Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to include in the Record, a eulogy of J. Brian Gaffney. Brian was an exceptional man, devoted to his family, his community New Britain, his state of Connecticut, his Nation, and of course Notre Dame. The world of politics where Brian and many of his peers came of age in was a world where loyalty was, and still is, a tremendous value.

At his funeral service, the outpouring of the community had to be heartwarming for his beautiful and gracious wife, Mary Lou, and the entire Gaffney family. As they embraced a grateful public, the stories, the respect and the Irish humor were ever present, just what Brian would have wanted. I knew Brian but felt a special kinship to him from the stories told by Jay Malcynsky, his daughter Alicia, and his son-in- law Fritz.

Brian was the kind of man that when he held court, you wanted a front row seat to hear him. It's hard to capture the impact, the complexity of a man and his expansive influence. It was done in exceptional form by former Republican Chairman Chris Healy.

His remarks, his candor, his insights were the talk of the wake and captured the essence of a great American.

``John Brian Gaffney had as big and colorful a ride as any

Connecticut politician over the last 60 years. He made New

Britain a Republican town, he served locally and at the state

Capitol, orchestrated the rise of a Congressman and then

Governor, knew Presidents by name, ruled like a true state

Party chairman, practiced law, raised six children with his

wife of 5 years, Mary Louise, and got in lots of golf at

Shuttle Meadow.

Gaffney left this earth at age 85 this past week and with

it a record for the ages during a time where honor, loyalty

and laughter were the currency of the political realm. He was

a New Britain guy, through and through and never lost his

bearings about the important things--friendship, family and

loyalty.

His life reads like a novel by Edwin O'Connor--a graduate

of Notre Dame University and Fordham Law School, who joined

the family law practice and apprenticed in the close quarter

combat of Hardware City politics.

Thomas J. Meskill, also a local lawyer, who was tagged by

one columnist during the day as all ``Irish Fight'' lured

Gaffney into running for the Board of Alderman when he took

another shot at the Mayor's office.

They both won and within eight years, they had lined

themselves up to take on the formidable Democrat machine, led

by John Bailey, a former National Democrat chairman and

merciless operator by which all others were measured.

Meskill and Gaffney proved more than up for the task at

hand, hardened by their City Hall experience. Once, Mayor

Meskill had city police haul recalcitrant Democrat Aldermen

back to a meeting when they walked out to deny him a quorum.

By late 1969, Gaffney's plate was full and overflowing. He

had a part-time job doing Congressional field work for

Meskill, practiced law, helped Paul Manafort Sr. hold the

Mayor's office, had a seat in the state House representing

the 29th District and chaired the local town committee.

Democrats had owned the governor's mansion since 1955 and

1970 would be the first

election after Richard Nixon's close Presidential win. The

seat was open but there were some divisions in the Democrat

ranks, particularly for the U.S. Senate race where a liberal

challenger, Rev. Joseph Duffy challenged a wounded incumbent

Thomas Dodd, the latter who ran as an independent candidate.

The 1968 riots had scared many Connecticut cities,

frightening suburban voters while the Vietnam War had divided

Bailey Democrats from the growing Left.

Gaffney got the word out that Congressman Meskill would be

willing to run for the top job and started beating the drums.

But there was strong competition in State Senate Minority

Leader Wallace ``Wally'' Barnes of Bristol and state Sen. T.

Clark Hull of Danbury. Meskill won the convention, watched

the well-oiled delegates pick Hull as his running mate and

avoided a primary.

Bailey called Meskill ``Tough Tommy'' a moniker any

Republican at that time would gratefully accept. If Meskill

was the champ, Gaffney his corner man, fixing the cuts,

wiping the sweat and telling his man to get back in and

finish it. Meskill recruited and attracted a deep bench of

young, eager Republican operatives--known as the Kiddie

Corps.--including two who themselves would become state Party

chairmen, legislators, power brokers, lobbyists and gifted

players at the game. They were hungry and eager--and Gaffney

put them to work.

The Corps organized at the local level while Gaffney

cajoled local GOP leaders, kept Meskill on a Conservative

message of smaller government, less spending and business-

friendly policies. In those days, patronage wasn't an

obscenity and he used it appropriately as an effective

incentive. Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew made personal

appearances, including a famous parade through the streets of

Hartford.

After Meskill defeated U.S. Rep. Emilio Q. ``Mim''

Daddario and U.S. Rep. Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., defeated Sen.

Dodd and Duffy, Gaffney was rewarded with the state Party

chairmanship. In two years, Nixon's 49-state landslide would

sweep Republicans into complete power in the legislature. As

Meskill governed, Gaffney made sure it ran as smoothly as

possible.

In March 1974, everything that went well in 1972 turned

upside down. With Watergate in full bloom and an urge to

return to law, Meskill announced he would not seek a second

term. While some blamed a freak ice storm that Meskill was

slow to appreciate while out of state on vacation, the

national storm clouds were darkening rapidly. When

Republicans nominated Bob Steele, Gaffney stepped down as

chairman.

In October, Meskill appointed Gaffney to the bench over

the protestations of the Connecticut Bar Association. Gov.

Ella Grasso didn't reappoint him three months later, so

Gaffney went back to law.

In 1984, he and George Bennett formed Gaffney-Bennett and

Associates. State lobbying was expanding at a rapid clip and

along with a young Jay Malcynsky, also a New Britain lad,

they came up with a winning formula of contract lobbying

handled by both lobbyists from both Parties.

