, but that was Jim. When so much of what happens in Congress is political theater, you can't deny that he was always real and that every word he spoke, he genuinely believed.

I am sure Jim's family takes great pride in that fact. I join with my colleagues in offering them my thoughts and prayers as they continue to grieve their loss. I hope they find comfort in the lifetime of memories they share together.

It is reported that Daniel Boone once said: ``Heaven must be a Kentucky kind of place.''

I sure hope that is true.

As I said at the time of his passing, Jim Bunning can now throw no- hitters forever on his field of dreams.