Every significant Republican over the last so years

coveled or depended on Gaffney's counsel or high sign--Nancy

Johnson, Stewart McKinney, Weicker and John G. Rowland not to

mention scores of others who never measured up.

Almost to the end of his storied life, Gaffney kept his

hand in the game, as honorary chairman of statewide campaigns

for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, delegating to a new

group of operatives and making sure the vote got out. Even as

he spent more time on his short game and his grandchildren,

Gaffney would pick up the phone to call a Republican insider

to find out what was going on--who was up, who was down and

who the next up and comer was.

Like anyone in the game that long, Gaffney made his share

of enemies who felt he hadn't been straight with them or was

expedient in his relationships No one's street is always

clean, but most of those who complained the loudest were

masking their own failures and looking for a convenient

excuse to explain their defeat.

I enjoyed my chairman-to-chairman conversations with

Gaffney, who always returned the ``Mr. Chairman'' salutation

without hesitation. He knew how to work people and I was as

thrilled as anyone to hear it. When we would share a timeless

frustration that all chairmen have endured, he would let out

a loud roaring laugh only the Irish can muster.

In going through the clips, I noticed a profile done by

Hartford Courant report Michelle Jaklin, who quoted why a

long-time Conservative GOP operative was supporting George

H.W. Bush for President in 1988 and not her previously

preferred choice of Jack Kemp or Pierre ``Pete'' Dupont.

``Because Brian Gaffney asked me to,'' she replied. ``Any

loyally you give Brian, you get back in spades. People have

been with him for years and years.''

Gaffney represented a time when Democrats and Republicans

would beat each other senseless but when the whistle sounded,

they picked each other up, wiped away the blood, picked up

the loose teeth and went to have a cold one to make sense of

it all.

He loved the game, the competition and the people up and

down the line who made politics serious and fun, and he did

it by living by a code that put a high premium on being true

to yourself and others in the foxhole.

Gaffney knew how to use power during a time when you

could. By the late 1980's, the role of the state Party had

shifted to one of communication, back office and training. It

no longer held the cards to make candidates, reward friends

and punish the wicked.

He was an Irish warlord, but with a sense of humor.

His passing is the final chapter of a bygone era--for good

or bad--but one that worked.''

It is my hope that the eulogy by Chris Healy will have future congressional scholars or those who peruse the Congressional Record understanding the rich life and contribution of J. Brian Gaffney. The whole Connecticut delegation joins me in honoring Brian and extends our sincere condolences to the Gaffney Family.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 27, 2018, I missed rollcall vote 166, a Motion to Table H. Res. 856, a Privileged Resolution offered by Mr. Crowley of New York to create Select Committee to investigate the motivations and reasoning behind the forced resignation of the House Chaplain. I stand in full support of the Crowley resolution regarding the Speaker's decision to

forcibly push the House Chaplain Father Conroy to resign.

If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted: ``nay'' on rollcall vote 166.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

What a profiles in lack of courage this is today exhibited in the House of Representatives. But it does give us an opportunity, however limited the time is, to expose a lot of the myths, like this notion that the other side continues to perpetuate that Social Security and Medicare are entitlements.

News flash: it is the insurance that the American people have paid for.

News flash: 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security.

News flash: the average women in this country, when they retire, get $14,000 annually from Social Security, and, for more than half of them, that is all they have to live on.

Yet these bastions of courage on the other side would like to cut these programs not by coming to the floor of the House of Representatives and having a vote on it, not by having a discussion in a committee or even the semblance of a hearing, but somehow, as Mr. Neal said, with a mask on, decide that they are going to introduce an amendment where they will never, ever have to vote on what their constituents actually have to face day in and day out. These are American citizens who have paid through an insurance program, not an entitlement. It is called FICA, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

Whose contribution? The American people's contribution.

If you want to vote to take it away, have the courage to bring up a bill and vote on it.

How about we increase the benefits for the people of this country who need it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4547, the Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of 2018, which the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and I have introduced and on which the committee has held several hearings.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge our distinguished chairman. We on the Committee on Ways and Means are fortunate that we, in our midst, get to work daily with two iconic American heroes: John Lewis of Georgia and Sam Johnson of Texas. It has been my high honor to serve as the ranking member with this great American hero and dedicated public servant.

We all know that Mr. Johnson is indicating that he will not be seeking reelection again. That is a great loss to the Congress and a great homecoming for people in Plano, Texas, and his family, who richly deserve this great American hero. He demonstrates that heroism daily in the committee by his compassion and concern for his fellow Americans. Much as he defended them in his service to the military, he defends them daily here in the United States Congress.

As Chairman Brady pointed out, there is a great need within the payee system to address a number of the concerns, as the hearings which Mr. Johnson conducted revealed many of the inadequacies that existed. There are currently 8 million Social Security beneficiaries who have a representative payee to help manage their benefits, nearly half of whom are children. In many cases, we are talking about the most vulnerable of our citizens, many of whom cannot advocate for themselves.

That is why our bill strengthens the number of quality-of-performance reviews by entrusting them to protection and advocacy organizations in each State. These organizations are embedded in the communities they serve and will be best equipped to flag and investigate instances where payees may be abusing their beneficiaries.

Many of the State organizations have written letters of support for H.R. 4547, including Disability Rights Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I include that letter in the Record.

Disability Rights Connecticut,

Hartford, CT, December 13, 2017.

Representative Sam Johnson,

Chairman, Social Security Subcommittee, Committee on Ways and

Means, Washington, DC.

Representative John B. Larson,

Ranking Member, Social Security Subcommittee, Committee on

Ways and Means, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Larson: Thank you

for introducing the Strengthening Protections for Social

Security Beneficiaries Act of 2017 (H.R. 4547), bipartisan

legislation to improve and strengthen the Social Security

Administration's (SSA) representative payee program. This

legislation is necessary to create a permanent, independent

system of oversight to protect Social Security beneficiaries

from fraud and exploitation. It also addresses issues of

choice by beneficiaries and decreases reporting burdens on

families.

As an employee of the Connecticut protection and advocacy

system during the previous iteration of Representative Payee

reviews, I experienced how important it was to conduct on

site reviews of financial accounts but even more invaluable

to meet Social Security recipients, interview them and see

where they live. The reviews also informed other areas of

advocacy conducted by the agency and would be an asset to

Disability Rights Connecticut, the new protection and

advocacy system for Connecticut.

Disability Rights Connecticut's mission is to advocate,

educate, investigate and litigate to advance and protect the

civil rights of people with disabilities to participate,

equally and fully in the social and economic life of

Connecticut. As a protection and advocacy system we do this

through information and referral, technical assistance,

investigation, monitoring and advocacy. We also provide

training, education and outreach to empower individuals to

advocate for themselves and others.

Again, thank you for your sponsorship of H.R. 4547. Please

do not hesitate to contact me or refer your Connecticut

inquiries to Disability Rights Connecticut.

Sincerely,

Gretchen Knauff,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, aside from that and because of Mr. Johnson's leadership, the bill before us today has the support of many advocacy groups, including the AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, the National Disability Rights Network, the Association of Mature American Citizens, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness. I therefore urge my colleagues on both sides, as Chairman Brady has indicated, to join us in voting ``yes'' on this very important piece of legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the distinguished chairman from Texas for the very bipartisan nature of which this bill has come together, and that doesn't happen by accident. It happens because of the hard bipartisan work across the aisle of the staffs whom we work so closely with.

It also means that we want to recognize Amy Shuart, Lara Rosner, Matt Russell, Anne DeCesaro; and from my staff, Kathryn Olson, Jason Kanter, Morna Miller; and Jill Hunter-Williams, who is with Danny Davis' staff; and the irreplaceable Sylvia Lee from my office as well.

It is always an honor and pleasure to work with Mr. Johnson. He is, first and foremost, a gentleman. I look forward, later in this year, to traveling to Plano, Texas, where I hope we can have a hearing on Social Security in general.

Mr. Johnson has a bill and I have a bill that both have the same goals in mind, and while there may be different approaches, I know that his great bipartisan spirit and his gentleman nature will provide the kind of debate and dialogue that is necessary around an issue so vitally important to all Americans as Social Security.

This is America's greatest program and one that has never missed a payment and is often confused as being an entitlement when, in fact, it is the insurance that people have paid for and richly deserve. It hasn't been changed or modified significantly since Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill sat down and did that back in the early 1980s.

It is long overdue, and what better person who epitomizes the values and virtues of Ronald Reagan and who comes from Texas and who also has a heart as big as that great State, and I know that we will be able to come to a resolution about this very important issue that we face.

Mr. Speaker, I close by saying that it is not often, or perhaps more often than people would surmise, that we see this bipartisan cooperation. But it was Hubert Humphrey who said:

The ultimate moral test of any government is the way it

treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those

who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who

are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the

handicapped.

What Mr. Johnson has done today is to epitomize those very comments of then-Vice President Humphrey, and the Congress is responding. I encourage everyone to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4547, the Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will vote today to re-open the government and provide certainty to 17,000 children in Connecticut and their families who depend on the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The reality is that the Republicans control the levers of the federal government--the House, the Senate, and the Executive branch. While some of my Republican colleagues, like Senators Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham, have worked on a bipartisan solution, the Republican leadership has failed the most basic of their responsibilities--to lead and to keep the federal government open.

While CR's are harmful in general, I will vote for a short-term extension only through February 8th as a sign of good faith as I believe it is better to negotiate with the government open rather than closed. If the Republicans renege on their commitments, it will be clear to the American people they can neither govern nor keep their word with regards to funding community health centers, opioid funding, protecting young people who were brought to this country as children from being deported, and funding for our military and domestic programs.

This is the fourth CR that we have passed to keep the government open. Our military and federal agencies need a year-long budget in order to plan and to effectively execute the functions of government. My Republican colleagues have committed to coming to the table and working on solutions for the opioid epidemic, disaster relief funding, and a solution for the 700,000 DREAMers in the next three weeks. The United States government made a deal with these young people and despite the President's edict to deport them if solutions are not made in Congress, it is now on the Republicans to work with us, as they have promised to govern responsibly. I will hold the Republicans accountable for their promises and so will the American people.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, January 10, 2018, I missed rollcall votes 5-7 on the motions to adjourn from Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Grijalva. I was attending meetings off-campus and was not able to return for these unexpected votes that were not on the House schedule. If I had been present for these votes, I would have voted: ``Nay'' on rollcall vote 5 on the motion to adjourn from Mr. Espaillat, ``Nay'' on rollcall vote 6 on the motion to adjourn from Mr. Gutierrez, and ``Nay'' on rollcall vote 7 on the motion to adjourn from Mr. Grijalva.

Mr. Speaker, on December 21, 2017 I missed roll call vote 710. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' or ``aye''.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 18, 2017, I was unfortunately not present for roll call votes 685 through 687. If I had been present for these votes, I would have voted: Nay on roll call vote 685 on the motion to fix the convening time; Yea on roll call vote 686 on passage of the STEM Research and Education Effectiveness and Transparency Act (H.R. 4375); and Yea on roll call vote 687 on passage of the Keep America's Refuges Operation Act (H.R. 3979)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Congressional Budget Office's accounting of the $25 billion that will be taken out of Medicare.

Congressional Budget Office,

U.S. Congress

Washington, DC, November 13, 2017.

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,

Democratic Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman: This letter responds to your request for

information about the effects of legislation that would raise

deficits by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the 2018-2027

period, specifically with respect to a sequestration--or

cancellation of budgetary resources--in accordance with the

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010(PAYGO; Public Law 111-

139).

The PAYGO law requires that new legislation enacted during

a term of Congress does not collectively increase estimated

deficits. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is

required to maintain two so-called PAYGO scorecards to report

the cumulative changes generated by new legislation in

estimated revenues and outlays over the next five years and

ten years. If either scorecard indicates a net increase in

the deficit, OMB is required to order a sequestration to

eliminate the overage. The authority to determine whether a

sequestration is required (and if so, exactly how to make the

necessary cuts in budget authority) rests solely with OMB.

CBO has analyzed the implications of enacting a bill that

would increase deficits by $1.5 trillion over a 10-year

window, without enacting any further legislation to offset

that increase. In accordance with the PAYGO law, OMB would

record the average annual deficit on its PAYGO scorecard,

showing deficit increases of, in the example provided, $150

billion per year. If the bill were enacted before the end of

the calendar year, that amount would be added to the current

balances on the PAYGO scorecard, which for 2018, show a

positive balance of $14 billion. (For years after 2018, the

balances range from a $14 billion credit to a $1 billion

debit.)

Without enacting subsequent legislation to either offset

that deficit increase, waive the recordation of the bill's

impact on the scorecard, or otherwise mitigate or eliminate

the requirements of the PAYGO law, OMB would be required to

issue a sequestration order within 15 days of the end of the

session of Congress to reduce spending in fiscal year 2018 by

the resultant total of $136 billion. However, the PAYGO law

limits reductions to Medicare to four percentage points (or

roughly $25 billion for that year), leaving about $111

billion to be sequestered from the remaining mandatory

accounts. Because the law entirely exempts many large

accounts including low-income programs and social security,

the annual resources available from which OMB must draw is,

in CBO's estimation, only between $85 billion to $90 billion,

significantly less than the amount that would be required to

be sequestered. (For a full list of accounts subject to

automatic reductions, see OMB Report to the Congress on the

Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2018, https:// go.usa.gov/xnZ3U.)

Given that the required reduction in spending exceeds the

estimated amount of available resources in each year over the

next 10 years, in the absence of further legislation, OMB

would be unable to implement the full extent of outlay

reductions required by the PAYGO law.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them.

Sincerely,

Keith Hall,

Director.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to be here today, as we approach Christmas, and not look at this bill, knowing that we have honorable Members on the other side, who, this Christmas, will be sitting with their relatives, their family members, their mothers and fathers, their brothers and sisters, and knowing that this creates not just a $2 trillion debt, but the pay-for--the pay-for--out of the Medicare program: an automatic cut of $25 billion in a plan that was never debated. It fulfills a grand vision of Grover Norquist and the ideology that you took a pledge to. But what about the oath of office, and a pledge to the Constitution, and standing up for the people of this Nation, and the very elderly at this Christmas, and throughout the year, who will need our help?

Mr. Speaker, on December 7, 2017 I missed Roll Call vote 671. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record at a later time a notice from both the comptroller and the commissioner of Revenue Services for the State of Connecticut, who notes that a married family with a kid in college would see a $767 tax increase next year and a $1,667 increase in the year 2027.

Mr. Speaker, we have already protested what we think about this bill, what they have done to this process, the stain that this is on this institution.

1986 has been cited. No public hearings. We had 30 hearings, 12 subcommittee hearings, 456 witnesses. We have none, and now you do a bill in double secret probation. You make Dean Wormer look good from ``Animal House''. This is what is wrong with this process here today.

The cruelest cut is that you perpetrate a $25 billion cut in Medicare that you don't even have to vote on. That is the worst cut. Talk about a cowardly act in the night: a $25 billion cut to our seniors. No wonder the AARP has spoken out so strongly against it.

Several.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Democratic leader for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan for joining us here.

As Mr. Hoyer stated at the outset, this is a very dangerous bill and a very dangerous precedent for this body and the other body and for Congress in general.

It was Lincoln who said: ``A House divided cannot stand.''

And in this bill, when you pit the sick against the well, the poor against the wealthiest 1 percent, blue State against red State, small business against large corporation, you begin to see the inequity in the bill.

Rich Neal, the lead Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, lamented that this was a lost opportunity--a lost opportunity because there was ample time to come together both in the committee and here on the floor to do something constructive for the country, put the Nation back to work, and resolve issues that President Obama had put forward that I know have been on the front burners of everyone's concern to get lower taxes, and greater fairness in equity across the board, but that didn't happen.

Now, much is said about process, and people pooh-pooh that, but here are the facts:

It was Ronald Reagan who said: ``The facts are a stubborn thing.''

Back in 1986, the last time we impacted policy of this nature, the Ways and Means Committee, in fact, had 30 hearings in the committee, 12 subcommittee hearings, 450 expert witnesses, and 26 days of markup before it came to the floor for debate.

It was done bipartisanly, in fact, done between Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill because they knew that this would be the best way to get cohesive, comprehensive tax reform.

That is not what happened here. There were zero hearings in the committee on this bill, zero subcommittee hearings, no expert witnesses, not a single person from the State of Maryland or Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Commissioner of Revenue Services from the State of Connecticut that details factually, not based on averages, what happens to people in States who use itemized deductions like the State and local property tax deduction, like medical deductions, et cetera, all of which have a direct impact on them, all of which are going to find our citizens paying more money, in fact, not getting a tax cut, getting a tax increase so they can pay for lowering the rate of an individual who is already receiving $11 million from an estate tax gift.

November 8, 2017.

Hon. John B. Larson,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Larson: Thank you for opportunity to

comment on the federal tax changes being considered in H.R.

1. We appreciate your leadership in trying to set the record

straight as this partisan effort is rushed to judgment with

no real input and much fiscal uncertainty.

Unfortunately, what we see so far from a national and state

perspective is very troubling. Some of the proposals to

reduce taxes on corporate and pass-through business income

could provide needed economic stimulus nationally and for

states like Connecticut. Unfortunately, on balance, H R. 1 is

fundamentally flawed:

Even the low estimate of a $1.5 trillion cost is not paid

for and is really massive federal tax deficit spending. The

nation has been down this road before and surely we should

have learned something from the worst economic recession in

modern times.

Otherwise unaffordable tax cuts have long been part of a

political strategy to ``starve the beast.'' Due to its long

term unfunded cost, this Republican tax plan will compel big

cuts in federal funding, such as Medicaid, that are important

to states like Connecticut.

Contrary to all the talk of a ``middle income tax cut,''

the plan actually represents a huge windfall to the very

wealthiest federal taxpayers and is truly regressive. For our

own state of Connecticut, over 75% of the tax cut goes to the

top 1% who would pay 8.5% less on average. Everyone else

would see a trivial 1.2% reduction in federal tax liability

and many will actually owe much more in federal income taxes.

As discussed more specifically below, the proposed plan

shifts most of the tax cost and the least of any tax benefit

to states in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast

regions of the country. Thus, Connecticut and similar states

will even more disproportionately pay in federal taxes far

more than is received in federal benefits--further

subsidizing regions of the country where states make far less

of a state and local tax effort.

Drilling down a bit further, several aspects of this

partisan plan will hit especially hard:

Eliminating deductibility of state income tax paid is worth

an estimated $8.7 billion to mostly 1 middle income

Connecticut taxpayers

Capping deductibility of local property tax paid at $10,000

will increase federal income taxes for a significant

proportion of Connecticut taxpayers who claim $4.9 billion.

Any benefit to lower and lower moderate income taxpayers

from higher standard deductions and child care credits will

likely be more than offset by the shell game of imposing a

higher lowest rate bracket of 12% and replacing the current

$4,050 personal exemption with a $300 deduction that is

proposed to end in 5 years.

Eliminating deductibility of medical/dental expenses will

be $1.6 billion hardship for Connecticut taxpayers at all

levels who are out of work and have catastrophic medical

costs.

Eliminating deductibility of student loan interest only

adds a further financial burden for primarily younger

taxpayers and their families already struggling with

educational indebtedness.

Sadly, these and many other significant issues of fiscal

irresponsibility and tax unfairness seem to be of no concern

in the partisan rush to pass legislation before taxpayers see

through the slogans and realize the costs. Indeed, glimpses

of what may be in the Republican Senate version suggests that

it will only get worse. Thank you for your efforts to speak

out for our Connecticut taxpayers and set the record

straight.

Sincerely,

Kevin B. Sullivan,

Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, if that weren't the cruelest cut, what is built into this legislation, and it is why process matters, because of the way this bill came to the floor through budget reconciliation primarily so the other body can get around their other arcane rule of cloture, but so that they could pass something with the minimal amount of votes.

So no hearings, no expert witnesses, and only a minimal amount of votes--51 in the Senate--to pass a bill.

I say that because there is a trigger mechanism here that the gentleman from Maryland knows better than anyone else in either Chamber called PAYGO, PAYGO provisions that he fought for to make sure were in the bill because of our ongoing concern about staggering deficits. It is why most people call for this bill minimally, including most Republican economists, to be revenue neutral. We would add that it be distributionally neutral as well so that it doesn't impact the middle and the lower classes.

But this bill here, the cruelest cut of all is that it triggers an automatic response that will result in a $25 billion cut to Medicare. Nobody at home recognized this. Many people in this Chamber didn't even know that it existed because there were no public hearings, there were no expert witnesses. This was jammed through so that people could achieve a political win.

How about we focus on the American people winning for a change and doing something that is not going to put them in jeopardy?

I wondered why so many on the other side had professed to be concerned about the deficit but turned a blind eye as we passed what amounts to be $2.3 trillion in new deficits. Then it dawned on me. This provision that is in there would allow sequestration to go forward without a vote and would cut Medicare by $25 billion. I have asked people when we have held forums back in our district. People are writing, people are calling, people are calling their Senators in an effort to stop what is a blind, dangerous precedent that would take $25 billion out of a program that desperately needs this.

I know the gentleman from Maryland knows this better than most. I know the State of Maryland, like the State of Connecticut, also itemizes deductions, and I believe it leads the country in that because, as they noted back in 1913, it would otherwise be double taxation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing us the opportunity to come down here and speak to the dastardly nature of this bill and what lies ahead, and I thank him for his continued leadership in making sure that we wage this fight in every way to the end until we are able to stop that.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I include in the Record, first a letter from the Commissioner of Revenue Services in the State of Connecticut, who has detailed out the impact of this tax on Connecticut residents.

November 8, 2017.

Hon. John B. Larson,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Larson: Thank you for opportunity to

comment on the federal tax changes being considered in H.R.

1. We appreciate your leadership in trying to set the record

straight as this partisan effort is rushed to judgment with

no real input and much fiscal uncertainty.

Unfortunately, what we see so far from a national and state

perspective is very troubling. Some of the proposals to

reduce taxes on corporate and pass-through business income

could provide needed economic stimulus nationally and for

states like Connecticut. Unfortunately, on balance, H.R. 1 is

fundamentally flawed:

Even the low estimate of a $1.5 trillion cost is not paid

for and is really massive federal tax deficit spending. The

nation has been down this road before and surely we should

have learned something from the worst economic recession in

modern times.

Otherwise unaffordable tax cuts have long been part of a

political strategy to ``starve the beast.'' Due to its long

term unfunded cost, this Republican tax plan will compel big

cuts in federal funding, such as Medicaid, that are important

to states like Connecticut.

Contrary to all the talk of a ``middle income tax cut,''

the plan actually represents a huge windfall to the very

wealthiest federal taxpayers and is truly regressive. For our

own state of Connecticut, over 75% of the tax cut goes to the

top 1% who would pay 8.5% less on average. Everyone else

would see a trivial 1.2% reduction in federal tax liability

and many will actually owe much more in federal income taxes.

As discussed more specifically below, the proposed plan

shifts most of the tax cost and the least of any tax benefit

to states in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast

regions of the country. Thus, Connecticut and similar states

will even more disproportionately pay in federal taxes far

more than is received in federal benefits--further

subsidizing regions of the country where states make far less

of a state and local tax effort.

Drilling down a bit further, several aspects of this

partisan plan will hit especially hard:

Eliminating deductibility of state income tax paid is worth

an estimated $8.7 billion to mostly middle income Connecticut

taxpayers.

Capping deductibility of local property tax paid at $10,000

will increase federal income taxes for a significant

proportion of Connecticut taxpayers who claim $4.9 billion.

Any benefit to lower and lower moderate income taxpayers

from higher standard deductions and child care credits will

likely be more than offset by the shell game of imposing a

higher lowest rate bracket of 12% and replacing the current

$4,050 personal exemption with a $300 deduction that is

proposed to end in 5 years.

Eliminating deductibility of medical/dental expenses will

be $1.6 billion hardship for Connecticut taxpayers at all

levels who are out of work and have catastrophic medical

costs.

Eliminating deductibility of student loan interest only

adds a further financial burden for primarily younger

taxpayers and their families already struggling with

educational indebtedness.

Sadly, these and many other significant issues of fiscal

irresponsibility and tax unfairness seem to be of no concern

in the partisan rush to pass legislation before taxpayers see

through the slogans and realize the costs. Indeed, glimpses

of what may be in the Republican Senate version suggests that

it will only get worse. Thank you for your efforts to speak

out for our Connecticut taxpayers and set the record

straight.

Sincerely,

Kevin B. Sullivan,

Commissioner.

Second, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter out of a cross section of constituents who are directly and adversely impacted by this tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a

transcript of an interview with our esteemed chairman, Kevin Brady, and Heidi Przybyla that appeared on ``Morning Joe.''

Kevin Brady-Morning Joe Transcript--Friday, November 3

Heidi Przybyla, USA Today: This economic growth that you

all are promising, it cannot happen unless the cuts occur at

the same time. In fact the Joint Committee on Taxation's

economic model assumes that the type of tax cuts that you're

doing now that are not paid for could actually be a drag on

economic growth. Can you please speak to that?

Brady: The reason we moved back towards a balanced budget

is one, there is substantial growth, miss, but again, that

won't do it. You have to simplify the code, eliminate so much

of these special breaks on the business and the individual

side as well. It's the combination of both of those that gets

you back to a balanced budget over time. That's why people

complain `Look you're really simplifying the code

dramatically, there's a lot of things that go'. Not everyone

is happy about that but that is what, sort of the tough

choices you have to make, along with growth, to make sure

this moves us toward a balanced budget.

Przybyla: But that is not what's happening here. This is

still, regardless of these loopholes that you're closing,

it's still a big blowhole in the deficit and that is not what

the model was in '86 for instance when Reagan did it. This

model that I'm speaking of still assumes that this could be a

drag on economic growth because you're not doing the type of

spending cuts, not just simplification in the code, but

spending cuts.

Brady: Here, one, there are a number of models on growth

and I'm sure there will be a healthy debate, that's a good

thing. What we know is this dramatically grows the economy in

revenues not just here in Washington, but state and local

levels as well. But you make a great point: tax reform alone,

alone won't get us to a balanced budget, we have to have

spending constraints along with that. As I know, as House

Republicans, we are turning toward welfare reform and how we

tackle our entitlements in a way to save them. That's all

part of the steps it takes to get us back to a fiscally

responsible area. But I do know this, is you want to see

continued deficits and debts, just stay with a slow growth

economy like we saw the last ten years. We know what that

produced.

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from AARP, who is in opposition to this bill.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Congressional Budget Office, which details out the other shoe to fall in this legislation.

Congressional Budget Office,

U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, November 13, 2017.

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,

Democratic Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman: This letter responds to your request for

information about the effects of legislation that would raise

deficits by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the 2018-2027

period, specifically with respect to a sequestration--or

cancellation of budgetary resources--in accordance with the

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO; Public Law 111-

139).

The PAYGO law requires that new legislation enacted during

a term of Congress does not collectively increase estimated

deficits. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is

required to maintain two so-called PAYGO scorecards to report

the cumulative changes generated by new legislation in

estimated revenues and outlays over the next five years and

ten years. If either scorecard indicates a net increase in

the deficit, OMB is required to order a sequestration to

eliminate the overage. The authority to determine whether a

sequestration is required (and if so, exactly how to make the

necessary cuts in budget authority) rests solely with OMB.

CBO has analyzed the implications of enacting a bill that

would increase deficits by $1.5 trillion over a 10-year

window, without enacting any further legislation to offset

that increase. In accordance with the PAYGO law, OMB would

record the average annual deficit on its PAYGO scorecard,

showing deficit increases of, in the example provided, $150

billion per year. If the bill were enacted before the end of

the calendar year, that amount would be added to the current

balances on the PAYGO scorecard, which for 2018, show a

positive balance of $14 billion. (For years after 2018, the

balances range from a $14 billion credit to a $1 billion

debit.)

Without enacting subsequent legislation to either offset

that deficit increase, waive the recordation of the bill's

impact on the scorecard, or otherwise mitigate or eliminate

the requirements of the PAYGO law, OMB would be required to

issue a sequestration order within 15 days of the end of the

session of Congress to reduce spending in fiscal year 2018 by

the resultant total of $136 billion. However, the PAYGO law

limits reductions to Medicare to four percentage points (or

roughly $25 billion for that year), leaving about $111

billion to be sequestered from the remaining mandatory

accounts. Because the law entirely exempts many large

accounts including low-income programs and social security,

the annual resources available from which OMB must draw is,

in CBO's estimation, only between $85 billion to $90 billion,

significantly less than the amount that would be required to

be sequestered. (For a full list of accounts subject to

automatic reductions, see OMB Report to the Congress on the

Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2018, https:// go.usa.gov/xnZ3U.)

Given that the required reduction in spending exceeds the

estimated amount of available resources in each year over the

next 10 years, in the absence of further legislation, OMB

would be unable to implement the full extent of outlay

reductions required by the PAYGO law.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them.

Sincerely,

Keith Hall,

Director.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by preempting

our distinguished chairman and, for the Record, state that a middle class family in the State of Connecticut, from West Hartford, with a combined income of $125,000, with a mortgage and a kid in college, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and to the Department of Revenue Services in the State of Connecticut, will see a tax increase of $767 next year.

Then with the clever clawback provision--that Grover Norquist kind of clawback provision that gives with one hand and takes away with the other--in 2023, that hardworking family in the middle class will see a $1,667 increase.

So why are we here?

It is pretty easy to figure out this. These are honorable people, but sometimes they are called upon to do a political task, or as Mr. Collins put it: My donors are basically saying, ``Get it done or don't ever call me again.''

Speaking of New York, my colleagues in New York and New Jersey, because we are donor States and because we make itemized deductions, we find ourselves in the situation where we are paying double taxation.

Don't take our word for it. Just ask a member of your own caucus. Ask Peter King, who describes this as the most massive redistribution of wealth at the expense of teachers, machinists, and people who are of the professional class whom you have found that you want to tax their success.

But what adds insult to injury above all else, aside from being a donor State and double taxation, is the cruelest cut. We take a Pledge of Allegiance. We pledge allegiance to the Constitution. But some of you pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist. In doing so, you want to make sure that you can shrink Social Security and Medicare up so small you can drown it in the bathtub.

That is what this does: $25 billion will come out of that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus and a great leader on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the son of a preacher man, who always speaks truth to power.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the lead Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee who understands the impact of double taxation from a donor State.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the voice of Houston.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Will the gentleman yield?

How did they do that?

Why would they do that? In the face of these fires and in the face of so many in California understanding that impact, why is it that they did this?

Were there any hearings?

So there have been no hearings.

They didn't fix it. And yet here we are, on the verge of voting on a bill that will impact 100 percent of the economy and 100 percent of the Tax Code.

No hearings?

Mr. Neal, you suggested in the process, at the outset, that this was a missed opportunity, and then you went back and gave a historic tutorial on how we got here.

How is it that we got here and arrived here with no public hearings and no expert testimony?

In your history of serving on this committee--and we are joined by Mr. Levin and Mr. Kind and Mr. Welch.

And, Mr. Levin, I have to ask you this, too. In your serving on this committee, has there ever been a bill of this magnitude or proportion that has been brought out without a public hearing, without expert witnesses?

Mr. Thompson had a raging fire in his district that we heard him, from his own lips, what it did and how it devastated Sonoma and Napa Valley, and no hearings. Is there a precedent for this?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kind stood up earlier and talked about the fact that the other side, who claim to be deficit hawks, all of a sudden, they are an endangered species.

I don't know if the gentleman from Wisconsin wants to expand upon that and further ask the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, could I just ask for the gentleman to clarify something?

You said earlier that you came down here, and you rarely come down here. This is a Special Order. The reason that you are here, the reason that Mr. Davis is here, Mr. Welch, Mr. Levin, and reason that Mr. Neal, Mr. Kind, and myself are all here is because we haven't had the opportunity to have a hearing and have expert witnesses.

Have you had any expert witness?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this committee and also for the tutorial that he gave us earlier today about how we got to this spot.

I think it is important because, for most Americans listening out there, what you are witnessing is the tyranny of the majority. What I mean by that is, when the minority doesn't get an opportunity to bring forth witnesses, to have hearings--and you heard Mr. Neal talk about the more than 30 hearings in the committee, the more than 12 subcommittee hearings, the 450-plus experts that we never got to hear from--you understand the position that we find ourselves in.

As I said earlier, this impacts 100 percent of our economy and 100 percent of our people. We all swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, but apparently on the other side, they swear an oath of allegiance to Grover Norquist because that is more important than fulfilling our constitutional responsibility and going through regular order and having the experts.

It is more important to take a pledge to Mr. Norquist and pass something politically in as pure a bare-knuckle way as you possibly can without any amendments being made in order and rushing the bill to the floor in haste, without any concern for the ramifications that it has other than fulfilling a pledge to Mr. Norquist, and also a pledge, as we have heard from some of their Members, to their donor base.

That is what has frustrated us on this side of the aisle. I think Mr. Neal said it very clearly, we had a missed opportunity here. Mr. Kind mentioned that we still have that opportunity. If there are enough people on that side of the aisle--and we know there are. We know regionally, as Mr. King and Mr. Zeldin have said, that this tax bill represents the greatest shift that we have seen in wealth in this country from the middle class of the Northeast and West Coast to the rest of the country.

It is unconscionable that this would take place under the guise of trying to say that you are providing middle class tax relief.

I went to the commissioner of revenue services in the State of Connecticut and asked: How will this impact our citizens? It represents an increase in taxes for the middle class, not this so-called tax cut that the other side has perpetrated.

I want to point out this claw that exists within here. Because even for those States, red State or blue State, where you think you might receive a de minimis tax cut today, it is clawed back within 5 years because they put something in the Code, commonly referred to as a ``chained CPI.'' And that has dire ramifications.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan. He is absolutely right.

I want to also point out that we did ask Mr. Barthold, the Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, about this tax and what its ramifications are. I asked him: Will this fall unevenly as we have seen across the Northeast and as we have seen across the West Coast?

The response was: It is not possible to say that in all cases-- meaning all 50 States--that these taxpayers will have lower total income tax liability under H.R. 1 than under the present law.

Why?

Because they are not going to be allowed to take the deductions they normally get. In the State of Connecticut, 41 percent of our citizens utilize and itemize their deductions under the code that they have been able to do since 1913 and its inception.

Why is this important?

Well, we have heard Mr. Brady say--after everyone gets up and speaks, he talks about what is going on in their district in an overgeneralized manner.

So I asked Joint Tax: What would it be for a couple in West Hartford with a child in college?

They own a home and have a combined income of $125,000. Under the Republican plan, they would see a $767 tax increase in 2018, and they would see more than a $1,667 tax increase in 2023, when the family credit expires, a point Mr. Neal has made repeatedly.

Tax cuts are made permanent for corporations and the wealthy. The wealthy get the alternative minimum tax and they get the estate tax and they are made permanent. For those of you who may think you are even going to get a tax cut, the Norquist clawback provision, under something we referred to as ``chained CPI,'' takes it away after the fifth year.

So we find ourselves in this god-awful position without public hearings and without the ability to call expert witnesses and to only have a back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans.

The Republicans need a political win. That is probably true. But who really needs to win here are the American people. The American people expect more of us. That is why this is a loss possibility and why we ought to be regrouping and taking this back up, because, as Mr. Kind says, there still is time.

How can you turn your backs on your fellow Republicans in New York, in New Jersey, in Pennsylvania? How can you do this to these people without any kind of public hearing or public witnesses or experts to talk about what the calamity will be? How about their commissioners of revenue services coming in and going over and examining just how these taxes will impact on them?

That is not going to happen, unfortunately. This is being jammed down our throats.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the American Museum of Tort Law, located in Winsted, CT, which celebrated its second anniversary on September 25, 2017. In honor of its history and continued importance as a national educational institution, I would like to commemorate the museum and celebrate this milestone.

Since its founding by Ralph Nader, the American Museum of Tort Law has attracted national acclaim from media outlets including Politico, the New Yorker, the Boston Globe and the Washington Post. Its vital importance to our citizenry has been recognized by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Thousands of people have attended the museum and have come away educated, entertained, and impressed by its presentation.

The mission of this unique institution is to educate, inform, and inspire Americans about their legal system, with a focus on the right of trial by jury and the benefits of tort law. Through school group visits, self-guided tours, quality curated programing, and its website, the museum has shown true dedication towards the fostering of greater civic knowledge and awareness.

Moving forward, the museum has an ambitious plan to expand, including not just on-site operations, but broadening its reach by traveling across the country and becoming a resource for practitioners, judges, and legal scholars.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to personally visit the American Museum of Tort Law. As a former history teacher, I can attest to the tremendous value this museum provides through the details and historical context that brings to life the law and justice. Tort law has improved the lives of so many and this museum tells that story.

I am proud to have such an exciting and important institution located in my district. Congratulations to the American Museum of Tort Law on celebrating its second anniversary. May it continue to educate and inspire for generations to come.